DOCSLIB.ORG

Task Force Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Task Force Report Global Engagement Task Force Report Dr. Crystal N. Steltenpohl EVANSVILLE, IN • USA James Montilla Doble METRO MANILA • PHILIPPINES Dr. Dana M. Basnight-Brown NAIROBI • KENYA Dr. Natalia B. Dutra NATAL, RN • BRAZIL Anabel Belaus CÓRDOBA • ARGENTINA Dr. Chun-Chia Kung TAINAN • TAIWAN Dr. Sandersan Onie SYDNEY • AUSTRALIA Dr. Divya Seernani FREIBURG • GERMANY Dr. Sau-Chin Chen HUALIEN • TAIWAN Dr. D. I. Burin BUENOS AIRES • ARGENTINA Dr. Kohinoor Darda PUNE • INDIA AND SYDNEY • AUSTRALIA FEBRUARY 14, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 5 Building Partnerships 10 SIPS Presence at Other Meetings 13 Diversifying Remote Meetings 16 Geographically Diverse Conference Locations 22 Membership and Financial Resources 26 Surveying Open Science Practitioners 30 Appendix Potential Conference Locations ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Global Engagement Task Force would like to thank Dr. Ljiljana B. Lazarević (University of Belgrade, Serbia), Dr. Joseph Hilgard (Illinois State University, USA), Dr. Koki Ikeda (Meiji Gakuin University, Japan), Linh Nguy n (University of Minnesota, USA), Miguel Silan (University of the Philippines Diliman, ễ Philippines), Neha Moopen (Utrecht University Library, the Netherlands), and Rizqy Amelia Zein (Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia) for their assistance with the task force formation and early information gathering. We would also like to thank Dr. Irma Serrano García (University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico), Dr. Lenny Jason (DePaul University, USA), Dr. Hu Chuan-Peng (Nanjing Normal University, China), Lou Shomette (Executive Director, Psychonomic Society, USA), Dr. Nurit Shnabel (Tel-Aviv University, Israel), Dr. Ola Shobowale (European Association of Social Psychology, the Netherlands), Dr. Katie Corker (Grand Valley State University, USA), and Dr. Crystal Hall (University of Washington, USA) for providing additional information and perspectives for this report. Finally, we would like to thank Kristina Arwood (University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN, USA, [email protected]) for her assistance with formatting the report. Red markers denote authors. Blue markers denote contributors. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Society for the Improvement of Psychological initiatives to expand open access practices. Science (SIPS) is an organization whose mission SIPS should also encourage Collabra leader- focuses on bringing together scholars who want ship to support efforts to increase the visibility to improve methods and practices in psycholog- of research and scholars from geographically ical science. The organization reaffirmed in June diverse regions. 2020 that “[we] cannot do good science without diverse voices,” and acknowledged that “right now • SIPS Presence at Other Events the demographics of SIPS are unrepresentative of We recommend SIPS leadership promote and the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepre- attend in-person meetups, workshops, and sentative of the global population. We have work hackathons run by geographically diverse to do when it comes to better supporting Black hosts, in English and other languages. 1 scholars and other underrepresented minorities.” • Diversifying Remote Events The purpose of the Global Engagement Task We recommend SIPS promote and attend Force, started in January 2020, was to explore online events run by geographically diverse suggestions made after the 2019 Annual Confer- hosts, in English and other languages. ence, held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, around • Geographically Diverse Annual Conference inclusion and access for scholars from regions Locations outside of the United States, Canada, and West- We recommend SIPS hold the annual con- ern Europe (henceforth described as “geograph- ference in geographically diverse regions, ically diverse” regions), a task complicated by the including those traditionally labeled as COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest in several task “Global South,” “Low and Middle Income force members’ countries of residence. This report Countries,” and countries “with developing outlines several suggestions, specifically around research systems.”2 building partnerships with geographically di- verse open science organizations; increasing SIPS • Membership and Financial Resources presence at other, more local events; diversifying We recommend SIPS leadership explore and remote events; considering geographically diverse expand options to support open science annual conference locations; improving member- efforts for scholars from geographically ship and financial resources; and surveying open diverse regions, including adding reduced science practitioners from geographically diverse cost membership tiers, reworking language regions. Our recommendations are summarized around hardship waivers, providing more below, though we urge interested parties to delve travel scholarships for scholars to attend deeper into specific sections. workshops and conferences, and providing mini-grants to open science-related endeav- • Building Partnerships ors across education, research, and service. We recommend SIPS invest time and resources into building relationships with • Surveying Open Science Practitioners regional and field-specific organizations who We recommend SIPS leadership regularly have also been working to engage in open conduct and support surveys to understand science practices, and support reasons surrounding why people join and/ 2 FOOTNOTES or leave SIPS, and the types and rate of 1 Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (2020). SIPS statement condemning racism and police adoption of open science practices among brutality. Society for the Improvement of Psychological SIPS members and psychologists across the Science. http://improvingpsych.org/2020/06/16/ globe. It will also be beneficial to use qualita- racism-and-police-brutality tive methods when a richer understanding of 2 We recognise these labels omit particularities of and perspectives is desired. within each country, which should be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, we made an effort in build- ing on examples and providing advice with enough leeway We do not expect SIPS to enact every single to manage these particularities. one of these suggestions; any action should of course take into account the organization’s ³ Saab, R., Ayanian, A. H., & Hawi, D. R. (2020). The status of Arabic social psychology: A review of values and available resources. Regardless of the 21st-century research articles. Social Psychological specific response to this report, however, it will and Personality Science, 11(7), 917-927. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550620925224 be important for scholars from geographically diverse regions to be intentionally sought out as ⁴ Bulhan, H. A. (2015). Stages of colonialism in Africa: From occupation of land to occupation of being. Journal of collaborators and leaders,³ whose perspectives on Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 239-256. https://doi. how psychological science can improve are valu- org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.143 able but often overlooked. Historically, our field ⁵ Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. Vintage Books. has not valued researchers or participants who fall outside mainstream perspectives,4,5,6 and the ⁶ Clark, K. B. (1989). Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power. Wesleyan University Press. impacts of this practice are still felt today, inside and outside of academia. It will also be important for the Executive Com- mittee (and SIPS membership, more broadly) to understand and respect that open science prac- tices may look drastically different, depending on geographic region and research area. For example, some scholars may be more interested in quali- tative research or modeling than in experiments, and it might even be the case that psychology as a discipline is not formally recognized as a science in some geographic regions. Scholars from geographically diverse regions may engage primarily in research in the field rather than in labs. Epistemological diversity is not necessarily related to geographic diversity, but there are a significant number of research practices that are missed when the open science movement focuses pri- marily on open science practices heavily steeped in positivist, quantitative research paradigms, like replicability, reproducibility, and a narrow view of 3 what transparency means (e.g., preregistration).7,8 with an open mind. As former SIPS president Of course, SIPS may be able to play a unique Dr. Sanjay Srivastava said in his closing address role in introducing scholars from geographically at SIPS 2019, “SIPS is at its best when it breaks diverse regions to the benefits of psychological through [the natural tendency for people to craft science and open science practices, but it would narrow solutions that just work for themselves, be equally essential for SIPS members to learn and for people and situations they know], when it from the strengths that these scholars have to brings together people with different knowledge 15 offer to the open science community. and concerns to work together.” SIPS — and the open science movement more broadly — should Former SIPS President Dr. Katie Corker said in her question whether the unification of methods and closing remarks during the SIPS 2018 meeting,⁹ tools should even be the goal of open science.16 Any effort to reach a broader audience that does If Open Science is a behavior that means not take the aforementioned considerations and it is not necessarily excessively stable – concerns into
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Promoting an Open Research Culture
    Promoting an open research culture Brian Nosek University of Virginia -- Center for Open Science http://briannosek.com/ -- http://cos.io/ The McGurk Effect Ba Ba? Da Da? Ga Ga? McGurk & MacDonald, 1976, Nature Adelson, 1995 Adelson, 1995 Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Disinterestedness Self-interestedness Motivated by knowledge and discovery Treat science as a competition Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Disinterestedness Self-interestedness Motivated by knowledge and discovery Treat science as a competition Organized skepticism Organized dogmatism Consider all new evidence, even Invest career promoting one’s own against one’s prior work theories, findings Norms Counternorms Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularlism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Disinterestedness Self-interestedness Motivated by knowledge and discovery Treat science as a competition Organized skepticism Organized dogmatism Consider all new evidence, even Invest career promoting one’s own against one’s prior work theories, findings Quality Quantity Anderson, Martinson, & DeVries,
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science in Archaeology
    Marwick, B. et al. (2017) Open science in archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record, 17(4), pp. 8-14. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/148887/ Deposited on: 29 September 2017 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Open Science in Archaeology Ben Marwick*, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, C. Michael Barton, Lynsey A. Bates, Michael Baxter, Andrew Bevan, Elizabeth A. Bollwerk, R. Kyle Bocinsky, Tom Brughmans, Alison K. Carter, Cyler Conrad, Daniel A. Contreras, Stefano Costa, Enrico R. Crema, Adrianne Daggett, Benjamin Davies, B. Lee Drake, Thomas S. Dye, Phoebe France, Richard Fullagar, Domenico Giusti, Shawn Graham, Matthew D. Harris, John Hawks, Sebastian Heath, Damien Huffer, Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Mark E. Madsen, Jennifer Melcher, Joan Negre, Fraser D. Neiman, Rachel Opitz, David C. Orton, Paulina Przystupa, Maria Raviele, Julien Riel-Salvatore, Philip Riris, Iza Romanowska, Néhémie Strupler, Isaac I. Ullah, Hannah G. Van Vlack, Ethan C. Watrall, Chris Webster, Joshua Wells, Judith Winters, Colin D. Wren * corresponding author, [email protected] Introduction In archaeology, we are accustomed to investing great effort into collecting data from fieldwork, museum collections, and other sources, followed by detailed description, rigorous analysis, and in many cases ending with publication of our findings in short, highly concentrated reports or journal articles. Very often, these publications are all that is visible of this lengthy process, and even then, most of our journal articles are only accessible to scholars at institutions paying subscription fees to the journal publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads Presented on the Abstract Page
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham1*, Naomi Penfold2, Fiona Murphy3, Isabelle Boutron4, John PA Ioannidis5, Jessica K Polka2, David Moher6,7 1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. 4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France. 5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. *Corresponding Author: Professor Jamie Kirkham Centre for Biostatistics Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Jean McFarlane Building Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)161 275 1135 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Scicomm: a Strategy for Communicating Open Science
    publications Communication Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science Manh-Toan Ho * , Manh-Tung Ho and Quan-Hoang Vuong Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research, Phenikaa University, Hanoi 100803, Vietnam; [email protected] (M.-T.H.); [email protected] (Q.-H.V.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods. The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation. The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process. Keywords: preprints; open science; science communication; social media; Total SciComm 1. Introduction Growing skepticism towards scientific findings makes capturing attention from the public an urgent and serious issue for scientists. The attention will help raise the scien- Citation: Ho, M.-T.; Ho, M.-T.; tists’ profiles and provide scientists a channel to communicate through scientific ideas. Vuong, Q.-H. Total SciComm: A On YouTube, and a new form of radio—podcast—the rise of the Intellectual Dark Web Strategy for Communicating Open group is a prominent example of an effort for good and effective science communication [1]. Science. Publications 2021, 9, 31.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions Andrée Rathemacher University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Creative Commons License
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Technical Services Faculty Presentations Technical Services 2017 "Fake Results": The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions Andrée Rathemacher University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ts_presentations Part of the Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Recommended Citation Rathemacher, Andrée, ""Fake Results": The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions" (2017). Technical Services Faculty Presentations. Paper 48. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ts_presentations/48http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ts_presentations/48 This Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Technical Services at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Services Faculty Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Fake Results” The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions “It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” — John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005 Those are the words of John Ioannidis (yo-NEE-dees) in a highly-cited article from 2005. Now based at Stanford University, Ioannidis is a meta-scientist who conducts “research on research” with the goal of making improvements. Sources: Ionnidis, John P. A. “Why Most
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Impact Report
    Center for Open Science IMPACT REPORT 2020 Maximizing the impact of science together. COS Mission Our mission is to increase the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. But we don’t do this alone. COS partners with stakeholders across the research community to advance the infrastructure, methods, norms, incentives, and policies shaping the future of research to achieve the greatest impact on improving credibility and accelerating discovery. Letter from the Executive Director “Show me” not “trust me”: Science doesn’t ask for Science is trustworthy because it does not trust itself. Transparency is a replacement for trust. Transparency fosters self-correction when there are errors trust, it earns trust with transparency. and increases confidence when there are not. The credibility of science has center stage in 2020. A raging pandemic. Partisan Transparency is critical for maintaining science’s credibility and earning public interests. Economic and health consequences. Misinformation everywhere. An trust. The events of 2020 make clear the urgency and potential consequences of amplified desire for certainty on what will happen and how to address it. losing that credibility and trust. In this climate, all public health and economic research will be politicized. All The Center for Open Science is profoundly grateful for all of the collaborators, findings are understood through a political lens. When the findings are against partners, and supporters who have helped advance its mission to increase partisan interests, the scientists are accused of reporting the outcomes they want openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Despite the practical, and avoiding the ones they don’t. When the findings are aligned with partisan economic, and health challenges, 2020 was a remarkable year for open science.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Maximizing the Reproducibility of Your Research Open
    1 Maximizing the Reproducibility of Your Research Open Science Collaboration1 Open Science Collaboration (in press). Maximizing the reproducibility of your research. In S. O. Lilienfeld & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological Science Under Scrutiny: Recent Challenges and Proposed Solutions. New York, NY: Wiley. Authors’ Note: Preparation of this chapter was supported by the Center for Open Science and by a Veni Grant (016.145.049) awarded to Hans IJzerman. Correspondence can be addressed to Brian Nosek, [email protected]. 1 Alexander A. Aarts, Nuenen, The Netherlands; Frank A. Bosco, Virginia Commonwealth University; Katherine S. Button, University of Bristol; Joshua Carp, Center for Open Science; Susann Fiedler, Max Planck Institut for Research on Collective Goods; James G. Field, Virginia Commonwealth University; Roger Giner-Sorolla, University of Kent; Hans IJzerman, Tilburg University; Melissa Lewis, Center for Open Science; Marcus Munafò, University of Bristol; Brian A. Nosek, University of Virginia; Jason M. Prenoveau, Loyola University Maryland; Jeffrey R. Spies, Center for Open Science 2 Commentators in this book and elsewhere describe evidence that modal scientific practices in design, analysis, and reporting are interfering with the credibility and veracity of the published literature (Begley & Ellis, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005; Miguel et al., 2014; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). The reproducibility of published findings is unknown (Open Science Collaboration, 2012a), but concern that is lower than desirable is widespread -
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Making Research Data Accessible
    8. Making Research Data Accessible Diana Kapiszewski Sebastian Karcher1 Published as Kapiszewski, Diana, and Sebastian Karcher. 2020. “Making Research Data Accessible.” In The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science, edited by Colin Elman, James Mahoney, and John Gerring, 197–220. Strategies for Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108762519.008. One of the key themes in this volume is that social science takes place in a community setting. As social scientists develop and answer their questions, they adhere to the norms and practices of their respective research communities. Over time, understandings of what being a responsible community member entails change. Today, members of social science communities are increasingly expected to provide access to the data they generate and use in their research (within ethical and legal constraints). Of course, discussions about openness in social science research have deep roots. In 1985, for example, Fienberg, Martin and Straf (1985, 25) called for sharing data to become a regular practice. A decade later, political scientist Gary King (1995) highlighted the importance of making available replication data and associated materials underpinning quantitative and qualitative research publications. The last few years, however, have seen a marked acceleration in discussions about expanding access to research data across the social sciences—spurred on by broader technological and societal changes, as well as policy interventions by the White House, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and others. There is currently increasing momentum towards making openness the default position in social science research, and towards requiring that exceptions be based on established grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Walking the Plank: How Scholarly Piracy Affects Publishers, Libraries and Their Users
    Walking the Plank: How Scholarly Piracy Affects Publishers, Libraries and Their Users Laurie Morrison, Carol Stephenson, and Elizabeth Yates* Introduction The arrival of technology supporting peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing in scholarly communication has, until -re cently, had minimal impact on libraries. However, threats posed by pirate sites including Library Genesis Project (LibGen) and Sci-Hub are now impacting both library users and library licensing agreements with publishers. Publishers are nervous as they witness their proprietary content leaking out of paywalled systems—not just hundreds of thousands of articles, but millions. Accordingly, publishers are monitoring activities in licensed products very closely for any behavior that they deem suspicious. When a user’s activities cause a publisher to question whether materials are being pirated, the outcomes can vary. Consequences can range from relatively minor inconvenience for blocked users, who must find workarounds to access scholarly content—to the poten- tial for major disruption of a centuries-old proprietary publishing system. This article uses a case study involving a student at Brock University to highlight significant challenges facing libraries and the rights of their users in the current environment of piracy-wary academic publishers. Case Study: Access Denied “I feel like I’m being penalized for my honesty.” That’s how a graduate student at Brock University felt in January 2016, after her legitimate quest to download several hundred articles for a meta-analysis project turned into a protracted—and ultimately unsuccessful—negotiation with the American Psychological Association. Sarah† had downloaded about 20 articles from the PsycINFO database when she received the following screen prompt: The APA PsycNET Terms and Conditions prohibit “Systematic downloading of content, whether done manually or by technological means.” Please contact [email protected] if you are inter- ested in data mining or wish to conduct a systematic review or meta analysis with PsycINFO data.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the OSF (Open Science Framework)
    Using the OSF Center for Open Science at BITSS 2014 Johanna Cohoon & Caner Uguz Pull out your laptop and visit www.osf.io Anderson, Martinson, & DeVries, 2007 NORMS COUNTERNORMS Communality Secrecy Open sharing Closed Universalism Particularism Evaluate research on own merit Evaluate research by reputation Disinterestedness Self interestedness Motivated by knowledge and discovery Treat science as a competition Organized skepticism Organized dogmatism Consider all new evidence, even Invest career promoting one’s own against one’s prior work theories, findings Quality Quantity COUNTERNORMS NORMS Incentives Incentives for individual success are focused on getting it published, not getting it right. Change the incentives. Center for Open Science COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE METASCIENCE Community ■ Foster discussion of transparency and reproducibility issues ■ Support community efforts to increase openness in the sciences ■ Promote the establishment of reporting standards Center for Open Science COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE METASCIENCE Infrastructure ■ Tools for scientists that increase transparency and access to resources ■ Connect services and allow users to easily organize and share their work Center for Open Science COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE METASCIENCE Metascience ■ How are scientists currently behaving? ■ Do transparency and replication have a positive impact on research? ■ Reproducibility Project: Psychology and Cancer Biology; Many Labs 1, 2, and 3; Archival Project; CREP Open your laptop! www.osf.io OSF Nudge the incentive system ■ Support pre-registration ■ Create alternative means of measuring impact ■ Enable sharing of materials Facilitate good research ■ Organize files ■ Allow collaboration meanwhile Logs Commenting Tags Statistics Download counts Addons OSF Nudge the incentive system ■ Support pre-registration ■ Create alternative means of measuring impact ■ Enable sharing of materials Facilitate good research ■ Organize files ■ Allow collaboration In the future ■ Check lists ■ Notifications ■ Messaging ■ Dataverse, Evernote, Trello, Plot.ly.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access + Preprints
    Open Access + Preprints Journals and scholars take action Presented by: Contents Open Access + Preprints, pg. 3 Preprints and Modern Publishing, pg. 4 •The origin of scholarly journals: 300 years with little change •Preprints and the modern web •What researchers are saying about preprints •Preprints reshaping the research experience The Role of Preprints in Journal Publishing, pg. 8 •Preprints and Green OA •How journals can facilitate Green OA via preprints •Importance of clear preprint policies •Questions surrounding preprint publications •Journals pioneering new preprint publishing models Looking to the Future of Preprints and OA Publishing, pg. 13 OpenTitle Accessof Ebook + Preprints 2 Open Access + Preprints As academics transition to digital journal publishing, the Open Access (OA) movement, which aims to make research freely available at or soon after publication, is picking up record speed. According to a recent Simba report titled Open Access Journal Publishing 2016-2020, “the number of OA research articles published annually is growing at double the rate of the complete spectrum of research articles.” The report also found that about a third of all research articles currently published are OA, when factoring in those with complete embargo periods. The rise in OA publishing comes as a result of scholars banding together to reveal the mounting cost of research access for institutions and individuals, such as those behind The Cost of Knowledge who started a boycott of monolith publisher Elsevier, which now has profit margins exceeding 30%. At the same time governments and funding bodies have introduced new OA mandates and calls for early sharing of research, such as the Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others who this February urged journals and funding agencies to sign a pledge to make all Zika virus research OA in the wake of the public health crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Scientific Journals: Emerging Practices and Approaches
    Information Services & Use 37 (2017) 475–488 475 DOI 10.3233/ISU-170862 IOS Press Open scientific journals: Emerging practices and approaches Andre Luiz Appel a,∗, Sarita Albagli b and Maria Lucia Maciel c a Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Lauro Müller, 455, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22290-160, BRA E-mail: [email protected] b Coordenação de Ensino e Pesquisa, Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, Rua Lauro Müller, 455, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22290-160, BRA E-mail: [email protected] c Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Lauro Müller, 455, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22290-160, BRA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. This study aims to show how the concept of openness has been manifested and amplified in the universe of open access scholarly journals, pointing out emerging characteristics and practices linked to processes of submission, evaluation, revision, editing, publishing, editing, distribution, access and use of texts for publication. We proceeded to an overview and discussion of the pertinent literature and the identification and analysis of open access journals which have addressed the issue, and to the identification and analysis of cases of open access journals which have been adopting innovative practices, based on information on editorial policies available on their websites. Among the results, we have pointed out aspects of the publications examined, such as the types of licenses used, policies regarding access to research data, publishing formats, charges and alternative metrics of evaluation.
    [Show full text]