DOCSLIB.ORG

The Plan S Footprint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Plan S Footprint ISI visual language/comms: report 44 The Plan S footprint: ISI Report Implications for the ISI Report Global Reserach Report – Global Reserach Report – Profiles notscholarly metrics publishing Profiles not metrics Pudipsus commolumlandscape ihitor boribus as sum Pudipsus commolum ihitor boribus as sum tem dolupta temporepe latur mini volo. tem dolupta temporepe latur mini volo. Nandita Quaderi, James Hardcastle, Christos Petrou and Martin Szomszor March 2019 Contents 4 15 Summary How does Plan S affect publishers? 5 Papers funded 18 by Plan S organisations What could change under Plan S? 8 How does Plan S affect 21 research areas? Responsibility for costs 11 22 How frequently are Tasks for a system Plan S papers cited? in transition 12 24 How does Plan S affect Annex – Data Sources countries and regions? 2 Dr Nandita Quaderi is Editor-in-Chief of James Hardcastle is a Senior Business Web of Science at the Institute for Scientific Analyst at Web of Science Group. Prior to Information, responsible for the editorial this he was Head of Business Development selection of content indexed in the Web for wisdom.ai, and the Senior Manager for of Science. Prior to joining the Web of Product Analytics at Taylor & Francis. Science Group, Dr Quaderi was Publishing Christos Petrou is Head of Strategic Director of Open Research at Springer Analytics at the Web of Science Group. Nature where she had responsibility for the Previously, he was Director of Strategic portfolio of open access Nature Research Analytics at the Open Research Group journals. Before joining the STM publishing of Springer Nature. He has worked as a sector she was a EU-funded Marie Curie management consultant at A.T. Kearney, post-doctoral fellow at the Telethon and he holds an MBA from INSEAD. Institute of Genetics and Medicine in Milan and a Wellcome Trust-funded Dr Martin Szomszor is Head of Research Principal Investigator at the MRC Centre Analytics at the Institute for Scientific for Developmental Neurobiology at King’s Information. He was Head of Data Science, College London. She has a BA in Chemistry and founder of the Global Research from the University of Oxford and a PhD in Identifier Database, at Digital Science. He Molecular Genetics from Imperial College. was named a 2015 top-50 UK Information Age data leader for his work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to create the REF2015 Impact Case Studies Database. About the Global Research Report About Web of Science series from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science is the world’s most trusted and largest publisher-neutral Global Research Reports from ISI is a citation index, powering global discovery new publication series to discuss and and citation analytics across the sciences, demonstrate the application of data about social sciences and art & humanities. With the research process to management more than 1.4 billion cited references issues in research assessment, research going back to 1900 and millions of users policy and the development of the global per day — from leading government research base. ISI is the ‘university’ of and academic institutions and research- the Web of Science Group at Clarivate intensive corporations — Web of Science Analytics: it maintains the knowledge citation network serves as the foundation corpus upon which Web of Science for the Journal Impact Factor, InCites and related information and analytical and other powerful and trusted citation content, products and services are built; impact measures. Web of Science it disseminates that knowledge internally helps researchers, research institutions, through reports and recommendations publishers and funders discover and and externally through events, conferences assess the citation impact of over a and papers; and it carries out research century of research papers found in the to sustain, extend and improve the most prestigious journals, books, and knowledge base. conference proceedings. 3 Summary international collaborative papers are supported by Plan S funders and therefore This report provides background involve non-Plan S researchers. The USA is (in analysis for debate about a research absolute terms) the second largest producer system in transition. Plan S, launched by of papers that acknowledge Plan S funding Science Europe on 4 September 2018, is and a high proportion of some institutions’ intended to increase Open Access (OA) output is Plan S supported. But the USA to research data and reports produced government has yet to endorse the plan. through publicly-funded academic research. OA is expected to enable and Publishers accelerate discovery and innovation. Plan S requires research funded by Across the landscape of publisher data, signatory organisations to be published it is possible to typecast and populate a in open repositories or in journals where number of scenarios among the 200 larger all papers are publicly accessible. This houses (which collectively publish 95% of report looks at recent patterns of papers papers acknowledging a Plan S funder). funded by Plan S supporters using There are those: not heavily affected; perspectives related to funders, subjects, affected a little; a few (including some countries, publishers, and journals. It big houses) affected significantly; and OA- focuses on analysis and variances rather adopters who are well-positioned. Smaller than scenarios. houses, including some learned societies, are diverse and less readily categorised. Funders Journals Some research funders have already endorsed the Plan S proposals to widen Plan S funded outputs make up less than OA. The research they support led to 7% of global papers but they are well cited, circa 6.4% of 2017 papers indexed in the published in high impact journals and, often, Web of Science; the EU funded about half in journals from major publishing houses. of this. Although OA compliance is already They will influence the publishing landscape. substantial, the proportion varies by funder. Some 90,000 Plan S papers published as part of Hybrid or Subscription journals will Research areas need to be ‘rehoused’ if the journals do not change to fully OA. There are few Hybrid Existing mandates in research areas well- journals with a medium to high percentage funded by Plan S organisations have led of OA that might readily change. This implies to relatively high OA compliance. Other challenging business decisions. research areas, such as Social Sciences, receive relatively less Plan S funding and Some leading multidisciplinary journals have lower compliance. Research areas contain as much as one-third Plan S significantly challenged by Plan S are content but are not Plan S compliant. those which currently demonstrate low Learned society journals have a central OA compliance plus relatively more Plan communication role in their research field S funded papers, such as Mathematics. but are not always OA. The relocation of Journals that are currently Plan S compliant content to OA titles would represent a are not evenly distributed, either across or 29% overall movement in the volume of within research areas. well-cited papers to existing compliant venues, could be disruptive in some Citation frequency subjects, and suitable compliant venues are not always available. On 2017 citation counts, Plan S funded papers are cited more frequently on Resources average than other papers, and this is true in all research areas. The cost of publishing will shift, ex post, from the reader or their library, typically via a subscription charge, to an ex ante Countries obligation on the author or their institutional Under Plan S, some European countries proxy to pay via an APC. This would require would publish more than 40% of their a redirection of around €150 million. output as OA. This could reach 50% Meeting these costs will fall on research where the national funder is also a Plan funders. It is not evident whether marginal S supporter. About 19% of European resources are available to support all 4 affected authors. Plan S 6% Not Plan S 94% The share of papers indexed in Web of Science that contain an acknowledgment to one or more research funding agencies signed up to Plan S at December 2018. Plan S funders account for about 6% of papers indexed on the Web of Science. They are concentrated in around 10,000 of the 20,000 journals indexed. Papers funded by on OA in the Sciences and Humanities (October 2003). OA has spread rapidly and Plan S organisations now constitutes about one-fifth of research Open Access (OA) is expected to enable output indexed in Web of Science. Plan S and accelerate research and discovery. is a proposal to increase the spread of OA Some research funders have already papers produced through publicly-funded endorsed an EU proposal (Plan S) to academic research. It was launched by widen OA. The research they support Science Europe on 4 September 2018 and led to circa 6.4% of 2017 papers indexed is an initiative of "cOAlition S": a consortium in Web of Science; the EU funded about of the European Research Council and half of this. Although OA compliance national research agencies and funders, is already substantial, the proportion initially in Europe and then more widely. varies by funder. Plan S requires researchers who benefit from state-funded projects and institutions "Open access" (OA) to research literature, to publish in open repositories or in journals as an enabling and accelerating factor for where all papers are publicly accessible. better outcomes, is a long-held ambition Papers are usually made accessible by formalised in the early 2000s through Article Processing Charges (APCs) to the the Budapest OA Initiative (2002), the author, whereas conventional access is by Bethesda Statement on OA Publishing subscription charges to the reader, or to (June 2003) and the Berlin Declaration their institution’s library. 5 Paper, in this report, is used to include charge (APCs) levied by the journal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan S in Latin America: a Precautionary Note
    Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note Humberto Debat1 & Dominique Babini2 1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (IPAVE-CIAP-INTA), Argentina, ORCID id: 0000-0003-3056-3739, [email protected] 2Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), Argentina. ORCID id: 0000-0002- 5752-7060, [email protected] Latin America has historically led a firm and rising Open Access movement and represents the worldwide region with larger adoption of Open Access practices. Argentina has recently expressed its commitment to join Plan S, an initiative from a European consortium of research funders oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of scientific outputs. Here we suggest that the potential adhesion of Argentina or other Latin American nations to Plan S, even in its recently revised version, ignores the reality and tradition of Latin American Open Access publishing, and has still to demonstrate that it will encourage at a regional and global level the advancement of non-commercial Open Access initiatives. Plan S is an initiative from a European consortium of research funders, with the intention of becoming international, oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of research outputs funded by public or private grants, starting from 2021. Launched in September 2018 and revised in May 2019, the plan supported by the so-called cOAlition S involves 10 principles directed to achieve scholarly publishing in “Open Access Journals, Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo” [1]. cOAlition S, coordinated by Science Europe and comprising 16 national research funders, three charitable foundations and the European Research Council, has pledged to coordinately implement the 10 principles of Plan S in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • March 13, 2019 AMS Primer on Open Access
    Robert M. Harington Associate Executive Director, Publishing Publishing Division [email protected] 401.455.4165 401.331.3842 www.ams.org AMS Primer on Open Access Introduction Open access (OA) refers to published scholarly content (such as journal research articles, and books) made openly available in online digital form. This content is free of charge at point of use, free of most copyright and licensing restrictions, and free of technical or other barriers to access (such as digital rights management or requirements to register to access). Communicating and sharing discoveries is an essential part of the research process. Any author of a research paper wants it to be read, and the fewer restrictions placed on access to those papers means that more people may benefit from the research. In many ways, the OA movement is very much in line with the shared mission of researchers, scholarly societies, and publishers. Journal publishing programs perform many services for researchers including peer review, communication, and career advancement. In society publishing programs, revenue from journal publishing directly supports the important work societies do on behalf of their scholarly communities. How do we maximize the dissemination of knowledge while at the same time maintaining both a high level of quality and a sustainable financial future for our professional society, the AMS? The OA movement can be traced to a letter from the year 2000, signed by around 34,000 researchers, demanding publishers make all content free after 6 months. The signatories of the letter said they would boycott any journals refusing to comply. In 2002, the accepted definition of OA was encapsulated in the Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Science Recommendations for Food & Agriculture
    DIGITAL SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOOD & AGRICULTURE Edited by February 2020 Table of Contents FOREWORD 3 TOWARDS A DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM FOR SCIENCE 6 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM AGINFRAplus PARTNERS 9 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM EU STAKEHOLDERS 17 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS 28 2 FOREWORD I joined FAO1 (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) in 1998 and got the responsibility for the AGRIS system2. AGRIS was one of the huge bibliograph- ical databases of the time which collected information about scientific and tech- nical publications in agriculture and made them available especially to partners in developing countries. AGRIS already had the two elements about which most of the contributions to this publication are speaking. Community and Technol- ogy. AGRIS centers were holding annual meetings at FAO to coordinate their efforts to cover all publications in their area. The AGRIS secretariat initiated the development of specific software which should help them to accomplish this task. CDS-ISIS3 was developed already in the early 90s. In a way, FAO had a pioneering role in creating collaboration between scientific institutions. WUR and INRA, two contributors to this volume were very important centers of the AGRIS network. Nearly all of the contributions in this volume emphasize the human factor and the necessity of community building before the technological aspects. This is understandable. Technological questions are straightforward (normally) and resolvable (theoretically). For com- munity building there exists something similar as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. DeltaS>=0. Entropy (non collaboration) in a closed system can only grow. Collaboration is not a given. Every unit has its own business model and even every single person pursues specific goals.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION from SPRINGER NATURE Making Plan S Successful
    PLAN S IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE: SUBMISSION FROM SPRINGER NATURE Springer Nature welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance and contribute to the discussion on how the transition to Open Access (OA) can be accelerated. Our submission below focuses mainly on the second question posed in the consultation: Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs? Making Plan S successful: a commitment to open access Springer Nature is dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing and Open Research techniques. As the world’s largest OA publisher we are a committed partner for cOAlition S funders in achieving this goal which is also the primary focus of Plan S. Our recommendations below are therefore presented with the aim of achieving this goal. As a first mover, we know the (multiple) challenges that need to be overcome: funding flows that need to change, a lack of cooperation in funder policies, a lack of global coordination, the need for a cultural change in researcher assessment and metrics in research, academic disciplines that lack OA resources, geographic differences in levels of research output making global “Publish and Read” deals difficult and, critically, an author community that does not yet view publishing OA as a priority. While this uncertainty remains, we need the benefits of OA to be better described and promoted as well as support for the ways that enable us and other publishers to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. We therefore propose cOAlition S adopt the following six recommendations which we believe are necessary to deliver Plan S’s primary goal of accelerating the take-up of OA globally while minimising costs to funders and other stakeholders: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll?
    Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll? David W. Lewis Dean Emeritus, IUPUI University Library [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9711-5565 August 2019 © 2019 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Abstract This article uses Alan B. Krueger’s analysis of the music industry in his book Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life as a lens to consider the structure of scholarly publishing and what could happen to scholarly publishing going forward. Both the music industry and scholarly publishing are facing disruption as their products become digital. Digital content provides opportunities to a create a better product at lower prices and in the music industry this has happened. Scholarly publishing has not yet done so. Similarities and differences between the music industry and scholarly publishing will be considered. Like music, scholarly publishing appears to be a superstar industry. Both music and scholarly publishing are subject to piracy, which threatens revenue, though Napster was a greater disrupter than Sci-Hub seems to be. It also appears that for a variety of reasons market forces are not effective in driving changes in business models and practices in scholarly publishing, at least not at the rate we would expect given the changes in technology. After reviewing similarities and differences, the prospects for the future of scholarly publishing will be considered. David W. Lewis — Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll? 1 Introduction In his 2019 book, Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life, Alan B.
    [Show full text]
  • FAO Statistical Programme of Work 2012/2013
    FAO STATISTICAL PROGRAMME OF WORK 2012/13 1 Table of contents PART I ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 12 II. STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE FAO STATISTICAL PROGRAMME OF WORK IN 2012-13 .................. 16 III. SUMMARY OF FAO STATISTICAL ACTIVITIES BY DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS ................................................ 17 Inter-departmental statistical activities ................................................................................................................... 18 Agriculture and consumer protection department (AG).......................................................................................... 18 Information Technology Division (CIO) ................................................................................................................. 19 Economic and social development department (ES) ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plan S. Pardon Impossible to Execute
    Plan S. Pardon impossible to execute Serhii Nazarovetsa, Alexey Skalabanb a Deputy Director for Research at the State Scientific and Technical Library of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine b Project Manager Ejournal.by, Minsk, Belarus The Plan S initiative is expected to radically change the market of scholarly periodicals, resulting in the abandoning of the subscription model in favour of the open access model. This transition poses new challenges, as well as sets new tasks for researchers, managers, librarians and scientific publishers, particularly in countries with transforming economies. The subscription and publication policies in such countries are still in the making; however, they are to be promptly revised and adjusted in accordance with Plan S. In this study, we set out to estimate approximate costs and future prospects associated with the transition of Belarus and Ukraine towards open access to scientific information on the example of publications by researchers from these two countries in Elsevier journals. To this end, we accessed the Scopus database and selected all papers affiliated with Belarus and Ukraine published by Elsevier journals in 2018. Subsequently, we established which of these articles indicated a corresponding author from Ukraine or Belarus, as well as collected journal titles, correspondence addresses, access types and the APC fee for each article. In addition, funding sources were established for each open access article. This allowed us to determine the total amount of money that Ukraine and Belarus would have needed to pay so that all the articles of their researchers, which were published in Elsevier journals in 2018, were available in an open-access form.
    [Show full text]
  • Liste Veille « Archirescherche »/ Lab&Doc
    Liste veille « Archirescherche »/ Lab&Doc 01/ 2021 devront revoir complètement leurs exigences en termes de publications à l’égard des chercheurs. Cette lettre de veille de la https://bernardrentier.wordpress.com/ Commission Recherche du réseau 2021/01/03/le-plan-s-et-lopen-access- ArchiRés est depuis le numéro soutien-ou-perversion/ d’avril 2017 mise à disposition du carnet « Lab&Doc », tenu par les Paraphrazit. Un outil en ligne documentalistes des laboratoires de recherche des Écoles nationales pour réécrire un texte ou le supérieures d'architecture et de reformuler facilement paysage. Si en plus de réécrire un texte vous souhaitez le réduire ou obtenir rapidement un résumé, vous pouvez Des supports pour former à la faire appel au génial Resoomer créé question de la donnée par le même développeur. https://outilsveille.com/2021/01/parap https://drive.google.com/drive/folders hrazit-reecrire-un-texte- /1Uk-p8JYGDeEFAcOW9Qom-bj0p_- automatiquement/ 0Z7-d http://www.lespetitescases.net/des- Resoomer. Allez à l’essentiel supports-pour-former-a-la-question-de- de n’importe quel texte la-donnee Resoomer est un outil assez époustouflant qui permet de résumer Les opérateurs de recherche automatiquement et en quelques secondes n’importe quel texte. avancée sur Twitter https://alain- https://outilsveille.com/2017/05/resoo michel.canoprof.fr/eleve/tutoriels/twitt mer-allez-a-lessentiel-de-nimporte- er/operateurs-recherche-avancee- quel-texte/ twitter/#/1 Requirements for Open Le Plan S et l’Open Access : Access Repositories soutien ou perversion ? Nombreux aspects juridiques dans les Le débat se poursuit sur la manière de recommandations de la Coalition S sur contrôler les coûts de publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sense of Open Science Jungle
    Making sense of Open Science jungle 25.3.2019 Advancing Open Scholarship MAKING SENSE OF OPEN SCIENCE JUNGLE – OPTIMIZING YOUR USE OF OPEN SCIENCE SERVICES OpenAIRE national workshop in Helsinki Helsinki Congress Paasitorni 12.3.2019 Text: Pauli Assinen Photos: Jussi Männistö H2020-EINFRA-2017 Grant Agreement 777541 Advancing Open Scholarship 1| ORGANIZERS Organizing workgroup Pauli Assinen, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Library Jari Friman, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Library Ilmari Jauhiainen, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies Kimmo Koskinen, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Library Marja Moisio, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Library Henriikka Mustajoki, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies MAKING SENSE OF OPEN SCIENCE JUNGLE Page 1 Advancing Open Scholarship CONTENT MAKING SENSE OF OPEN SCIENCE JUNGLE – OPTIMIZING YOUR USE OF OPEN SCIENCE SERVICES ......... 0 1| ORGANIZERS............................................................................................................................... 1 2| PROGRAMME ............................................................................................................................. 3 3| SPEAKERS ................................................................................................................................... 4 4| PARTICIPANTS............................................................................................................................. 7 5| WORKSHOP ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • From the University Librarian
    From the University Librarian 24 July 2020 Bush week sessions on Zoom - Frieda had 23 attend her Menzies session listening intently SIS News ANU Press and Open Access Publishing COVID 19 cOAlitionS – new controversy about author rights. T Semester 2. Next week semester 2 • Rick Anderson reviews the latest Plan S commences and we will see some changes, announcement and comments “Though based on the University’s current planning. You billed misleadingly by cOAlition S as a can find the overarching framework here. plan “to safeguard researchers’ intellectual ownership rights,” both the purpose and the effect of this expanded strategy remain — as has always been the case with Plan S publishing requirements — to take intellectual ownership rights away from authors, transferring them to the general public (rather than to publishers)“..>> read more • European Research Council calls for OA plans to respect researchers needs. The ERC Scientific Council is committed to implementing full and immediate Open Access and continues to support the principles underlying Plan S. From Return to Campus Taskforce. Members of the ERC Scientific Council Please be advised that Facilities & Services are participating constructively in various continue to provide Whiteley Industries Viraclean activities aimed at making Open Access a (listed on link below) as disinfectant to local reality. However, during the past six areas. It is a local area responsibility to ensure months, the ERC Scientific Council has that your stock is maintained by contacting F&S intensified its internal debate and reached as required. This link lists the current a unanimous decision to follow a path disinfectants on the Australian Register of towards Open Access implementation Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for use against that is independent of cOAlition S COVID-19.
    [Show full text]
  • “I Find the Whole Enterprise Daunting”: Staff Understanding of Open Education Initiatives Within a UK University
    Open Praxis, vol. 11 issue 1, January–March 2019, pp. 71–83 (ISSN 2304-070X) “I find the whole enterprise daunting”: Staff understanding of Open Education initiatives within a UK university Sinead Harold University of the West of England (United Kingdom) [email protected] Vivien Rolfe Independent open educator (United Kingdom) [email protected] Abstract “Open” initiatives, which focus on increasing access to education, resources, and research, are often practised by individuals rather than universities. However, universities must now produce openly accessible research to comply with research funding and assessment requirements. To encourage staff participation, universities need to understand what participation barriers their staff face. 67 University of the West of England staff were surveyed about how they understood and participated in open initiatives. Four staff gave qualitative interviews about their experiences. This data was analysed to find correlates for participation and to identify participation barriers. Participants valued open initiatives and supported their underlying goal of increased public access. Staff faced many entry barriers, especially around resource maintenance, copyright, and permissions. Universities could reduce these issues by emphasising how open initiatives allow staff to save time and to avoid reduplicating resources, and by creating unified “open policies” that make staff permissions and restrictions clearer. Keywords: OER; open access publishing; open policy Introduction Openness and Open Education An ecosystem of initiatives based on the principle of openness –the ability to freely create, share and build upon resources– is widely used across teaching, research, and science. The concept of Open Education currently “addresses all dimensions related to operational, legal and visionary aspects throughout the analysis, design, realization and evaluation of learning experiences to facilitate high- quality education meeting the given situation, needs and objectives” (Stracke, 2017).
    [Show full text]