DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Science Monitor Study on Open

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Science Monitor Study on Open OPEN SCIENCE MONITOR STUDY ON OPEN SCIENCE: MONITORING TRENDS AND DRIVERS Reference: PP-05622-2017 D.2.4 Final report 13th of December 2019 Consortium The Lisbon Council partners: ESADE Business School Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University Subcontractor: Elsevier Table of Contents 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Scope ..............................................................................................................................................................7 1.3 Methodological approach ....................................................................................................................8 2 Overview of trends and indicators ............................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Open access to publications ...............................................................................................................9 2.2 Open research data .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Researchers’ behaviour .......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 How data are shared ................................................................................................................ 14 2.2.3 Data ownership .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Attitudes across disciplines ................................................................................................. 17 2.2.5 Data repositories ....................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Open collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 20 3 Drivers and barriers ....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Drivers ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2 Barriers ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 4 Impact .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.1 Scientific impact .................................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.1 Cross analysis of cases ............................................................................................................ 36 4.1.2 Qualitative insight from cases ............................................................................................. 37 4.2 Industrial impact................................................................................................................................... 40 4.2.1 Cross analysis of cases ............................................................................................................ 42 4.2.2 Qualitative insights ................................................................................................................... 44 4.3 Societal impact ....................................................................................................................................... 49 4.3.1 Cross analysis of cases ............................................................................................................ 50 5 Policy analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.1 Statistical overview ............................................................................................................................. 53 5.1.1 Open access policies ................................................................................................................. 53 5.1.2 Open data policies ..................................................................................................................... 55 5.1.3 Other policies ............................................................................................................................... 57 5.2 In depth cross-analysis of policy cases...................................................................................... 58 5.2.1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 58 5.2.2 Provisions ...................................................................................................................................... 59 5.2.3 Lessons learnt ............................................................................................................................. 61 6 Policy conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 62 2 1.1. Conclusions on the future of open science .............................................................................. 62 1.2. Conclusions on the future of the Open Science Monitor .................................................. 63 7 References ........................................................................................................................................................... 67 List of Figures Figure 1: A conceptual model: an intervention logic approach .............................................................6 Figure 2: Percentage of open access publications ........................................................................................9 Figure 3: Percentage of open access publications by country. ............................................................ 11 Figure 4: Percentage of open access publications by Field of Science and Technology ........ 13 Figure 5: Have you published the research data that you used or created as part of your last research project in any of the following ways? ....................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Do you take steps to manage your research data and/or archive it for potential re-use by yourself and/or others? .......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Have you done any of the following with any or all of the research data that you used or created as part of your last research project? ................................................................. 15 Figure 8: Categories of research data used in your last research project. .................................... 15 Figure 9: Research data formats used or created as part of your last research project ........ 16 Figure 10: What was the primary source of funding for your last research project? ............. 16 Figure 11: What was the primary source of funding for your last research project? ............. 17 Figure 12: Attitudes to data management by subject (I/II).................................................................. 17 Figure 13: Attitudes to data management by subject (II/II) ................................................................ 18 Figure 14: Attitudes to data management by region/age (I/II) ......................................................... 18 Figure 15: Attitudes to data management by region/age (II/II)........................................................ 19 Figure 16: Data repositories by subject .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 17: Data repositories by type of access ............................................................................................ 19 Figure 18: Data repositories by country, blue bar indicate European countries ...................... 20 Figure 19: Number of scientific APIs ................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 20 & Figure 21: Open hardware projects ........................................................................................ 21 Figure 22: Projects in Scistarter by discipline ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 23: projects in Zooniverse by discipline .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 24: Drivers of sharing research data ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 25: How important were the following factors when deciding to use other’s research data? ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 26: How would you describe the effort typically required to make your research data re-useable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Review of Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet
    James Madison University From the SelectedWorks of Elizabeth Price 2016 Review of Sherpa RoMEO and Sherpa Juliet. In Open Access Publishing & Scholarship edited by M. Mallon. Elizabeth Price, James Madison University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/elizabeth-price/10/ Subject: PSQ Internet Resources Column Email body: Elizabeth Price Research and Instruction Librarian Murray State University [email protected] SHERPA RoMEO and SHERPA JULIET www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo and http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet Visited: Spring 2016 Reviewer: Elizabeth Price, Research and Instruction Librarian, Murray State University SHERPA RoMEO is a searchable database of publisher’s policies to help academic researchers self-archive their work without violating their publishing agreements. Its companion site, SHERPA JULIET, is a database of funding agencies’ grant conditions that are related to the self-archiving or open access publishing of research publications and data. Both tools are based at the University of Nottingham and are part of how SHERPA Services “is investigating issues in the future of scholarly communication.” Of the two, RoMEO is relevant to a wider variety of researchers. Its primary goal is eliminating confusion for authors who support open access or want to make their peer-reviewed scholarship available to a wider audience. Using the basic search function, one can search by journal title, partial journal title, ISSN or publisher. RoMEO does not apply to book publication agreements. RoMEO uses colors to code different levels of self-archiving permissions. They apply to pre- prints (the draft of a manuscript submitted for peer-review), post-prints (the version of the manuscript submitted for printing after peer-review) and the publisher’s version/PDF (the version of record that is published on the publisher’s website).
    [Show full text]
  • Book Self-Publishing Best Practices
    Montana Tech Library Digital Commons @ Montana Tech Graduate Theses & Non-Theses Student Scholarship Fall 2019 Book Self-Publishing Best Practices Erica Jansma Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/grad_rsch Part of the Communication Commons Book Self-Publishing Best Practices by Erica Jansma A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.S. Technical Communication Montana Tech 2019 ii Abstract I have taken a manuscript through the book publishing process to produce a camera-ready print book and e-book. This includes copyediting, designing layout templates, laying out the document in InDesign, and producing an index. My research is focused on the best practices and standards for publishing. Lessons learned from my research and experience include layout best practices, particularly linespacing and alignment guidelines, as well as the limitations and capabilities of InDesign, particularly its endnote functionality. Based on the results of this project, I can recommend self-publishers to understand the software and distribution platforms prior to publishing a book to ensure the required specifications are met to avoid complications later in the process. This document provides details on many of the software, distribution, and design options available for self-publishers to consider. Keywords: self-publishing, publishing, books, ebooks, book design, layout iii Dedication I dedicate this project to both of my grandmothers. I grew up watching you work hard, sacrifice, trust, and love with everything you have; it was beautiful; you are beautiful; and I hope I can model your example with a fraction of your grace and fruitfulness. Thank you for loving me so well.
    [Show full text]
  • CNRS ROADMAP for OPEN SCIENCE 18 November 2019
    CNRS ROADMAP FOR OPEN SCIENCE 18 November 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 1. Publications 6 2. Research data 8 3. Text and data mining and analysis 10 4. Individual evaluation of researchers and Open Science 11 5. Recasting Scientific and Technical Information for Open Science 12 6. Training and skills 13 7. International positioning 14 INTRODUCTION The international movement towards Open Science started more than 30 years ago and has undergone unprecedented development since the web made it possible on a global scale with reasonable costs. The dissemination of scientific production on the Internet, its identification and archiving lift the barriers to permanent access without challenging the protection of personal data or intellectual property. Now is the time to make it “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”. Open Science is not only about promoting a transversal approach to the sharing of scientific results. By opening up data, processes, codes, methods or protocols, it also offers a new way of doing science. Several scientific, civic and socio-economic reasons make Just over a year ago, France embarked on this vast transfor- the development of Open Science essential today: mation movement. Presented on 4 July 2018 by the Minister • Sharing scientific knowledge makes research more ef- of Higher Education,Research and Innovation, the “Natio- fective, more visible, and less redundant. Open access to nal Plan for Open Science”1 aims, in the words of Frédérique data and results is a sea change for the way research is Vidal, to ensure that “the results of scientific research are done, and opens the way to the use of new tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Educational Practices and Resources
    Open Educational Practices and Resources OLCOS Roadmap 2012 Edited by Guntram Geser Salzburg Research EduMedia Group Project information and imprint Project information and imprint Open e-Learning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS) OLCOS is a Transversal Action funded by the European Commission under the eLearning Programme. Duration: January 2006 – December 2007 Website: www.olcos.org Project partners European Centre for Media Competence, Germany European Distance and E-Learning Network, Hungary FernUniversitaet in Hagen, Germany Mediamaisteri Group, Finland Open University of Catalonia, Spain Salzburg Research, Austria Project coordinator Salzburg Research / EduMedia Group Veronika Hornung-Prähauser Jakob Haringer Straße 5/III, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria [email protected] Tel. 0043-662-2288-405 OLCOS roadmap editor Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research / EduMedia Group, Austria Contributors to the OLCOS roadmap FernUniversitaet in Hagen: Peter Baumgartner and Viola Naust Open University of Catalonia: Agustí Canals, Núria Ferran, Julià Minguillón and Mireia Pascual Mediamaisteri Group: Mats Rajalakso and Timo Väliharju Salzburg Research: Wernher Behrendt, Andreas Gruber, Veronika Hornung-Prähauser and Sebastian Schaffert Graphics & layout Jesper Visser, Salzburg Research 3 Project information and imprint Images Based on copyright-free photographs from www.imageafter.com Print version ISBN 3-902448-08-3 Printed in Austria January 2007 Online A digital version of this report can be freely downloaded from www.olcos.org Copyright This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike 2.5 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ Disclaimer This publication was produced by the OLCOS Project with the financial support of the European Commission. The content of this report is the sole responsibility of OLCOS and its project partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? an Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2
    Journal of Scientometric Res. 2021; 10(1):130-134 http://www.jscires.org Perspective Paper Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? An Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2 1Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA. 2CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, INDIA. ABSTRACT Sci-Hub, founded by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011 in Kazakhstan has, over the years, Correspondence emerged as a very popular source for researchers to download scientific papers. It is Vivek Kumar Singh believed that Sci-Hub contains more than 76 million academic articles. However, recently Department of Computer Science, three foreign academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society) have Banaras Hindu University, filed a lawsuit against Sci-Hub and LibGen before the Delhi High Court and prayed for Varanasi-221005, INDIA. complete blocking these websites in India. It is in this context, that this paper attempts to Email id: [email protected] find out how many Indian research papers are available in Sci-Hub and who downloads them. The citation advantage of Indian research papers available on Sci-Hub is analysed, Received: 16-03-2021 with results confirming that such an advantage do exist. Revised: 29-03-2021 Accepted: 25-04-2021 Keywords: Indian Research, Indian Science, Black Open Access, Open Access, Sci-Hub. DOI: 10.5530/jscires.10.1.16 INTRODUCTION access publishing of their research output, and at the same time encouraging their researchers to publish in openly Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become one accessible forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature
    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
    [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]
  • Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry
    Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry What is an Academic Journal? • A serial publication containing recent academic papers in a certain field. • The main method for communicating the results of recent research in the academic community. Why is Market Power important to think about? • Commercial academic journal publishers use market power to artificially inflate subscription prices. • This practice drains the resources of libraries, to the detriment of the public. How Does Academic Publishing Work? • Author writes paper and submits to journal. • Paper is evaluated by peer reviewers (other researchers in the field). • If accepted, the paper is published. • Libraries pay for subscriptions to the journal. The market does not serve the interests of the public • Universities are forced to “double-pay”. 1. The university funds research 2. The results of the research are given away for free to journal publishers 3. The university library must pay to get the research back in the form of journals Subscription Prices are Outrageous • The highest-priced journals are those in the fields of science, technology, and medicine (or STM fields). • Since 1985, the average price of a journal has risen more than 215 percent—four times the average rate of inflation. • This rise in prices, combined with the CA budget crisis, has caused UC Berkeley’s library to cancel many subscriptions, threatening the library’s reputation. A Comparison Why are prices so high? Commercial publishers use market power to charge inflated prices. Why do commercial publishers have market power? • They control the most prestigious, high- quality journals in many fields. • Demand is highly inelastic for high-quality journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Solutions and Open Science an Open Approach to Boost Higher Education Lecture Notes in Educational Technology
    Lecture Notes in Educational Technology Daniel Burgos Editor Radical Solutions and Open Science An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education Lecture Notes in Educational Technology Series Editors Ronghuai Huang, Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Kinshuk, College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA Mohamed Jemni, University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia Nian-Shing Chen, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan J. Michael Spector, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA The series Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (LNET), has established itself as a medium for the publication of new developments in the research and practice of educational policy, pedagogy, learning science, learning environment, learning resources etc. in information and knowledge age, – quickly, informally, and at a high level. Abstracted/Indexed in: Scopus, Web of Science Book Citation Index More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11777 Daniel Burgos Editor Radical Solutions and Open Science An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education Editor Daniel Burgos Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED) Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR) Logroño, La Rioja, Spain ISSN 2196-4963 ISSN 2196-4971 (electronic) Lecture Notes in Educational Technology ISBN 978-981-15-4275-6 ISBN 978-981-15-4276-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4276-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
    [Show full text]
  • Self Archiving
    Self Archiving ARD Prasad DRTC, Indian Statistical Institute 1 Self-archiving is the act of an author depositing a free copy of an electronic document online in order to provide open access to it. [Harnad, S. (2001). "The Self-Archiving Initiative". Nature 410 (6832): 1024–1025. doi:10.1038/35074210 ] 2 2 of 26 2of 23 • Self-archiving, also called „green open access‟ refers to authors archiving their articles in an institutional repository or a subject repository • Green open access journal publishers allow authors to self-archiving their publications to institutional repositories 3 3 of 26 3of 23 The author or author‟s institution or the research project funding agency pay a fee to the publisher at publication time to make the publication available 'free' at the point of access (the 'gold' route). 4 4 of 26 4of 23 • Full open access journals with all content open access; • Hybrid open access journals where only some of the content is in open access • Delayed open access journals where the content is made open access after a delay (e.g. 12 or 24 months i.e. an embargo period) This is also the case with theses and dissertations). 5 5 of 26 5of 23 • When authors prefer to self-archive their past publications, they should be careful whether the publishers who published their publications would allow them to do so • Authors should also decide in which journal they should publish if they really wish support Open Access movement • Sherpa sites exactly addresses these issues 6 6 of 26 6of 23 Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access (SHERPA) 7 7 of 26 7of 23 SHERPA project was started in 2002 Supported by Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and Consortium of University Research Laboratories (CURL) 26 institutions including British Library University of Nottingham (lead) Basically it is investigating the issues in scholarly communication by developing open-access IR in universities.
    [Show full text]
  • Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’S Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projects
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projects Tadeusz Chełkowski1☯, Peter Gloor2☯*, Dariusz Jemielniak3☯ 1 Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland, 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Cognitive Intelligence, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 3 Kozminski University, New Research on Digital Societies (NeRDS) group, Warsaw, Poland ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] a11111 Abstract While researchers are becoming increasingly interested in studying OSS phenomenon, there is still a small number of studies analyzing larger samples of projects investigating the structure of activities among OSS developers. The significant amount of information that OPEN ACCESS has been gathered in the publicly available open-source software repositories and mailing- list archives offers an opportunity to analyze projects structures and participant involve- Citation: Chełkowski T, Gloor P, Jemielniak D (2016) Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: ment. In this article, using on commits data from 263 Apache projects repositories (nearly Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in Apache all), we show that although OSS development is often described as collaborative, but it in Software Foundation Projects. PLoS ONE 11(4): fact predominantly relies on radically solitary input and individual, non-collaborative contri- e0152976. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152976 butions. We also show, in the first published study of this magnitude, that the engagement Editor: Christophe Antoniewski, CNRS UMR7622 & of contributors is based on a power-law distribution. University Paris 6 Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, FRANCE Received: December 15, 2015 Accepted: March 22, 2016 Published: April 20, 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Chełkowski et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Teachers: Here Are the Publishers and Authors That Have Given Permission for Their Books to Be Read Aloud. Please Check Your Bo
    Teachers: Here are the publishers and authors that have given permission for their books to be read aloud. Please check your books (the title page, cover, or spine) for the publishing company. If it is one of the ones listed here, read their guidelines and include the required information in the video. Please read the caveat about authors granting permission below. If you are not sure about a book, contact your campus librarian for clarification. This list has been compiled with the help of tweets from Melissa Burger and Kate Messner. **SLJ has also published an article with publisher guidelines** Publisher (link to tweet) Guidelines Set Expiration Date Lerner Lerner is committed to our authors and illustrators as well as the readers None given, but who enjoy their books. We want to help protect the hard work and end of current creativity of our contributors while supporting schools and libraries in this school year would difficult time. Educators and librarians looking for read-aloud permission be a best practice for distance learning, please fill out this form: https://rights- permissions.lernerbooks.com . Permission will be granted as quickly as possible where contracts allow. We also encourage educators to reach out to authors directly in case the authors have already created such videos that can be used immediately. MacMillan Books During this emergency and when their schools are closed, we have no None given, but objection to (1) teachers and librarians live streaming or posting videos end of current reading our children’s books to their students, provided it is done on a school year would noncommercial basis, and (2) authors live streaming or posting videos be a best practice reading their children’s books, provided it is done on a noncommercial basis.
    [Show full text]