, : why and how

Elena Giglia University of Turin [email protected] @egiglia www.oa.unito.it [Corsi e formazione – slides on Open Science] Open Science Italy community on Zenodo The road ahead

 Why do we need Open Science?  Scholarly communication: how does it work?  Scholarly communication: let’s talk money  Scholarly communication: does it work?  Open Science: just science done right  Open Science and Open Access  What’s going on [EC, UN, OECD, UNESCO…]  Open Access: two roads, selfarchiving and publishing  …what about books? Why do we need Open Science? Feb.1, 2020 Feb 4, 2020

March 13, 2020

 COVID19 crisis showed the importance of sharing data and research outputs – highlithed by anyone as good, but somehow exceptional  THE FLIP SIDE IS THAT OUR NORMAL BEHAVIOUR IS TO PUT BARRIERS TO SCIENCE  “And when it comes to a global emergency, we’re still having to beg publishers for access to our own research so that we might save large swathes of the human race from an unnecessary death” [Gadd, 2020]

and why only Coronavirus? What about cancer, Alzheimer, climate change… Scholarly communication: how does it work?

Impact REGISTRATION Factor REWARD

ARCHIVING CERTIFICATION

AWARENESS

Rosendaal H. –Geurts P. Forces and functions in scientific communication:an analysis of their interplay, 1997

The virus is reminding us that the purpose of scholarly communication is not to allocate credit for career advancement, and neither is it to keep publishers afloat. Scholarly communication is about, well, scholars communicating with each other, to share insights for the benefit of humanity. And whilst we’ve heard all this before, in a time of crisis we realise afresh that this isn’t just rhetoric, this is reality. [Gadd, 2020] Scholarly communication: how does it work?

A journal workflow 101 innovations

SUBMISSION AUTHORS/REVIEWERS ARE NOT PAID RETURN: PEER REVIEW PRESTIGE/CITATIONS OFTEN BECAUSE NOT MAINSTREAM, ACCEPTANCE/ THEN RESUBMIT- REJECTION …AS TIMES GOES BY PUBLICATION UPON SUBSCRIPTION PUBLICATION IS NEEDED OR OPEN ACCESS - RESEARCH IS AN INCREMENTAL SAME PROCESS PRODUCTION - NOT TO REINVENT THE WHEEL COSTS, DIFFERENT - NOT TO FUND TWICE DISSEMINATION Scholarly communication: let’s talk money Some figures… guess what they represent

4

2 million €

7.6 billion $

38%

521% Scholarly communication: let’s talk money Some figures… guess what they represent

TIMES ANY INSTITUTION 4 PAYS FOR RESEARCH WAGES

RES. FUNDING RES. OUTPUTS PUBLISHED SUBSCRITPIONS 2 million € UniTo/year REUSE RIGHTS

521% GUESS: LIBRARY BUDGET INCREASED INCREASE IN SERIALS BY 521%? EXPENDITURES 1986-2015 CUTS, CUTS, CUTS Scholarly communication: let’s talk money Some more figures… guess what they represent

2019 7.6 billion $ TODAY, WE PAY 3800/5000 € PER [UNDERESTIMATED] AMOUNT OF MONEY ARTICLE IN THE LICENCE TO PRINT SPENT IN SUBSCRIPTION IN 2016 MONEY SUBSCRIPTION [ANELASTIC MARKET] Max Planck 2016 SYSTEM

38% Scholarly communication: let’s talk money Some more figures… guess what they represent READING IS NOT FOR FREE 2019 7.6 billion $ TODAY, WE PAY 3800/5000 € PER [UNDERESTIMATED] AMOUNT OF MONEY ARTICLE IN THE LICENCE TO PRINT SPENT IN SUBSCRIPTION IN 2016 SUBSCRIPTION MONEY Max Planck 2016 [ANELASTIC MARKET] SYSTEM CLOSING THE 38% CONTENT

2018 ELSEVIER’S NET GAIN

2018 J. Tennant, 2018 [business is business] [business is business]

A.Posada, 2017 [business is business]

• In April, 2018 Springer issued a Prospectus for an IPO [now deleted] • «our OA portfolio includes leading brands […]positioning us weel to command Premium APC»

A.Posada, 2017

Springer, 2018 NON-DISCLOSURES «note: a prospectus is CLAUSES [TO SEGMENT a legal document THE MARKET] aimed at potential BUT IT’S PUBLIC investors, not a MONEY! marketing tool for authors or librarians» 2017 Houston, we have a problem

WE ARE PAYING PUBLISHERS TO LOCK OUR CONTENT (WHICH WE GAVE FOR FREE)

SMEs, START-UPs, PRACTITIONERS, YOU ONCE GRADUATED… NOBODY CAN READ THE OUPUTS OF RESEARCH (WHICH IS FUNDED BY PUBLIC MONEY)

IF NOT, SCI-HUB Science 2016 WOULD NOT EXIST March 10, 2018 Scholarly communication: does it work? Some more figures… guess again what they represent

9-18 MONTHS

179%

70%

43% Scholarly communication: does it work?

AVERAGE PUBLICATION TIME

9-18 MONTHS Bjork 2013

DOES IT MAKE SENSE IN TIME OF COVID-19?

P.Masuzzo, Sept. 2019 Scholarly communication: does it work? March 2018

Sept. 11, 2019

SELF-CITATION INCREASE IN ITALY

179%

HOW CAN SCIENCE AND SELF CITATION COEXIST? Scholarly communication: does it work?

HOW CAN SCIENCE BE NOT- REPRODUCIBLE?

REPRODICIBILTY FAILURE

70% Nature, 2016

A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).[8] In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical researchers than others.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Scholarly communication: does it work? The Turing way, 2019

J.Ioannidis, 2014

REPRODICIBILTY FAILURE

70% Nature, 2016

A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).[8] In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical researchers than others.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Scholarly communication: does it work?

J.Brainard, Rethinking retractions, Science 2018

1975-2010

RETRACTIONS FOR FRAUD

43% Scholarly communication: does it work? HOW CAN https://retractionwatch.com/ SCIENCE AND  Not just one rotten apple FRAUD  Yoshitaka Fujii (total retractions: 183) See also: Final report of investigating COEXIST? committee, our reporting, additional coverage  Joachim Boldt (100) See also: Editors-in-chief statement, our coverage  Yoshihiro Sato (95) See also: our coverage  Jun Iwamoto (73) See also: our coverage 2013  Diederik Stapel (58) See also: our coverage

J.Brainard, Rethinking retractions, Science 2018

1975-2010

RETRACTIONS FOR FRAUD

43% [Retractions]

Fang, Casadevall 2011 DIRECT CORRELATION #RETRACTIONS/IMPACT FACTOR

B. Brembs, 2018 P.Smaldino, 2016 Why?  Research evaluation has become an obsession  «not only are we failing to provide he right incentives, 2015 we are providing perverse ones»  Goodhart’s law: «when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure»  «people game the system at every level» INDICES DON’T 2018 MEASURE QUALITY

PRS, 2020

COBRA EFFECT: WHEN INDIANS WERE PAID FOR EVERY DEAD COBRA THEY HANDED, THEY STARTED BREEDING COBRAS Biagioli, 2019 It does not work.

RESEARCH CULTURE IS BROKEN, OPEN SCIENCE CAN FIX IT …Open Science might help

https://doi.org/10.32388/838962

https://www.accelerateopenscience.nl/what-is-open-science/

C. Mac Callum, UKSG, April 2018 Open Science: just science done right

Tony Ross-Hellauer, 2017 [an example from Economy]

K.Birney, 2015

DATA MAKES SCIENCE MORE SOUND

Herndon, 2013 Open Science/Bad science

2020 Tennant Sept.2018 E.McKiernan, 2017

Open in order to… Open Science: one step at a time Open Science: focus ANNOTATION Imagine how rich a PRE-REGISTRATION lesson can be To avoid data make up PROTOCOLS-SOFTWARE /NOTEBOOK Maximize reuse Share you research immediately Building blocks of EOSC FAIR DATA 500.000 data stewards needed

FINDABLE METADATA, IDENTIFIERS

DOES NOT EQUATE TO ACCESSIBLE FORMATS, REPOSITORIES «OPEN»

INTEOPERABLE ONTOLOGIES, STANDARDS

REUSABLE LICENCES, DOCUMENTATION Who supports Open Science?

Interview, 5 min

OECD

IPP OECD

Nov. 2019

UNESCO Open Science and the EU Commission

 Open Access to texts and data mandatory in Horizon2020 [and Horizon Europe]  Council on Competitiveness May 2016  Open Access by default in 2020 (legal basis for PlanS)  Recommendation 2018/790:  National Plan Open Science in each MS  Policies in each RPOs  Change the evaluation criteria  Directive 2019/1024 (former PSI)  Building the EOSC, European Open Science Cloud [4,7 billion investments], based on FAIR data

[Nov.2019] [the gamechanger?]

March 20, 2020

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/ • A platform, not a journal • Offering peer review services • Rapid publication • Free of charge

https://gatesopenresearch.org/ Open Science/Open Access

OPEN SCIENCE IS AN ECOSYSTEM OPEN ACCESS IS JUST ONE COMPONENT

FOSTER Taxonomy Open Access

Berlin Declaration

Principles: • Knowledge is a common • Scholarly communication is a big conversation • The results of publicly funded research must be publicly available

Two roads towards Open Access GREEN – SELFARCHIVING GOLD – PUBLISHING OPEN ACCESS Open Access GREEN

 AUTHORS CAN DEPOSIT THE PAPER (WHEREVER IT WAS PUBLISHED) IN AN OPEN ACCESS REPOSITORY, ACCORDING TO THE PUBLISHERS’ COPYRIGHT POLICY  FEASABLE NOW, IN 5 MINUTES, ALWAYS FOR FREE  YOU KEEP PUBLISHING IN THE «PRESTIGIOUS» JOURNALS REQUIRED BY EVALUATION RULES, AND THEN YOU MAKE YOUR RESEARCH FREE BY DEPOSITING  DEPOSITING, YOU ENABLE SERVICES LIKE UNPAYWALL - THE «LEGAL» SCI-HUB – WHICH SEARCHES FOR A LEGAL COPY OF THE PAYWALLED PAPER  Repositories are institutional or disciplinary (REPEC), https://unpaywall.org/ registered in OpenDOAR. If any, use Zenodo. NOT Research Gate or Academia.edu  Check copyright policies in SHERPA RoMEO [82% allowing //published pdf + embargo]  Please notice: all the conditions are set by publishers – it’s not our fault if sometimes it gets complicated! Open Access GOLD

 Publish in an Open Access Journal  More than 14.000 listed in DOAJ  YOU CHANGE THE PUBLISHING VENUE [THE OA JOURNAL MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST «PRESTIGIOUS»]  No subscritpion – anyone can read  Many adopt Open peer review [better and more transparent]  Authors retain copyright  Texts in XML (suitable for mining) – advanced services  Different business model: 27% asks for APC, Article Processing Charges  [same logic as a stamp: the sender pays, not the recipient]  Don’t mix native OA publishers/Open option offered by commercial publishers (hybrid) Houston, we have a problem / 2

March 11, 2019

OPEN ACCESS (PERCEPTION) - JOURNALS ONLY - ALWAYS PAYING FOR PUBLISHING - ALWAYS PREDATORY PUBLISHERS Open Access and rights • Fundamental: rights IN [do I have the right to] – rights OUT • Copyright: you have to ask the author for permission to use BEWARE: ALMOST EVERYTHING ON THE WEB IS UNDER COPYRIGHT • Licence: the author says in advance what you are allowed to do

http://creativecommons.org/choose/?lang=en APC/subscriptions

Subscriptions APC

- paid every year - paid once and forever - EVERY INSTITUTION PAYS - PAID ONLY BY THE FOR THE SAME CONTENT AUTHORS’ INSTITUTION - increase every year - OPEN the content - CLOSE the content for to all those who have no subscritpion BEWARE! Corina Logan, 2018 …many OA journals are completely for free (readers and authors) Transformative agreements

https://esac-initiative.org/

2019 Campbell, 2019

Max Planck 2016 PlanS

 Issued in 2018 by a consortium of funders (CoalitionS)  S= SPEED - …A TRANSITION LASTING 15 YEARS IS STILL A TRANSITION? OR IS IT MORE A «FURTHER EXPLOITATION»?  By January 2020 [now January 2021] all funded reserach Smits 2018 must be Open  IT’S FOR PUBLISHERS, NOT AUTHORS  INCLUDES A CALL ON CHANGING RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITERIA

2018 http://www.hirmeos.eu/services/

What about books?

https://www.doabooks.org/

2018

http://operas.hypotheses.org/

2019 …you might also be interested in

Aspesi, 2019

Fell, 2019 Houghton, 2009

Pollock, 2018 No buts.

Gadd, 2020

…publishing should be a service

Thank you!