Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in Europe
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in Europe Report on the implementation of Commission Recommendation C(2012) 4890 final Edited by Victoria Tsoukala, Maarja Adoojan, Jean-François Dechamp May 2018 Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in Europe. Report on the Implementation of Commission Recommendation C(2012) 4890 final European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate A — Policy Development and Coordination Unit A2— Open Data Policy and Science Cloud Contact Victoria Tsoukala E-mail [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Manuscript completed in May 2018. This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 PDF ISBN 978-92-79-73400-7 doi: 10.2777/642887 KI-04-17-824-EN-N © European Union, 2018. Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. EUROPEAN COMMISSION Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in Europe Report on the implementation of Commission Recommendation C(2012) 4890 final Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2018 Edited by Victoria Tsoukala, Maarja Adoojan, Jean-François Dechamp May 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 5 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 6 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RECOMMENDATION ...................................................... 7 PART A - SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ................................................................ 14 1. Government policies (or strategies) ........................................................................... 14 2. Policies among research funders and research performing institutions (when they receive public funding) ................................................................................................... 21 PART B- RESEARCH DATA ................................................................................ 26 3. National Policies ...................................................................................................... 26 4. Policies at research funding institution level and academic institution level (if publicly funded) ............................................................................................................. 34 PART C- E-INFRASTRUCTURES, DISSEMINATION, PRESERVATION AND RE-USE ..... 39 5. Policies at country level ............................................................................................ 39 6. Policies at academic institution level (when they receive public funding) ......................... 48 PART D- REWARDS AND SKILLS ....................................................................... 54 7. Rewards and skills training at country and institutional level ......................................... 54 PART E- COLLABORATION AND TRANSPARENCY ................................................. 58 8. Multi-stakeholder dialogue ........................................................................................ 58 9. Synergies at national and European level ................................................................... 65 ANNEX 1 REPORT ON THE WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES ................................... 69 ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................... 79 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report consolidates and presents the information reported by Member States regarding their progress in implementing the 2012 Recommendation on open access to and preservation of scientific information. Member States largely believe that the Recommendation has been valuable and impactful at European and national level. While awareness of the main documents on open access to scientific publications etc. is high at national level, it is less so at institutional and scientific community level. Nearly two-thirds of the countries responding were favourable to increased regulatory requirements to support further implementation of open access policies. Yet, the results of the questionnaire emphasise several barriers to implementation including the lack of alignment between the policy and funding mandates, need for a better audit and monitoring process and insufficient level of funding. The majority of the countries have adopted, are implementing or currently discussing policies for open access to publications at the national level, with one third of the countries preferring self-archiving, a few countries with a strong preference for open access publishing and half of the countries supporting both means of open access. Still, in one third of the countries the public funding organisations lack open access policies. While in a majority of countries research institutes and universities have adopted open access policies, only in two countries do those policies cover all institutions. The widening of access to scientific information to unaffiliated researchers or SMEs remains an issue that has not been taken up in the policies of more than half of the countries surveyed. National policies are divergent in how they treat researcher copyright, with only two countries reporting that researchers are obliged to retain their copyright in publishing. There are no initiatives aimed at granting a fair(er) remuneration for authors of scientific publications. The majority of the NPR respondents find that the EU regulations on copyright do not adequately support national openness policies. National governments, as well as funders and institutions, are at different stages of progress in implementing open access to research data policy (e.g. Research Data Management (RDM), Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data, RDM costs). The respondents suggested that more coordination would be necessary to assure alignment of policies and practices. A number of countries are working on open research data principles with approximately half of the countries surveyed making DMPs and FAIR data part of their policies. In many countries, open research data principles are applied at the institutional level, even if national policy has not been developed. Research data management is generally governed by soft measures/implemented with flexible rules at the national level. RDM and open access to research data is mandatory only in a few funding schemes. Yet, only a dozen of the countries report that national funding is available for RDM but in many national funding schemes, open research data related costs are considered eligible. ORD and RDM policies are present at institutional level - more than half countries reported that DMPs and ORD are part of the policies and strategies of at least some of their institutions, while a lesser number include FAIR as a concept. In many countries, RDM is only applied in EU funded projects. Similarly, for half the countries, funding for RDM is available at the institutional level, while for the rest funding is primarily provided from EU funds. According to the respondents, FAIR Research Data Management practices (with a focus on various different research artefacts produced as part of scientific activities, e.g. datasets, software tools, workflows, notebooks, ontologies, articles) have to be developed and implemented at national level, with more room for work in the field of TDM and its effects on research and positive conclusions regarding developments in e-Infrastructure policy. Most countries plan or have already implemented policies or strategies for e-Infrastructures at the national level as well as policies for the preservation of scientific information. Preservation policies apply for both publications and data, short and long-term, with more emphasis on publications. At least two-thirds of the countries host national-level data infrastructures meeting trusted quality standards (DANS seal of approval, OpenAIRE compliance, and FAIR principles). 3 The majority of the countries reported projects or initiatives at national level to develop cloud services and/or ensure interoperability of e-infrastructures. Finally, half of the countries have national initiatives to facilitate the immediate dissemination and reuse of information. There is a scope for more support at the national level for TDM since only two countries have adopted policies in this area with another two countries having implemented policies and in a third of countries, discussions are currently ongoing. At the institutional level, in the majority of Member States the institutions are engaged in discussing policies and implementing infrastructures for the dissemination and preservation of information. Yet, only in a few countries does this process cover all institutions. Similarly, most countries reported that academic institutions have repositories that