The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities

Authors : Maciej Maryl, Marta Błaszczyńska, Agnieszka Szulińska, Paweł Rams

This article presents a vision for a scholarly communication research infrastructure for social sciences and humanities (SSH). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the pressing need to access research outputs without the traditional economic and temporal barriers.

This article explores the current scholarly communication landscape, assessing the reasons for the slower uptake of open access in SSH research. The authors discuss such frontiers as commercial interests, sources of academic prestige and discipline-specific genres.

This article defines and discusses the key areas in which a research infrastructure can play a vital role in making open scholarly communication a reality in SSH: (1) providing a federated and easy access to scattered SSH outputs; (2) supporting publication and dissemination of discipline-specific genres (e.g. monographs, critical editions); (3) providing help with evaluation and quality assurance practices in SSH; (4) enabling scholarly work in national languages, which is significant for local communities; (5) being governed by researchers and for researchers as a crucial factor for productive, useful and accessible services; (6) lastly, considering the needs of other stakeholders involved in scholarly communication, such as publishers, libraries, media, non-profit organisations, and companies.

They conclude that a scholarly-driven, inclusive, dedicated infrastructure for the European Research Area is needed in order to advance open science in SSH and to address the issues tackled by SSH researchers at a structural and systemic level.

URL : The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26545.1

Données à penser. Enjeux pratiques et éthiques autour des données dans le montage de projets de recherche européens

Auteurs/Authors : Delphine Cavallo, Camille Noûs

Cet article prend la forme d’un retour d’expérience sur le montage de projets de recherche européens, en déroulant les enchaînements entre objectifs, contraintes et prises de décisions autour de deux cas concrets.

Il montre comment les acteurs de ces projets – porteurs et porteuses scientifiques comme ingénieur-e-s – tentent de penser une réponse à la fois scientifique, documentaire, technologique et éthique aux exigences de la Commission européenne en matière de gestion des données de la recherche, à un moment où ces exigences ne correspondent ni à des métiers et pratiques intégrés dans les structures de recherche, ni à des routines ou des besoins identifiés parmi les équipes de recherche.

Il plaide pour la prise en compte conjointe entre chercheurs et chercheuses et ingénieur-e-s des enjeux éthiques liés à la gestion des données dès le montage des projets.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/traces.10793

La notion de Science Ouverte dans l’Espace européen de la recherche. Entre tendances à l’« exotérisation » et à la « gestionnarisation » de la recherche scientifique

Auteur/Author : Marc Vanholsbeeck

Cet article analyse les prescriptions européennes en matière d’Open Science et évalue la mesure dans laquelle celles-ci contribuent à résoudre la contradiction qui leur préexiste entre les prescrits qui, au sein de l’Espace européen de la recherche, encouragent les chercheurs à ouvrir la démarche scientifique et les produits de la recherche à des parties prenantes extérieures, et ceux qui incitent à fonder les indicateurs de performance en matière de recherche sur les articles de revue savante internationale.

A cet égard, la combinaison de la publication en OA avec l’archivage d’une diversité de produits de la recherche sur des répertoires OA s’avère préférable au basculement unilatéral dans la voie dorée de l’OA, par le biais de « big deals » avec les Majors.

URL : https://rfsic.revues.org/3241

Stepping up Open Science Training for European Research

Authors : Birgit Schmidt, Astrid Orth, Gwen Franck, Iryna Kuchma, Petr Knoth, José Carvalho

Open science refers to all things open in research and scholarly communication: from publications and research data to code, models and methods as well as quality evaluation based on open peer review.

However, getting started with implementing open science might not be as straightforward for all stakeholders. For example, what do research funders expect in terms of open access to publications and/or research data?

Where and how to publish research data? How to ensure that research results are reproducible? These are all legitimate questions and, in particular, early career researchers may benefit from additional guidance and training.

In this paper we review the activities of the European-funded FOSTER project which organized and supported a wide range of targeted trainings for open science, based on face-to-face events and on a growing suite of e-learning courses.

This article reviews the approach and experiences gained from the first two years of the project.

URL : Stepping up Open Science Training for European Research

Alternative location : http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/2/16

Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in Europe

Executive summary

An important aspect of open science is a move towards open access to publicly funded research results, including scientific publications as well as research data. Based on the structure of Commission Recommendation C(2012) 4890 final and its assorted reporting mechanism (the National Points of Reference for scientific information) this report provides an overview on access to and preservation of scientific information in the EU Member States as well as Norway and Turkey. It is based on self-reporting by the participating states as well as cross-referencing with other relevant documents and further desk research.

Concerning open access to scientific peer-reviewed publications, most EU Member States reported a national preference for one of the two types of open access, either the Green (self-archiving) or the Gold (open access publishing) model. Preference for the Green model is found in Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain. Those expressing a preference for the Gold model are Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Other Member States support both models equally, such as Germany, France, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland and Finland. However, the expressed preferences for one of the two models are not pure models in which only one route is followed. Instead, there is generally a system of predominance of one model with the possibility of using the other model, so a mixture of both routes results.

While few Member States have a national law requiring open access to publications, a mandate put in place by law is not necessarily stronger or more effective than a mandate put in place by a single institution or funder. For example, an open access mandate is strong as it ties open access to possible withdrawal of funds in the case of non-compliance, or to the evaluation of researchers’ careers.

Overall, policies on open access to research data are less developed across EU countries than policies and strategies on open access to research publications. However, individual Member State feedback shows a general acknowledgement of the importance of open research data and of policies, strategies and actions addressed at fostering the collection, curation, preservation and re-use of research data. Based on the self-reporting of the EU Member States and participating associated countries, the following classification is proposed.

  • Very little or no open access to research data policies in place and no plan for a more developed policy in the near future: Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland.
  • Very little or no open access to research data policies in place, but some plans in place or under development: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey.
  • Open access policies/institutional strategies or subject-based initiatives for research data already in place: Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, the United Kingdom.

Concerning the curation and preservation of scientific information (another issue covered by the 2012 Recommendation), institutional repositories are very well developed in most Member States although some NPR reports stress that, in many cases, institutional repositories are not certified to properly guarantee the long-term preservation of scientific information.

NPR reports also show that many Member States have made a clear effort to become more efficient and transparent regarding scientific information and research activities in general. This being said, some Member States underline research information purposes rather than the objective of open access to research results, with most CRIS systems containing meta-data and not necessarily full results.

Nevertheless, a tendency can be observed among the latest wave of EU enlargement countries that they are focusing efforts on developing centralised national repositories for preservation to be connected to the existing national CRIS systems and to be inter-operable across the EU with, for example, OpenAIRE protocols.

Many Member States have devised global policies and strategies for developing e-infrastructures in a comprehensive way. Such strategies often contain specific chapters or sections addressing scientific information, research and innovation, covering storage and high-performance computing capabilities as well as the appropriate dissemination, access and visibility of research results. As is the case in other areas, the stage of e-infrastructure development varies greatly among Member States, and it is worth noting differences in funding capabilities in this area. The support provided by EU-funded projects and initiatives is of significant importance here.

Concerning participation in multi-stakeholder dialogues and activities, several countries have set up national coordination bodies or networks (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland, Portugal). Other countries rely on a university or a university library (or an association of libraries) to coordinate national stakeholders (Czech Republic, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta) or on their research promotion agency/research councils (Cyprus, Sweden, the United Kingdom) or their academy of science (Slovakia).

Specific events, such as open-access workshops or activities during the annual open-access week, have also been identified as a way to galvanise stakeholder interaction at the national level (Czech Republic, Croatia, Italy, Romania). Additionally to EU fora (such as ERA, ERAC, the NPR, the Digital ERA Forum and the E-IRG), EU funded projects such as OpenAIRE FOSTER and PASTEUR4OA as well as PEER, Dariah and Serscida were mentioned as important support mechanisms. Furthermore, Belgium and the Netherlands have established bilateral cooperation and among the Nordic states (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) part of the dialogue on open science is conducted within the framework of the NordForsk organisation.

URL : Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in Europe

Alternative location : http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/openaccess/npr_report.pdf

Open Data Access Policies and Strategies in the European Research Area and Beyond

This report examines policies and strategies towards open access (OA) of scientific data in the European Research Area (ERA), Brazil, Canada, Japan and the US from 2000 onwards. The analysis examines strategies that aim to foster OA scientific data—such as the types of incentives given at the researcher and institutional levels and the level of compliance by researchers and funded organisations —and also examines how, and whether, these policies are monitored and enforced. The infrastructures developed to store and share OA scientific data are also examined.

The analysis is supported by findings from the literature on the global progression of OA scientific data since 2000—including its growth as a segment of scholarly publishing—as well as some of the broader trends, themes and debates that have emerged from the movement.

URL : http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Data.pdf

Open Access Strategies in the European Research Area…

Statut

Open Access Strategies in the European Research Area :

“This report presents an overview and analysis of strategies towards open access (OA) of peer-reviewed publications in the European Research Area (ERA), Brazil, Canada, Japan and the US from the year 2000 onwards. The analysis examines strategies that aim to foster OA (e.g. researcher and institutional incentives) and discusses how OA policies are monitored and enforced. The analysis is supported by findings from the literature on the global progression of OA since 2000, and comments on themes and debates that have emerged from the movement.”

URL : http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Policies.pdf