Implementing Open Access: Policy Case Studies :
“Implementing open access is a tough job. Legitimate authority, sufficient resources and the right timing are crucial. Pioneers, role models and flagship institutions all have faced considerable challenges in meeting their own aims and achieving a recognized success. Professionals charged with implementing policy typically need several years to accomplish significant progress. Many institutions adopting open access policies probably need to do more, much more, if the commitment to open access is to be meaningful.
A first generation of open access policy development and implementation is coming to a close. It is thus possible to begin evaluation. Evaluating implementation establishes evidence, enables reflection, and may foster the emergence of a second generation of open access policies.
This study is based on a small number of cases, examining the implementation of open access around the world. Some of the pioneer institutions with open access mandates have been included, as well as some newer cases. The emergence of the new stakeholders in publishing is examined, such as digital repositories, research funders and research organisations.
Because this is a groundbreaking study, no claim is made that the results are representative. The emphasis is on variety and on defining a methodological standard. Each case is reconstructed individually on the basis of public documents and background information, and supported by interviews with professionals responsible for open access implementation.
Implementation is typically based on targeting researchers as authors. Indeed, the author is pivotal to any open access solution. This is the ‘tertium comparationis’ that facilitates an examination of the similarities and differences across instances in an effort to build a broader policy research agenda.
In a final section, open access is placed in the wider context of the evolution of digital scholarship. This clarifies how published research results are destined to become a key component of digital research infrastructures that provide inputs and outputs for research, teaching and learning in real time.
The ten cases examined in detail are:
– Refining green open access policy: Queensland University of Technology (September 2003)
– Refining policy to foster deposit: University of Zurich (July 2005)
– National platform, open collection, decentralized policy: the HAL platform (June-October 2006)
– Maximising a funder’s impact: The Wellcome Trust (October 2006)
– Implementing open access as a digital infrastructure: UK PMC (January 2007)
– Learning from global research infrastructure: SCOAP3 (April 2007)
– Linking public access to open data: Howard Hughes Medical Institute (January 2008)
– Open access to all publications, internationally: Austrian Science Fund (FWF, March 2008)
– One policy, sixty publication strategies: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (July 2008)
– Open Access complements the Research Information System: The University of Pretoria (May 2009)”.
URL : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1685855
To advance the pace of scientific discovery we propose a conceptual format that forms the basis of a truly new way of publishing science. In our proposal, all scientific communication objects (including experimental workflows, direct results, email conversations, and all drafted and published information artifacts) are labeled and stored in a great, big, distributed data store (or many distributed data stores that are all connected).
Each item has a set of metadata attached to it, which includes (at least) the person and time it was created, the type of object it is, and the status of the object including intellectual property rights and ownership. Every researcher can (and must) deposit every knowledge item that is produced in the lab into this repository.
With this deposition goes an essential metadata component that states who has the rights to see, use, distribute, buy or sell this item. Into this grand (and system-wise distributed, cloud-based) architecture, all items produced by a single lab, or several labs, are stored, labeled and connected.
URL : http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4742/version/1
Researchers’ attitude to using institutional repositories : a case study of the Oslo University Institutional Repository (DUO) :
“Institutional Repositories (IRs) have been considered one of the disseminating and preserving method for scholarly research publications. However, the success of IR is dependent on the contribution of researchers and faculty members. In order to investigate researchers’ attitudes and their contribution to the Institutional repository a survey was conducted by taking 43 researchers as a sample study at the University of Oslo. The findings indicated that researchers were found to have a low level awareness of the Institutional repository but were interested in contributing their research work to the university institutional repository and have a positive attitude towards providing free access to scholarly research results of the University of Oslo.”
URL : https://oda.hio.no/jspui/handle/10642/426
Towards Scholarly Communication 2.0: Peer-to-Peer Review & Ranking in Open Access Preprint Repositories :
“In this paper we present our unified peer-to-peer review model for Open Access preprint repositories. Its objective is to improve the efficiency and effectivity of digital scholarly communication. The key elements of this model are standardized quality assessment instruments, public and private communication channels, special rankings and novel incentives. The model allows scholars to proficiently evaluate both the manuscripts and their peer reviews. These scrutinized manuscripts and peer reviews will then be made available to the relevant parties. These standardized quality assessments allow for new quality metrics for papers and peer reviews. The Reviewer Impact, which represents the peer review proficiency and peer review output of scholars, is one such metric. The model includes diverse rankings for scholars to appear in to receive better odds of having their own manuscripts noticed, read, peer reviewed and cited. Their specific ranking is proportional to their Reviewer Impact and the overall quality of their manuscripts. The Open Access preprint repository model is a suitable foundation for our model because of its high degree of accessibility, but little to no certification of its deposited manuscripts. With this combination we envision a novel, Open Access, peer-to-peer scholarly communication model that functions independently of, but not incompatibly with, the traditional journal publishing model: Scholarly Communication 2.0.”
URL : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1681478