This presentation was provided by Glenn Hampson of Open Scholarship Initiative, during the NISO hot topic virtual conference "Open Research." The event was held on November 17, 2021.
This presentation was provided by Gabriela Mejias of ORCID, during the NISO hot topic virtual conference "Open Research." The event was held on November 17, 2021.
This presentation was provided by Toby Green of Coherent Digital, during the NISO hot topic virtual conference "Open Research." The event was held on November 17, 2021.
RDAP 16: Sustainability of data infrastructure: The history of science scienc...ASIS&T
Research Data Access and Preservation Summit, 2016
Atlanta, GA
May 4-7, 2016
Part of Panel 2, Sustainability
Presenter:
Kristin Eschenfelder, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Panel Leads:
Kristin Briney, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee & Erica Johns, Cornell University
This presentation was provided by Gabriela Mejias of ORCID, during the NISO hot topic virtual conference "Open Research." The event was held on November 17, 2021.
This presentation was provided by Toby Green of Coherent Digital, during the NISO hot topic virtual conference "Open Research." The event was held on November 17, 2021.
RDAP 16: Sustainability of data infrastructure: The history of science scienc...ASIS&T
Research Data Access and Preservation Summit, 2016
Atlanta, GA
May 4-7, 2016
Part of Panel 2, Sustainability
Presenter:
Kristin Eschenfelder, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Panel Leads:
Kristin Briney, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee & Erica Johns, Cornell University
ESIP Federation: Community-Driven, Collaborative Governance - Carol Beaton Me...ASIS&T
ESIP Federation: Community-Driven, Collaborative Governance
Carol Beaton Meyer
Presentation at Research Data Access & Preservation Summit
22 March 2012
Link resolver failures, erroneous URLs, EZproxy
configuration errors and inaccurate metadata in e-resource
records are commonplace problems reported by users in
pursuit of e-resource access. This presentation describes
the categorisation and analysis of data generated from the
troubleshooting process over the period of an academic
year. The process is designed to be pre-emptive, seeking to
anticipate e-resource problems that users may encounter,
and productive, providing insight to inform user instruction
and trigger mechanisms to create enhanced electronic
access for users.
Geraldine O Beirn, Queen’s University Belfast
Sitations are the way that researchers communicate how
their work builds on and relates to the work of others and
they can be used to trace how a discovery spreads and is
used by researchers in different disciplines and countries.
Creating a truly comprehensive map of scholarship,
however, relies on having a curated machine-readable
database of citation information, where the provenance of
every citation is clear and reusable. The Initiative for Open
Citations (I4OC), a campaign launched on 6 April 2017,
sought to make publisher members of Crossref aware that
they could open up the citation metadata they already give
to Crossref simply by asking them. With the support of
major publishers and the endorsement of funders and other
organisations, more than 50% of citation data in Crossref
is now freely available, up from less than 1% before the
campaign. This provides the foundation of a well-structured,
open database of literally millions of datapoints that anyone
can query, mine, consume and explore. The presenter will
discuss the aims of the campaign, the new innovative
services that are already using the data, what more still
needs to be done and how you can support the initiative.
Catriona J MacCallum, Hindawi
In June 2013, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awarded NISO a grant to undertake a two-phase initiative to explore, identify, and advance standards and/or best practices related to a new suite of potential metrics in the community.The NISO Altmetrics Project has successfully moved to Phase Two, the formation of three working groups, A, B, & C. Working Group B, led by Kristi Holmes, PhD, Director, Galter Health Sciences Library at Northwestern University, and Mike Taylor, Senior Product Manager, Informetrics at Elsevier, is focused on the Output Types & Identifiers within the alternative metrics landscape.
It appears highly probable that immediate open access publishing
will become the default mode for scholarly publishing – for the
biosciences first, other sectors later. ‘Immediate’ open access
means unfettered publication as soon as a scholarly work is
ready, with no embargo period. The costs of making a scholarly
artefact available can be reduced without sacrificing quality. This
interactive session will sketch the argument for these claims and
will present several value-added services that publishers could
develop to thrive in an open access world.
UK and US positions on open access – Steven Hill, HEFCE and Sarah Thomas, Harvard University
University of California and university digital library costing models – MacKenzie Smith, UC Davis
Total cost of ownership and flipped OA – Liam Earney, Jisc
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Keynote talk to LEARN (LERU/H2020 project) for research data management. Emphasizes that problems are cultural not technical. Promotes modern approaches such as Git / continuousIntegration, announces DAT. Asserts that the Right to Read in the Right to Mine. Calls for widespread development of contentmining (TDM)
This was a joint presentation provided by Jeff Broadbent and Betty Rozum of Utah State University during a NISO webinar on Compliance with Funder Mandates, held on September 16, 2016.
RDAP14: DataONE: Data Observation Network for EarthASIS&T
Research Data Access and Preservation Summit, 2014
San Diego, CA
March 26-28, 2014
Amber E. Budden, Director for Community Engagement and Outreach, DataONE, University of New Mexico
Presentation on how DOAJ is striving to increase the transparency and credibility of open access publishing throughout research communities.
Presentation at the 4ª Conferencia internacional sobre calidad de revistas de ciencias sociales y humanidades (CRECS 2014) Madrid, 8-9 de mayo de 2014
Acceptance speech for Directory of Open Access Journals winning the Ugena prize, awarded by the Sociedad Latina de Comunicación Social.
This presentation was provided by Heidi Nance of The Ivy Plus Libraries Confederation, during Session Six of the NISO event "Assessment Practices and Metrics for the 21st Century," held on December 6, 2019.
In 2018, the SciELO Program will celebrate 20 years of operation, in full alignment with the advances of open science.
The SciELO 20 Years Conference will address and debate – during its three-day program – the main political, methodological and technological issues that define today’s state of the art in scholarly communication and the trends and innovations that is shaping the future of the universal openness of scholarly publishing and its relationship with today’s Open Access journals, in particular those of the SciELO Network.
The program of the conference is organized around the alignment of SciELO journals and operations with the best practices on communication of open science, such as publishing research data, expediting editorial processes and communication through the continuous publication of articles and the adoption of preprints, maximizing the transparency of research evaluation and the flow of scholarly communication, and searching for more comprehensive systems for assessing research, articles and journals.
A two-day meeting of the coordinators of the national collections of the SciELO Network will take place prior to the Conference with focus on the evaluation of SciELO journals and the SciELO Program and their improvement following the lines of action that will guide their development in the forthcoming five years.
The celebration of SciELO’s 20-year anniversary constitutes an important landmark in SciELO’s evolution, and an exceptional moment to promote the advancement of an inclusive, global approach to scholarly communication and to the open access movement while respecting the diversities of thematic and geographic areas, as well as of languages of scientific research.
ESIP Federation: Community-Driven, Collaborative Governance - Carol Beaton Me...ASIS&T
ESIP Federation: Community-Driven, Collaborative Governance
Carol Beaton Meyer
Presentation at Research Data Access & Preservation Summit
22 March 2012
Link resolver failures, erroneous URLs, EZproxy
configuration errors and inaccurate metadata in e-resource
records are commonplace problems reported by users in
pursuit of e-resource access. This presentation describes
the categorisation and analysis of data generated from the
troubleshooting process over the period of an academic
year. The process is designed to be pre-emptive, seeking to
anticipate e-resource problems that users may encounter,
and productive, providing insight to inform user instruction
and trigger mechanisms to create enhanced electronic
access for users.
Geraldine O Beirn, Queen’s University Belfast
Sitations are the way that researchers communicate how
their work builds on and relates to the work of others and
they can be used to trace how a discovery spreads and is
used by researchers in different disciplines and countries.
Creating a truly comprehensive map of scholarship,
however, relies on having a curated machine-readable
database of citation information, where the provenance of
every citation is clear and reusable. The Initiative for Open
Citations (I4OC), a campaign launched on 6 April 2017,
sought to make publisher members of Crossref aware that
they could open up the citation metadata they already give
to Crossref simply by asking them. With the support of
major publishers and the endorsement of funders and other
organisations, more than 50% of citation data in Crossref
is now freely available, up from less than 1% before the
campaign. This provides the foundation of a well-structured,
open database of literally millions of datapoints that anyone
can query, mine, consume and explore. The presenter will
discuss the aims of the campaign, the new innovative
services that are already using the data, what more still
needs to be done and how you can support the initiative.
Catriona J MacCallum, Hindawi
In June 2013, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awarded NISO a grant to undertake a two-phase initiative to explore, identify, and advance standards and/or best practices related to a new suite of potential metrics in the community.The NISO Altmetrics Project has successfully moved to Phase Two, the formation of three working groups, A, B, & C. Working Group B, led by Kristi Holmes, PhD, Director, Galter Health Sciences Library at Northwestern University, and Mike Taylor, Senior Product Manager, Informetrics at Elsevier, is focused on the Output Types & Identifiers within the alternative metrics landscape.
It appears highly probable that immediate open access publishing
will become the default mode for scholarly publishing – for the
biosciences first, other sectors later. ‘Immediate’ open access
means unfettered publication as soon as a scholarly work is
ready, with no embargo period. The costs of making a scholarly
artefact available can be reduced without sacrificing quality. This
interactive session will sketch the argument for these claims and
will present several value-added services that publishers could
develop to thrive in an open access world.
UK and US positions on open access – Steven Hill, HEFCE and Sarah Thomas, Harvard University
University of California and university digital library costing models – MacKenzie Smith, UC Davis
Total cost of ownership and flipped OA – Liam Earney, Jisc
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Keynote talk to LEARN (LERU/H2020 project) for research data management. Emphasizes that problems are cultural not technical. Promotes modern approaches such as Git / continuousIntegration, announces DAT. Asserts that the Right to Read in the Right to Mine. Calls for widespread development of contentmining (TDM)
This was a joint presentation provided by Jeff Broadbent and Betty Rozum of Utah State University during a NISO webinar on Compliance with Funder Mandates, held on September 16, 2016.
RDAP14: DataONE: Data Observation Network for EarthASIS&T
Research Data Access and Preservation Summit, 2014
San Diego, CA
March 26-28, 2014
Amber E. Budden, Director for Community Engagement and Outreach, DataONE, University of New Mexico
Presentation on how DOAJ is striving to increase the transparency and credibility of open access publishing throughout research communities.
Presentation at the 4ª Conferencia internacional sobre calidad de revistas de ciencias sociales y humanidades (CRECS 2014) Madrid, 8-9 de mayo de 2014
Acceptance speech for Directory of Open Access Journals winning the Ugena prize, awarded by the Sociedad Latina de Comunicación Social.
This presentation was provided by Heidi Nance of The Ivy Plus Libraries Confederation, during Session Six of the NISO event "Assessment Practices and Metrics for the 21st Century," held on December 6, 2019.
In 2018, the SciELO Program will celebrate 20 years of operation, in full alignment with the advances of open science.
The SciELO 20 Years Conference will address and debate – during its three-day program – the main political, methodological and technological issues that define today’s state of the art in scholarly communication and the trends and innovations that is shaping the future of the universal openness of scholarly publishing and its relationship with today’s Open Access journals, in particular those of the SciELO Network.
The program of the conference is organized around the alignment of SciELO journals and operations with the best practices on communication of open science, such as publishing research data, expediting editorial processes and communication through the continuous publication of articles and the adoption of preprints, maximizing the transparency of research evaluation and the flow of scholarly communication, and searching for more comprehensive systems for assessing research, articles and journals.
A two-day meeting of the coordinators of the national collections of the SciELO Network will take place prior to the Conference with focus on the evaluation of SciELO journals and the SciELO Program and their improvement following the lines of action that will guide their development in the forthcoming five years.
The celebration of SciELO’s 20-year anniversary constitutes an important landmark in SciELO’s evolution, and an exceptional moment to promote the advancement of an inclusive, global approach to scholarly communication and to the open access movement while respecting the diversities of thematic and geographic areas, as well as of languages of scientific research.
QUESTIONS1. How could the company have erred so badly in its est.docxaudeleypearl
QUESTIONS
1. How could the company have erred so badly in its estimates of spending patterns of European customers?
2. Could a better reading of the effect of cultural differences on revenues have been achieved?
3. What suggestions do you have for fostering a climate of sensitivity and goodwill in corporate dealings with the French?
4. How do you account for the great success of Tokyo Disneyland and the problems of Euro Disney? What are the key contributory differences?
5. Do you believe that Euro Disney might have done better if it were located elsewhere in Europe rather than just outside Paris? Why or why not?
6. “Mickey Mouse and the Disney Park are an American cultural abomination.” Evaluate this critical statement.
7. Consider how a strong marketing approach might be made to both European consumers and middlemen, such as travel agents, tour guides, even bus drivers.
8. Discuss the desirability of raising admission prices at the very time when attendance is static, profits are nonexistent, and new attractions are months and several years in the future.
QUESTIONS
1. As the staff assistant to the president of Euro Disney, you already believe before the grand opening that the plans to use a skimming pricing strategy and to emphasize luxury hotel accommodations are ill advised. What arguments would you marshal to try to persuade the company to offer lower prices and more moderate accommodations? Be as persuasive as you can.
2. It is six months after the opening. Revenues are not meeting target, and a number of problems have surfaced and are being worked on. The major problem remains, however, that the venture needs more visitors or higher expenditures per visitor. Develop a business model to improve the situation.
3. How would you rid an organization, such as Euro Disney, of an arrogant mindset? Assume that you are an operational VP and have substantial resources, but not necessarily the eager support of top management.
TEAM DEBATE
->Under the topic "Team Debate Exercise" , you will find information about two camps adopting two opposing positions. Pick a position and discuss why that is the right approach for improving the situation.
-> If you were to be appointed as the Chief Marketing Officer of Euro Disney, what would be your actions to make Euro Disney a more attractive place for the customers? Explain in detail.
RESPOND TO FOUR STUDENTS
ROSIE’S POST:
“Positivist Approaches (Positivism) argues that the world exists independently of people perception of it and that science uses objective techniques to discover what exists in the world” (Monette, Sullivan, & DeJong, 2017) From a positivist approach, the healthcare systems in United States and the Canadian Healthcare systems are different when providing healthcare. “Another important difference between positivists and interpretivists has to do with the role of science: Positivists argue that scientists merely discover what exists in the world, but some interpretivists claim that scien ...
What is Open Science and what role does it play in Development?Leslie Chan
What is Open Science and what role does it play in Development?
The talk begins with a review of current understanding of open science and its alleged role in providing new opportunities for addressing long-standing development challenges. I then introduce the newly launched Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network, funded by IDRC Canada, and in collaboration with iHub Nairobi, Kenya. The rationale, funding modalities, and the short and long term objectives of the network will be discussed.
Re-imagining the role of Institutional Repository in Open ScholarshipLeslie Chan
Keynote at the OpenAIRE and COAR Joint Conference Open Access: Movement to Reality
Putting the Pieces Together. Acropolis Museum, Athens, Greece, May 21-13, 2014
OpenAIRE-COAR conference 2014: Re-imagining the role of institutional reposit...OpenAIRE
Presentation at the OpenAIRE-COAR Conference: "Open Access Movement to Reality: Putting the Pieces Together", Athens - May 21-22, 2014.
Re-imagining the role of institutional repositories in open scholarship, by Leslie Chan - Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Toronto Scarborough.
The State of Open Data Report by @figshare.
A selection of analyses and articles about open data, curated by Figshare
Foreword by Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt
OCTOBER 2016
OER16 - Skills not Silos - Open Data as OERLeo Havemann
Open Data is produced and used at various levels in research, governance, policy making and civil society. So far though, conversation around its value and significance has tended to occur within an Open Data silo, existing in parallel with other open discussions around Open Educational Resources and Open Access. In our presentation we explore practices which make use of Open Data as OER, with a focus on the the opportunities and challenges inherent in this approach.
For the OECD, “All citizens should have equal opportunities and multiple channels to access information, be consulted and participate. Every reasonable effort should be made to engage with as wide a variety of people as possible.” A central challenge in higher education is to develop skills useful not only at subject/professional level, but which also engage students with real-word problems. The skills needed to participate in democratic discussions can be understood as transversal skills, defined by UNESCO (2015) as “Critical and innovative thinking, inter-personal skills; intra personal skills, and global citizenship”. If one of our goals as educators is to develop these transversal skills in students, towards enabling them to function as citizens, to actively participate in the discourse and debates of society, then we propose that Open Data can play a key role.
Open Data has been understood as key to research, policy and governance development, and also heralded as a force for democratic discourse and participation, but in our view, this is not achieved by opening data alone. By using Open Data in research- and scenario- based learning activities, educators can enhance the information, digital, statistical and data analysis literacies that can empower students, and ultimately citizens and communities. Such pedagogic activities allow students to learn using the same raw materials researchers and policy- makers produce and use.
Drawing from a series of case studies of the use of Open Data as OER, we suggest educators consider the following elements
Focus: define the research problem and its relation to the environment students.
Practicality: match technical applications and practices to expected solutions.
Expectations: set realistic expectations for data analysis.
Directions: support in finding data portals which contain appropriate information.
Training: provide training materials for the software students will need to analyse the data.
Location: use global, local and scientific data which is as granular as possible.
Modelling: develop model solutions to guide students on the challenges and activities.
Collaboration: support students to work collaboratively and at multidisciplinary level.
Communication: support students in communicating their findings to local or wider communities.
Educating for Social Participation: Open Data as Open Educational ResourcesJaviera Atenas
Presentation for #OEGlobal in Kraków, Poland
If one of our goals as educators is to develop these transversal skills in students, towards enabling them to function as citizens, to actively participate in the discourse and debates of society, then we propose that Open Data can play a key role. Open Data is produced and used at various levels in research, governance, policy making and civil society. In educational and academic contexts, Open Data can be understood and used as an Open Educational Resource (OER) to help support the engagement of students and researchers in analysing and collaborating towards finding solutions for contemporary real-world problems, chiefly by embedding Open Data and Open Science principles in research-based, scenario-led activities. In this way, students can experience working with the same raw materials scientists and policy-makers use.
Kicking off the INCENTIVE project with an intro to the CS Principles and Char...Margaret Gold
-The Citizen Science Lab at Leiden University
- The core concept of the INCENTIVE project
- The ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science
- The ECSA Characteristics of Citizen Science
Open Access in the Global South: Perspectives from the OCSDNetLeslie Chan
Webinar for COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories) May 3, 2018.
The webinar will focus on the lessons learn from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network with regard to "openness" and how an expanded view of openness would allow us to rethink the design of a sustainable, open and community based common scholarship infrastructure.
Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science CommunicationMatthew Nisbet
Slides from class lectures and discussion in the American University course COM 589: "Communication, Culture and the Environment," Spring 2014.
http://climateshiftproject.org/com-589-communication-culture-and-the-environment-spring-2014/
OPEN DATA. The researcher perspective
Preface
Paul Wouters
Professor of Scientometrics,
Director of CWTS,
Leiden University
Wouter Haak
Vice President,
Research Data Management,
Elsevier
A year ago, in April 2016, Leiden University’s Centre for
Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and Elsevier
embarked on a project to investigate open data practices
at the workbench in academic research. Knowledge
knows no borders, so to understand open data practices
comprehensively the project has been framed from the
outset as a global study. That said, both the European
Union and the Dutch government have formulated the
transformation of the scientific system into an open
innovation system as a formal policy goal. At the time
we started the project, the Amsterdam Call for Action on
Open Science had just been published under the Dutch
presidency of the Council of the European Union. However,
how are policy initiatives for open science related to the
day-to-day practices of researchers and scholars?
ERIC - developing an impact capture systemJulie Bayley
This ARMA 2014 conference paper offers commentary on the development of a pilot impact capture system and embedding impact into the project lifecycle/culture. Since this paper, the planned system has been reconfigured into new IT systems and does not function in the same way. However, the learning outlined in this paper is still applicable.
The full set of conference papers are available in this document.
The SDGs represent challenges in advancing the broad access to information agenda because of the divergent goals and proliferating targets and indicators. At the same time, the broadness of many of the goals presents opportunities for the agenda, particularly in the form of open access and open science, to embed itself at the core, thus allowing concrete actions and policies to be formulated in order to achieve tangible development outcomes. I will focus in particular on Goal 9 (“Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”) and argue that information and knowledge are essential infrastructure needed to build local research capacity which are in turn the foundation for sustainable development. The growing understanding of the importance of sharing methods and results throughout the research life cycle further demands the need for appropriate infrastructure. Examples of such infrastructure, such as data and publication repositories, already exist at some local level, but they are often fragmented and lack adequate resources. It is therefore important for FAO/IFLA/COAR to continue to advocate for the development of knowledge infrastructure and to ensure that policies are in place to support their long term sustainability.
Strengthening the Sustainable Development Goals with Open Access and Open S...Leslie Chan
The SDGs represent challenges in advancing the broad access to information agenda because of the divergent goals and proliferating targets and indicators. At the same time, the broadness of many of the goals presents opportunities for the agenda, particularly in the form of open access and open science, to embed itself at the core, thus allowing concrete actions and policies to be formulated in order to achieve tangible development outcomes. I will focus in particular on Goal 9 (“Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”) and argue that information and knowledge are essential infrastructure needed to build local research capacity which are in turn the foundation for sustainable development. The growing understanding of the importance of sharing methods and results throughout the research life cycle further demands the need for appropriate infrastructure. Examples of such infrastructure, such as data and publication repositories, already exist at some local level, but they are often fragmented and lack adequate resources. It is therefore important for FAO/IFLA/COAR to continue to advocate for the development of knowledge infrastructure and to ensure that policies are in place to support their long term sustainability.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the closing segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session Eight: Limitations and Potential Solutions, was held on May 23, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the seventh segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session 7: Open Source Language Models, was held on May 16, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the sixth segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session Six: Text Classification with LLMs, was held on May 9, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the fifth segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session Five: Named Entity Recognition with LLMs, was held on May 2, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the fourth segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session Four: Structured Data and Assistants, was held on April 25, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the third segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session Three: Beginning Conversations, was held on April 18, 2024.
This presentation was provided by Kaveh Bazargan of River Valley Technologies, during the NISO webinar "Sustainability in Publishing." The event was held April 17, 2024.
This presentation was provided by Dana Compton of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), during the NISO webinar "Sustainability in Publishing." The event was held April 17, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the second segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session Two: Large Language Models, was held on April 11, 2024.
This presentation was provided by Teresa Hazen of the University of Arizona, Geoff Morse of Northwestern University. and Ken Varnum of the University of Michigan, during the Spring ODI Conformance Statement Workshop for Libraries. This event was held on April 9, 2024
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, during the opening segment of the NISO training series "AI & Prompt Design." Session One: Introduction to Machine Learning, was held on April 4, 2024.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, for the eight and final session of NISO's 2023 Training Series on Text and Data Mining. Session eight, "Building Data Driven Applications" was held on Thursday, December 7, 2023.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, for the seventh session of NISO's 2023 Training Series on Text and Data Mining. Session seven, "Vector Databases and Semantic Searching" was held on Thursday, November 30, 2023.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, for the sixth session of NISO's 2023 Training Series on Text and Data Mining. Session six, "Text Mining Techniques" was held on Thursday, November 16, 2023.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, for the fifth session of NISO's 2023 Training Series on Text and Data Mining. Session five, "Text Processing for Library Data" was held on Thursday, November 9, 2023.
This presentation was provided by Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, during the NISO webinar on "Strategic Planning." The event was held virtually on November 8, 2023.
This presentation was provided by Rhonda Ross of CAS, a division of the American Chemical Society, and Jonathan Clark of the International DOI Foundation, during the NISO webinar on "Strategic Planning." The event was held virtually on November 8, 2023.
This presentation was provided by William Mattingly of the Smithsonian Institution, for the fourth session of NISO's 2023 Training Series on Text and Data Mining. Session four, "Data Mining Techniques" was held on Thursday, November 2, 2023.
This presentation was provided by Tiffany Straza of UNESCO, during the two-day "NISO Tech Summit: Reflections Upon The Year of Open Science." Day two was held on October 26, 2023.
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO) (20)
The Art Pastor's Guide to Sabbath | Steve ThomasonSteve Thomason
What is the purpose of the Sabbath Law in the Torah. It is interesting to compare how the context of the law shifts from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Who gets to rest, and why?
This is a presentation by Dada Robert in a Your Skill Boost masterclass organised by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan (EFSS) on Saturday, the 25th and Sunday, the 26th of May 2024.
He discussed the concept of quality improvement, emphasizing its applicability to various aspects of life, including personal, project, and program improvements. He defined quality as doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to achieve the best possible results and discussed the concept of the "gap" between what we know and what we do, and how this gap represents the areas we need to improve. He explained the scientific approach to quality improvement, which involves systematic performance analysis, testing and learning, and implementing change ideas. He also highlighted the importance of client focus and a team approach to quality improvement.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Students, digital devices and success - Andreas Schleicher - 27 May 2024..pptxEduSkills OECD
Andreas Schleicher presents at the OECD webinar ‘Digital devices in schools: detrimental distraction or secret to success?’ on 27 May 2024. The presentation was based on findings from PISA 2022 results and the webinar helped launch the PISA in Focus ‘Managing screen time: How to protect and equip students against distraction’ https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/managing-screen-time_7c225af4-en and the OECD Education Policy Perspective ‘Students, digital devices and success’ can be found here - https://oe.cd/il/5yV
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
How to Create Map Views in the Odoo 17 ERPCeline George
The map views are useful for providing a geographical representation of data. They allow users to visualize and analyze the data in a more intuitive manner.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
How to Split Bills in the Odoo 17 POS ModuleCeline George
Bills have a main role in point of sale procedure. It will help to track sales, handling payments and giving receipts to customers. Bill splitting also has an important role in POS. For example, If some friends come together for dinner and if they want to divide the bill then it is possible by POS bill splitting. This slide will show how to split bills in odoo 17 POS.
5. What is open?
• MANY PARTICIPANTS: Individual
researchers, research societies, research
networks, journalists, IGOs, NGOs,
governments, universities, libraries, informal
educators, tech transfer offices, industry,
science writers, policy activists, and more.
• MANY SKILLSETS: From subject-specific
expert work like study design, research
management and communication, grant writing,
technical writing, and journal editing, to
multidisciplinary work like media outreach,
informatics, curation, epistemology, business
development, and marketing.
HOW WE APPROACH THIS QUESTION IS RELATED TO HOW WE SEE
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Source: Variously attributed
6. Our approach also depends on what
kind of open we’re talking about
There are several
separate and distinct
“open” movements, each
with their own broad
definitions.
OPEN ACCESS
OPEN DATA
OPEN SOURCE/CODE
OPEN SCIENCE
OPEN GOVERNMENT
OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
OPEN METHODS, PRACTICES
7. These different open
movements have
different origins
All evolved for decades (even
centuries) from many corners of many
societies. Some were originally fueled
by idealism, others by need or
opportunity. There is no starting point
for any single movements—this growth
has been iterative and cumulative.
1762:
Rousseau
social
contract
1660:
Royal
Society
1937:
Wells
“world
brain”
idea
1945:
Popper
open
society
1966:
FOIA
1975:
Modern
peer
review
begins
2002:
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative
1998:
Open
Source
Initiative
1999:
Napster
2000:
PLOS
1991:
arXiv
1996:
PubMed
1997:
SciELO
2015:
UN Open
Data
Charter 2009:
Panton
Principles
2012:
DORA
2016: FAIR
8. And over time, they have followed
different evolutionary paths…
APPROACH, PRACTICES & TOOLS
FIELD
RESEARCH
STEM
HSS
RETAIL
MUSIC
BOOKS
NEWS
INSTITUTION
UNIVERSITIES
GOVERNMENT
NONPROFITS
PUBLISHERS
PHILOSOPHY
BROAD
IDEOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE-BASED
PRACTICAL
TRENDY
REGION
G20
OTHERS
GOALS & MOTIVES
BARRIERS
EQUITY
JUSTICE
COST
SCIENTIFIC
NEED
PRAGMATIC
EFFECTIVE
MANDATE
FUNDED
UNFUNDED
PROFIT
BARRIERS
FUNDING
OPEN
BIASED
TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
INTER-FIELD
INTRA-FIELD
GLOGAL
STANDARDS
DATA
LICENSING
10. …and developed different focus points
These include (but are not limited to) improving the readability and clarity of science, maintaining the
integrity of important communication tools like journals, evolving these communication tools and publishing
methods, improving collaboration and interdisciplinary engagement, improving openness and transparency
in science (with an eye toward improving information access and reuse, and also improving reliability and
replicability), improving science outreach and literacy, making issue advocacy and awareness more
effective, improving policy development and compliance (e.g., vaccines), and more.
Better quality & benefit
Usability
Collaboration
Analysis Outreach
Policy
Advocacy
Informatics
Licensing
Methods
Translations
Reliability
Replicability
Transparency
Innovation Impact Access Equity
Literacy
Education
Economic
Integrity
Protocols
Grants
Editing
11. So, today, we see a wide variety of more or
less hardened perspectives about what open
is or at least should be and should focus on
• All of these perspectives are right,
none are wrong
• This dynamic is true not just
between open movements, but
also within movements. There are
as many “right” answers as there
are participants in the open space
12. Philosophically…
• Sam Moore (2017) has called open a “boundary
object.” meaning that different communities have
co-opted “open” for their own use without also
trying to change the meaning of open for everyone,
which has both preserved the diversity of open, and
fostered different communities of use around this
term and spurred local use and development.
• Fecher and Friesike (2013) see this as a good
outcome, arguing that it is better not to rely on a
single definition—that doing so “could prevent
fertile discussions from the very beginning.”
• Jon Tennant countered that a lack of common
understanding in this space has had consequences.
It has, in fact, “impeded the widespread adoption of
the strategic direction and goals behind Open
Scholarship, prevented it from becoming a true
social ‘movement’, and separated researchers into
disintegrated groups with differing, and often
contested, definitions and levels of adoption of
openness” (Tennant et al. 2019).
The text on this slide is copied from Hampson, G, M DeSart, J Steinhauer, EA
Gadd, LJ Hinchliffe, M Vandegrift, C Erdmann, and R Johnson. 2020 (June).
OSI Policy Perspective 3: Open science roadmap recommendations to
UNESCO. Open Scholarship Initiative. doi 10.13021/ osi2020.2735
13. Practically, the result is that open
definitions and outcomes exist along a
broad spectrum
DARTS: discoverability (indexed, identifiers?); accessibility (downloadable, timely and machine-
readable?); reusability (technical and licensing barriers?); transparency (confident in provenance
and accuracy of this information?); and sustainability (stable long-term solution?).
Most open knowledge outputs are in this range “Ideal”
14. …which often results in a tomato tomahto
problem
RESEARCHERS, FUNDERS AND OPEN ADVOCATES CONDUCT OPEN RESEARCH OR
TALK AMONGST THEMSELVES ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT FOR OPEN SOLUTIONS BUT IN
FACT BE REFERRING TO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS
16. The goal to share information more broadly,
especially with the right audiences
The use of certain standard, accepted
approaches (like journals, licensing, etc.), and
The realization over time that there are no one-
size-fits-all definitions, methods or solutions.
Even within an open
solutions community of
practice like Open Access or
Open Data.
Still, all these different ideas do have
3 things in common:
18. Open has potential
Increased reach and engagement
Increased impact (in science and policy)
Increased benefit to science*
Increased opportunity and equity
THE HOPE IS THAT OPEN SOLUTIONS,
DONE RIGHT, WILL LEAD TO:
* For instance, through improved visibility, replicability, and interoperability
Fun fact: Lower cost used to be a driving force
behind open but this is no longer the case. Our
open solutions are costing (at least for now) at
least as much as the systems they are replacing.
19. This potential is the
“Open Renaissance” ideal
Clearly define and support open
Make open solutions robust, inclusive, broad,
scalable and sustainable
Resolve connected issues (e.g., impact factors)
Align incentives so scholars embrace open
because they want to
Make open simple and clear so scholars know
what it means and why they should do it
Create clear standards and guidelines
Keep the marketplace competitive so open
products remain cutting edge
Integrate open repositories, not just connect
them
Standardize data
The research ecosystem grows more
powerful (with more data, more
connections, and more apps),
Innovation is catalyzed
Widespread improvements happen in
science.
New fields and discoveries emerge based on
“connecting the dots” (thanks to data and
repositories)
Funding efficiency improves
Discovery accelerates
The social impacts of science surpass today
(including science literacy, public policy,
education, more)
IF WE DO THIS…. THEN WE GET THIS….
20. These
expectations
are lofty, but
they are based
in history and
experience
The history of communication has
demonstrated that as
communication technology
improves, so too does the breadth
and depth of what we’re able to
achieve with communication.
Combined with this, science itself
would not have been able to take
hold without the development of
the printing press so research
could be widely shared. So, the
potential for science to succeed
even more with more advanced
communication techniques is real.
21. Open solutions
are “vectors”
We face many challenges where
more information transparency
and sharing is needed:
• Critical research (like vaccines and
climate change)
• Looming problems (like water and food
scarcity)
• Access equity and budget constraints
• Research progress. The US National
Academies states that “the openness of
data is…critical to the progress of
science, stimulating innovation,
enhancing reproducibility, and enabling
new research questions.”*
*NAS. 2018. Open Science by Design. doi: 10.17226/25116
22. More open is inevitable
Open solutions are everywhere and they are pervasive (as detailed
in the next section)
• Which isn’t to say these solutions are all benevolent (look no further than newspapers)
• But there is broad agreement among the leading thinkers in this space that we are at or
near a unique period in history when we might be able to draw on our lessons of
experience and work together to build a new and productive future for open where we can
unite in common cause to realize the full potential of open.
24. Widely used
approaches
• Research sharing principles (like FAIR, DORA and Leiden), best
practices, networks, collaborations
• Open licensing (CC-BY and its variations in publishing, CC0 in
data, and various licensing schemes for code)
• The growing push for more preprints (still only a fraction of the
total, however)
• APCs—”author publishing charges”—instead of subscriptions
• Transformative agreements between publishers and university
systems for “read and publish” and/or “publish and read”
journal publishing arrangements instead of subscriptions
• Mandates (from governments, universities and funders for
open licensing, limited embargo periods, data inclusion, etc.)
• Growing use of tools and systems to catalogue science and
impacts, like Altmetric, Crossref (DOIs), Unpaywall, ORCID,
and more.
25. Plus global initiatives
• UNESCO’s 2020-21 attempt to create a global
framework for open science policy
• Plan S’s attempt to create a one-size-fits all open
solution for the world (Plan S is based in and
applies almost exclusively to Europe at the
moment)
• Broad advocacy and issue-specific work of many
groups: SPARC, OA2020, OASPA, COAR, CODATA,
RDA, WAME, more
26. And more
There are many successful, vibrant, and
growing open models and initiatives
around the world, including:
• Many organizations doing pioneering, groundbreaking,
and highly successful work creating sustainable open
solutions
• Work of libraries everywhere to highlight the need for
open
• Growing research collaboration networks (DataSpace,
Sage Bionetworks, more)
• EU Science Cloud (on the horizon)
• Growing focus on data repository standards and
interoperability
• SciELO in South America, leading Brazil to the highest
rate of open access in the world
• The US Public Access model (run through
PubMedCentral), far and away the world’s largest
repository of “green” open
• Thousands of specialty journals, about half of which
are open, and where the vast majority of journal
publishing happens—about 75 percent of articles
27. All this activity has created a strong
push for openness…
OPEN ACCESS
OPEN DATA
OPEN SOURCE
OPEN SCIENCE
OTHER OPEN
OPEN METHODS & PRACTICES
50% of journal
articles published in
open access format;
68% of funders
require or encourage
open access.
Data availability
required by most
publishers. Data
repositories
critical. Data
partnerships
increasing, many
“non-standard”
Hugely
successful,
widespread.
90% of code
written by
companies,
public is
“product
manager.”
Increasing
pressure from
funders and
governments
to use open
lessons and
tools improve
science
OER and other
open all
increasing,
building on
best practices
from other
open fields
28. Archambault, E. 2018. Universalisation of OA scientific dissemination
Piwowar, H, J Priem, V Larivière, JP Alperin, L Mat-thias, B Norlander, A Farley,
J West, and S Haust-ein. 2018. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the
prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ 6:e4375
Snapshot stats just for journals
29. Snapshot stats just for journals (cont.)
• Somewhere between 40,000 and 90,000 peer-
reviewed scholarly journals in the world today
• 80-100 million scholarly articles
• About 28% of all articles are open in some
fashion (about 70% dark)
• TONS of variability depending on what’s
being counted as “open,” “scholarly,” and
“journal,” what time periods are being
measured, what indexes are used to
measure totals, what regions we’re looking
at, and more.
• LOTS of change and growth happening
3-4 million
scholarly articles
published per year
About 55% are in
some kind of
open format
(mostly “bronze”)
About 23-42% are
gold or green
30. In general, though, every stakeholder
group, government, funder, institution
and researcher is still an island
We see lots of open solutions,
just none (yet) that are truly
scalable, global, and
interoperable
31. And in general, ideology dominates the
headlines (and funding)
Much our open advocacy leadership is
ideological. focused on “replacing”
commercial publishers and/or
implementing “ideal” solutions for
open like Plan S instead of recognizing
the wide variety of needs and outputs
in the open solutions universe.
Ideology also dominates funding—the major
nonprofit funders in this space (at present)
are focused on ideological solutions and do
not fund work that recognizes a universe of
diverse open solutions and outcomes.
32. In particular, Plan S has become the new
elephant in the room
Publishers and scholarly societies
have aligned their businesses to the
“inevitability” of this plan
Even though it only affects about 7% of
published articles and involves two
dozen governments and funders,
primarily from northern Europe. This is
most distinctly NOT a globally workable
plan, but it has sucked a lot of oxygen
out of the room for working on a truly
global plan.
33. Has this tunnel vision been harmful?
• There are deep divisions in the open community—growing and deepening for
decades now—centered around what solutions are “good” and “evil.” *
• There is an extreme focus on details like licensing formats as opposed to broader
themes like “good data.” Most authors surveyed don’t like the most liberal types
of licenses required by “ideal” open solutions.
• The “author pays” APC approach to open is expanding through Plan S and
transformative agreements, which is taking us from “paywall” barriers to
“playwall” barriers
• Not improving regional subscription solutions like Research4Life has created a
market need for predatory publishers in much of the world—low cost fake
journals
• The international open solutions space is fracturing, with China, India the US and
other regions all having distinct open solutions that don’t align with the EU. What
might this mean for the future of science access and collaboration?
*Much of this stems from the outsize importance given by open advocates to the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) perspective on open access. OA wasn’t
invented at BOAI and the conference was tiny and unrepresentative of the global community—it also happened when the Internet was still very young (think pre-
Amazon)—but the BOAI definitions are often cited with particular reverence as though they “must” accurately describe what open means and does.
34. SOME OTHER UNITENDED CONSEQUENCES OF OUR CURRENT POLICY TRAJECTORY (NOT THE
FAULT OF “OPEN” BUT OF OUR EVERY STAKEHOLDER IS AN ISLAND APPROACH)
SUPPLY &
DEMAND
MISFIRES
• Predatory publishing is filling the demand for low-cost open publishing options
• Sci-Hub is using university login credentials to steal copyrighted materials from
publishers and offer this for free
• Most open policies do not require that the official version of record be made open
access—only the author’s accepted manuscript. Official VORs are still mostly closed.
POLICY
CONFLICTS
• Numerous policy conflicts are erupting, particularly between GDPR and open data
• Will tensions with China over academic integrity, copyright protection, and IP theft
affect global political support for current open solutions?
• STM-centric solutions are driving the debate, with no real consideration for policies
that work for the arts, humanities and social sciences.
• Preprints (open access journal articles that generally aren’t peer reviewed) are
running into credibility problems. As a result, some critical science, as well as critical
public policy, is experiencing an infodemic.
POLICY
LOCK-IN
• Will transformative agreements lock-in our use of APC solutions, which in turn lock
us into an open solution that makes it harder for many researchers from lower
resource regions and institutions to participate in research? That is, are we replacing
access barriers (“paywalls”) with participation barriers (“playwalls”)?
35. As open access journalist Richard Poynder
has noted, we may be snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory
• See Poynder’s essay at
https://richardpoynder.co.uk/Jaws.pdf for one of the
best analyses of the open access movement ever
written
• And again, referring back to what Jon Tennant
wrote in 2019, a lack of common understanding
in this space has “impeded the widespread
adoption of the strategic direction and goals
behind Open Scholarship, prevented it from
becoming a true social ‘movement’, and separated
researchers into disintegrated groups with differing,
and often contested, definitions and levels of
adoption of openness” (Tennant et al. 2019)
38. Patience
This is going to take time. Open solutions are attempting to meet a variety of existing
needs and aspirations in research and beyond, including providing pathways for
knowledge of all kinds to be shared more quickly, more freely (via liberal licensing), and
literally more freely (at no cost to the reader). These solutions aren’t perfect yet, though,
and will take time to evolve and become more effective:
OPEN
ACCESS
OPEN
DATA
OPEN
SOURCE
OPEN
SCIENCE
OPEN
GOVT
OER OPEN
TOOLS
Discoverability
Accessibility
Reusability
Transparency AVERAGE
Sustainability BAD GOOD
39. Awareness
In survey after survey, most
researchers and others in the
knowledge ecosystem aren’t
particularly fluent in the
details of open or their open
publishing options, or they harbor
misperceptions about what’s
involved with open (there is,
however, huge variation in this
awareness by field, institution,
career stage and more)
Taylor & Francis 2019
40. Researcher concerns
Will I
receive
proper
credit?
Will my data be
stolen or
misused?
Who needs to see my
data and why?
Will doing open require more
time and effort?
Will my work be read by the right people
and have the same impact?
1. IMPACT: Will my research benefit if I share my research?
What benefit will I get from this personally? Will my open
efforts be well received by colleagues and tenure
committees? Is there a stigma associated with paying to
get published?
2. CONFUSION: Where to begin? What kind of license should
be used? What data should be shared, in what format,
with whom, and in what repository?
3. TRUST: Will my open work be misinterpreted, misused, or
misattributed? Will my potential discoveries be scooped?
4. EFFORT: Will complying with open requirements take up
too much time? Different publishers and repositories all
have different compliance formats and requirements. Will
I be responsible for maintaining it long-term?
5. ACCESS: Who needs access to my work and for what
reasons? Would abstracts or summaries suffice or is my
raw data needed?
IMPACT, CONFUSION, TRUST, ACCESS, AND EFFORT
41. …plus concerns outside research
1. Does the local political environment allow for this kind of
transparency?
2. Do government budgets prioritize this kind of work?
3. Is there the institutional capacity (in terms of knowledge,
systems and direction) to do this kind of work?
4. Is there demand internally from citizens to access this
information?
5. Is there a sense of unfairness here, that entities in the Global
North will, with their larger budgets and resources, extract
knowledge from the Global South and make discoveries with it?
FREEDOM, TRANSPARENCY, EQUITY, CAPACITY
42. Differences
The open solutions universe has many common
elements (like licenses and mandates), but it also
has many differences, which makes it hard (and
even undesirable) to create far reaching one-size-
fits-all open policies.
For instance:
• Most research and research publishing happens in just a
handful of countries, and most of these countries follow their
own open access solutions, not a global solution.
• Perspectives and concerns about open vary widely by field
(particularly STM compared with HSS), career stage,
institution, region, and publishing frequency.
• The open solutions universe has a many different histories,
motives, philosophies, structures, goals, stakeholders, rules,
and policies, even within each open solutions community (like
open access or open data). One voice doesn’t speak for all.
China, 22.8%
US, 21.4%
Other
countries,
20.3%
UK, 6.3%
Germany,
6.0%
India, 5.9%
Japan, 4.7%
France, 4.1%
Russia, 3.7%
South Korea,
2.6%
Brazil, 2.3%
Regional origin of 2018 journal articles
Source: UNESCO
43. Misaligned incentives
In academia (and especially STM), the culture of communication has
developed incentives that distort the publishing environment and
aren’t aligned with open goals.
Condition Incentivized publishing behavior(s)
Publish or perish “Salami slice” findings into several papers; co-author anything; publish anything
anywhere, even substandard work, or in predatory journals
Tenure and grant evaluations that
weigh “impact”
Try to publish in the biggest name journals. This leads to misuse and abuse of
the impact factor in ranking journals, research, and researchers, and also clinging
to proven high-impact publishing choices
Use “citations” as a metric Self-citations, citation rings, counting negative citations, etc.
Busy schedules No time for reusability—data standards, connection between fields, etc.
Extreme focus on published work Don’t publish negative findings, don’t do replicability studies
Secrecy and competition Don’t publish or share data until all the value has been extracted from it
44. Data challenges
• How can we fund and maintain the INFRASTRUCTURE necessary for data processing, curation, and preservation?
• How do we protect against link rot, and data decay and DATA OBSOLESCENCE over time?
• BIG DATA keeps getting bigger. Can we keep pace with sharing tools?
• How can we better share and PRESERVE CODE? In many kinds of research, sharing or reanalyzing data without the
original code means just sharing and preserving a jumble of numbers.
• What happens to data once a research facility is SHUT DOWN and data needs to be preserved and curated for
decades more?
• What happens to LONG TAIL data?—the data that sits on laptops or personal websites with minimal or no attached
metadata or documentation? Not being able to capture this contributes to issues like irreproducibility, duplicate
research, and innovation loss.
• WHO PAYS long term for data care and maintenance?
• How do we ensure the TIMELY SHARING of critical data (insofar as rapid sharing impinges on secrecy)
• How do we ensure better DATA QUALITY, consistency and completeness
• How do we standardize DATA COLLECTION as a necessary approach to ensuring data completeness and
comparability?
• How do create internationally agreed-upon minimum standards for METADATA (further complicated when metadata
are not in English)
• How do establish INTEROPERABILITY and SEARCHABILITY between data platforms (without which researchers
need to search and make requests of multiple platforms)
• How do we create internationally agreed-upon STANDARDS for Data Availability Statements
• Can we streamline the GOVERNANCE structures used by different platforms
• Often (typically?), data platforms require REGISTRATION and are only open to “qualified” users. Is this adequate?
45. Evidence (or lack thereof)
• The evidence is unclear at the moment about whether open articles have a higher citation
impact than subscription articles. They are definitely viewed more.
• CC-BY remains the LEAST popular form of licensing according to author surveys. For most
research, what does CC-BY accomplish for text that CC-BY-NC-ND (or even copyright) does
not?
• Open solutions are definitely not saving us money—which is ironic because cost concerns were
an original driving force behind the push for open access publishing
• Open access publishing is growing but only considering ALL kinds of open solutions. The
strictest form of open—the “gold” kind being pushed by Plan S—has remained stuck at about
10% (or less) of the world’s total open for the past 20 years. Other forms of open (green,
bronze, etc.) and other solutions (like SciELO, PLOS, arXiv, PubMedCentral, etc.) have proven
sustainability, but are not being pushed.
In our push to adopt open policies, it’s not altogether clear whether
these policies are achieving the outcomes we want and need. For
example:
46. Other needs & challenges
• FUNDING: Very little funding support is available to facilitate data sharing, and to improve
data infrastructure systems (and the differences between global regions are stark). What will it
take to increase this investment 100-fold?
• POLICY: How can we address conflict between data sharing policies in science (e.g., GDPR
conflicts have stalled several global research projects)? How do we create mandates for sharing
that align with the needs and incentives researchers have? What body can improve current
global policy? How will geopolitical tensions (especially with China) affect the future of research
collaboration? How will infrastructure deficits in much of the world affect the ability of scientists
from these regions to participate in the future of science?
• UNIVERITIES: Academia still doesn’t generally recognize, reward, or incentivize data sharing
or team science in tenure evaluation processes (this is improving but still bad). How can these
practices be improved?
• MEASURING SUCCESS: Our metrics for measuring the success of data sharing ventures are
inadequate at the moment. For example, the number of peer reviewed publications flowing
from shared data might be less important than whether this data gets used to inform study
design, thereby reducing the need to put patients at risk.
47. What does all this mean?
Open movements are creating huge and
diverse changes in the information
landscape.
Many of these changes are good, but there
are also significant needs and challenges
We aren’t capitalizing on the full potential of
open
• Open efforts end up
speaking past each
other—our definitions and
goals aren’t the same
• One-size-fits-all reform
efforts don’t resonate or
work with most of the
world
• We don’t see our common
ground needs and
perspectives, just the
details of our policies and
ideologies
49. Plan first, then act
For the past 20 years, our approach to open has been driven by ideology. We have
designed our open solutions first, and then tried to sell these solutions to researchers,
downplaying unintended consequences, and ignoring the need for a more complete
understanding of the open space. Reversing this process is important.
1. ACTIONS
Policies, mandates,
solutions
2. CONSEQUENCES
Intended and unintended,
making problems better or
worse
3. NEEDS
Gaps in understanding,
education/outreach,
standards, best
practices
4. GOALS
Social justice,
collaboration,
research-specific,
etc.
50. Work together toward common goals
A goals-based approach
identifies the long-term changes
our broad community desires, and
then works backward, together, to
map out the actions and policies
we need to create this change. By
focusing on common goals first,
we work together in ways that
maximize our mutual benefit
across our many differences. The
goals-based (Theory of Change)
approach is widely used in
business, governments, and the
United Nations.
Hampson, G, M DeSart, L Kamerlin, R Johnson, H Hanahoe, A Nurnberger and C Graf. 2021. OSI Policy
Perspective 4: Open Solutions: Unifying the meaning of open and designing a new global open solutions
policy framework. Open Scholarship Initiative. January 2021 edition. doi: 10.13021/osi2020.2930
51. Ask (and
answer) more
fundamental
questions
Instead of focusing on policy details like
what kind of licensing is best, we need to
ask more big picture questions, like:
• Who and what? Is our goal to make everything available to
everyone, everything available to some, some things available to
everyone, or some things available to some?
• Why? Is our goal to help communities of practice succeeded,
make research more transparent, give patients better access to
information, empower teachers with the newest and best
information available to pass along to their students, improve
access to knowledge around the globe, or all of the above?
• How? Do we build one silo or a network of silos? Do we simplify
and incentivize systems for sharing? Do we mandate sharing.
allow for a range of open outcomes and licenses, or require only
the most liberal licenses? Do we mandate immediate haring or
allow researchers time to analyze their data before first?
52. Truly work
together
There are no “let’s let someone else
decide” options with open. Open access,
open science, open data, and other
movements all have different perspectives
and priorities. An open science led effort
makes no sense for humanities researchers;
an open access led effort makes no sense
for open data. And here again, there are no
one-size-fits-all answers, and the impacts of
our policies will vary by field, region, type of
open, and more.
53. Do more to involve
researchers
1. Researchers care about open insofar as it can help
improve the quality, reach and impact of their work.
2. Researchers are central. They are the group that
generates new knowledge, are arguably the primary
consumers of this knowledge, and their ability to access and
reuse this knowledge should be the key driver in this effort.
3. Researcher voices have been underrepresented in
open efforts. Our open efforts to date have mostly involved
handing the research community mandates they didn’t
design.
4. Researchers have a wide variety of motives for doing
open. By portraying open as a movement where everyone
has the same motives, we ignore those who are not
motivated, or who are concerned about the real or potential
negative consequences of current approaches to open.
54. Set more
realistic
expectations
We need to be wary of claims
that open solutions are a
panacea for all that ails
research. They aren’t. There
are many connected issues
that need to be worked on in
parallel.
Integrity
Reliability
Peer review
Policy
Funding
Access
OPEN
SOLUTIONS
Embargoes
Equity
Predatory
Impact
factors
Tenure
evaluation
55. Value evidence…
• Listen to and build on researcher needs.
Researchers have many concerns about open, and
also many workable solutions.
• Learn from what’s actually happening in the
open space. Some of the most successful open
models don’t fit our narrative of what open is
“supposed” to look like (some of these are
described later in this presentation).
• Focus on broad narratives like good data,
common open solutions, and common goals instead
of on specific technical and licensing requirements.
56. …and gather more of it
We act as though we know all
there is to know about open, and
work backward, pounding square peg
open solutions into the round holes of
researcher needs and concerns. In the
process, we aren’t finding truths and
unlocking the real potential of open.
57. There are, for example,
several outstanding
examples of how real
data sharing is working
in today’s science
environment…
GenBank
58. …and a number of high-
profile success stories in
sharing science data…
Large
Hadron
Collider
59. We have also
learned a lot
about the pros
and cons of
various data
governance
structures
Mangravite, L., A Sen, JT Wilbanks. 2020. Mechanisms to Govern Responsible Sharing of Open Data: A Progress
Report https://sage-bionetworks.github.io/governanceGreenPaper/v/7ef288619fb46e6d9319433c64fbc5bef6250fe7/
60. And yet…
61
Despite all this evidence, OUR HIGH
GLOBAL OPEN EFFORTS OFTEN FOCUS
ON IDEOLOGICALLY-DRIVEN ONE-SIZE-
FITS-ALL SOLUTIONS that aren’t informed
by real-world data sharing models and lessons
of experience. We pursue these open policies
as though they are goals unto themselves, but
what are we actually accomplishing without
also breaking down the barriers to effective
data sharing and building up the necessary
capacity for sharing (including big investment
in infrastructure)?
61. Respect
diversity…
We can’t pick the “right” answers from this
diversity. Each answer important, and
contributes to the greater whole.
Trying to impose a rigid ideological order
on this diverse landscape will at best be
ineffectual, and at worst fracture the global
solution space and possibly even damage
parts of the research ecosystem (think, for
example, about HSS researchers being
forced to use STM-centric solutions).
Instead, we need a common-sense,
collaborative, experience-driven open
solutions policy to unite the disparate
elements in this space—an approach that
listens to all communities, embraces
diversity, nurtures growth and innovation
62. …and stop thinking of
“idealized open” as the
goal
1. Open is a means, not an end. It is a way to solve
problems and improve benefits.
2. Open is not an ideal. No open model is ever
universally and completely open.
3. Open has consequences. If we truly want open to
succeed, we cannot ignore the inequities or unintended
consequences it causes.
4. Open evolves. , It is not a static state that can be
defined once and for all time. As open evolves, it
creates other realities we need to face.
5. Openness requires collaboration. We must work
together to create real solutions—then and only then
can we unlock the vast potential of open to improve
science and society.
63. Embrace the diversity of open action
At universities:
• Establish science communication offices in universities and research institutes that help
solve the communication needs of researchers, and also share best practices
• Introduce science communication training for graduate students and professors
• Allocate a small percentage of grants for science communication goals
• Work to gradually begin reinventing tenure evaluation policies with regard to publishing
As a global community:
• Learn more about open of all kinds so we can work together to build better solutions
• Work to develop better impact metrics
• Work across fields, institutions, disciplines, and open solutions categories on issues like
climate change
• Think outside the box: Create a CC-EDU license, build an All-Scholarship Repository, etc.
• Think more in terms of the global universe of research outputs and not just academic
research. What are we missing? (Hint: Most of the stuff)
AND SUPPORT NEW WORK THAT MIGHT HELP
64. Recognize we’re all on the same team
This is all by way of saying that the open solutions universe
is broad and diverse, with huge need and potential but also
a wide range of issue and concerns that we should focus on
so that we can begin working together on a better future
for open. More often than not in this space, we tend to
pursue solutions at scale that don’t fit our unique needs and
concerns and reflect our broad diversity. So, we can and
should celebrate all the tremendous work being done in this
space, but we should also be cognizant of the big picture—
whether things are working out the way we intended, what
solutions are working best in the real world, regional
concerns that are getting swept under the rug, and so on.
If we can recognize that we’re on the same team
working together to create a better future for
science and society, the global effort will be much
better off and our open future will be much closer
and brighter.
ALLIES, NOT ENEMIES
65. Coming up…
The next speakers will go into more detail about this diversity of open and the future of
open.
1. Toby will talk about work to capture this missing universe of research data (and remember, in
terms of R&D, MOST of this is done by industry and not by academia, even though most
publishing happens via academia).
2. Gabriella will talk about making open work in the global context
3. Jennifer will explain her experience of taking a scholarly society from zero to 60 on the open road
and what that entails and has revealed
4. Heather and Jason—leading open researchers and innovators—are going to talk about what
they’re going to spring on the world in the coming months
5. Alison will close out with a vision interview, with a focus on improving equity, infrastructure, and
culture change
66. In closing
Our future depends on protecting and
enhancing the future of scientific research.
Challenges like climate change, hunger,
poverty and pandemics all require that our
global research system operate as powerfully
and equitably as possible, as soon as possible.
These challenges also require that we work
together on solutions that make sense for
everyone everywhere. If we can do this, we’ll
win. At the same time, working together will
help lead science to new heights, and will help
our research ecosystem grow even more
powerful and beneficial then ever before.
This global community—our global
community—of governments, universities,
publishers, funders, researchers, and other
groups who are devoted to the future of
openness are well positioned to help. All we
need now is the strength to begin working
together.
67. Thank you!
Glenn Hampson
ghampson@nationalscience.org
Questions? Email Glenn Hampson
ghampson@nationalscience.org. See also the OSI website at osiglobal.org.
Cite as: Hampson, G. 2021. Our Open Future. Opening address for NISO
virtual conference on open research (November 17, 2021).
This presentation represents the views of the author and not necessarily
the views of SCI, OSI, UNESCO, or any individual or institution connected to
these organizations.
CC-BY-NC
68. About OSI
• The opinions of OSI are not representative of
all participants or their organizations.
• For more information, see osiglobal.org.
OSI (the Open Scholarship Initiative) is a
diverse, inclusive, global network of 450 high-
level experts and stakeholder representatives,
working together (as participants, alumni and
observers) and in partnership with UNESCO to
develop broadly accepted, comprehensive,
sustainable solutions to the future of open
scholarship that work for everyone everywhere.
69. Source file
For more detail on the points
summarized in this slide show, please
see OSI Policy Paper 4, “Open
Solutions.” The full text of this report is
available from the OSI website at
osiglobal.org. The recommended
citation for this work is:
Hampson, G, M DeSart, L Kamerlin, R Johnson, H Hanahoe, A
Nurnberger and C Graf. 2021. OSI Policy Perspective
4: Open Solutions: Unifying the meaning of open and designing a
new global open solutions policy framework. Open Scholarship
Initiative. January 2021 edition. doi: 10.13021/osi2020.2930
70. Other key
sources and
reading
Archambault, E. 2018. Universalisation of OA scientific dissemination. https://www.slideshare.net/scielo/2-eric-archambault
Björk, BC. 2018. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017. PeerJ 2018; 6: e4357. nces May 2018, 115 (19) 4887-4890. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115
Bosch Stiftung. 2019. 14th Berlin Debate on Science and Science Policy Who Owns Science? Reshaping the Scientific Value Chain in the 21st Century. Conference report.
https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/en/project/berlin-science-debate/berlin-debate-2019
Cousijn, H, A Kenall, E Ganley, et al. 2018/ A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers. Sci Data 5, 180259. doi: org/10.1038/sdata.2018.259
Dalton, E, C Tenopir, and BC Bjork. 2020. Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals. Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.
73–100
Davies, T, SB Walker, M Rubinstein, and F Perini (eds). 2019. The State of Open Data: Histories and Horizons. African Minds, IDRC. ISBN 9781928331957. Book pdf from
https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/state-open-data-histories-and-horizons. HTML rendition at https://www.stateofopendata.od4d.net/
Digital Science. 2019. The State of Open Data. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.9980783
European Commission (EC). 2017. Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practice Open Science.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/os_skills_wgreport.pdf
European Union (EU). 2018. The Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Fecher, B, and S Friesike. 2013. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2272036
Hampson, G, M DeSart, J Steinhauer, EA Gadd, LJ Hinchliffe, M Vandegrift, C Erdmann, and R Johnson. 2020b (June). OSI Policy Perspective 3: Open science roadmap
recommendations to UNESCO. Open Scholarship Initiative. doi: 10.13021/osi2020.2735
Holdren, J. 2013. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). https://bit.ly/3m5NzAG
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2015. Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18998.
Korn, N, and C Oppenheim, C. 2011 (June). Licensing Open Data: A Practical Guide (v. 2.0). JISC circular.
http://discovery.ac.uk/files/pdf/Licensing_Open_Data_A_Practical_Guide.pdf
McNutt, M. 2019 (Jan). Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
201900359. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900359116
Moore, Samuel A. 2017. A Genealogy of Open Access: Negotiations between Openness and Access to Research. Revue Française Des Sciences de l’information et de La
Communication, no. 11 (August). doi: 10.4000/rfsic.3220
NAS. 2018. Open Science by Design. doi: 10.17226/25116
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2020. Reflections on Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Challenges and a Way Forward. Workshop
proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
NIH. 2020 (Feb). NIH Workshop on the Role of Generalist and Institutional Repositories to Enhance Data Discoverability and Reuse. https://datascience.nih.gov/data-
ecosystem/NIH-data-repository-workshop
Pinfield, S, S Wakeling, D Bawden, and L Robinson. 2020. Open Access in Theory and Practice: The Theory-Practice Relationship and Openness. Routledge.
Piwowar, H, J Priem, V Larivière, JP Alperin, L Matthias, B Norlander, A Farley, J West, and S Haustein. 2018. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and
impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ 6:e4375. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4375
Poynder, R. 2019. Open access: Could defeat be snatched from the jaws of victory? https://richardpoynder.co.uk/Jaws.pdf
Scaria, AG, and R Shreyashi. 2018. Open Science India Report. OSF Preprints. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/aj9gw
Smith, M, and RK Seward (eds). 2020. Making open development inclusive: lessons from IDRC research. IDRC (MIT Press). ISBN 9780262539111
Taylor & Francis. 2019. Taylor & Francis Researcher Survey. https://bit.ly/3koHgrX
Tennant, J, JE Beamer, J Bosman, B Brembs, NC Chung, G Clement, T Crick, et al. 2019 (January). Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development. doi:
10.31222/osf.io/b4v8p
UNESCO. 2018. World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development. ISBN 978-92-3-100242-7
Wootton, D. 2015. The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution. HarperCollins
Worlock, D. 2020 (Dec 7). Scholarly Communication Re-Invented. Keynote presentation to the 2020 Frankfurt Academic Conference, “A New Era for Academic Publishing in
Europe and the US.” https://bit.ly/39RWYcI
71