Download as PDF, PPTX
![Grant Agreement: § 29.2 Open access
to scientific publications
Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications
relating to its results.
In particular, it must:
(a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or
final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications;
Moreover, the beneficiary must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the
deposited scientific publications.
(b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest:
(i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or
(ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other
case.
(c) ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication.
The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following:
- the terms ["European Union (EU)" and "Horizon 2020"]["Euratom" and Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018"];
- the name of the action, acronym and grant number;
- the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and
- a persistent identifier.
14](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/openairestockholm-schmidt-180615134919/75/Open-Science-14-2048.jpg)
Open Science
The document provides an overview of how OpenAIRE can help with the Horizon2020 Open Access mandate regarding publications and research data. OpenAIRE operates a support network across Europe to assist with open access training, policy development, technical assistance, and more. It also maintains an integrated scientific information system that aggregates metadata from repositories, publications, datasets, and more. The document discusses OpenAIRE's infrastructure and services, the current state of open access for FP7 and H2020 projects, and provides guidance on open access requirements and best practices for publications and research data under Horizon2020.
More Related Content
More from Kungliga biblioteket National Library of Sweden
Open Science
- 1. Horizon2020 Open Accessmandate on publications and research data How OpenAIRE can help: infrastructure & support Birgit Schmidt State and University Library, University of Göttingen @bschmid1 @openaire_eu
- 2. Overview • Introduction &context of OpenAIRE • Open Access to publications • Open research data • What assistance does OpenAIRE provide 2
- 3. EC Open AccessMandate Progression FP7 (2008) • 20% programme areas • Deposit in Repositories • APC payments during project • ERC OA Guidelines Horizon 2020 (2014) • 100% programme areas • Deposit in Repositories • APCs during and after project • Open Data Pilot (100% from 2017) 3
- 4. From Open Accessto Open Science 4 Aim: To open up scientific processes and products from all levels to everyone … • Open Access (publications, data, software, educational resources) • Open Methodology (open notebooks, study preregistration) • Citizen Science • Open Evaluation / Open Peer Review
- 5. 5 OpenAIRE Dec. 2009 –Nov. 2012 OpenAIREplus Dec. 2011 – Dec. 2014 OpenAIRE2020 Jan. 2015 – Jun. 2018 Now in our third project phase …
- 6. Human Network 50 Partners fromevery EU country, and beyond Data centers, universities, libraries, repositories, legal experts Digital Network … fosters the social and technical links that enable Open Science in Europe and beyond 6
- 7. Human Infrastructure • Localsupport for Europe’s diverse research landscape 7 Human support network • 33 expert nodes all over Europe to help with: • OA training and support • OA policy development • Technical assistance • World-wide synergies
- 8. Integrated Scientific InformationSystem Access to 17.7+ mi unique publications (80% full text) 31+ K datasets linked to publications 800 validated data providers 500Κ publications linked to projects from 12 funders 3.5K links to software repositoriesOrganizationsProjects AuthorsDatasets Publications Data Providers 8
- 9. Literature Repositories OA Journals Funding Info Validation Cleaning De-duplicating Inferring Linking Organiz- ations Projects AuthorsDatasets Publica- tions Data Providers … Monitoring Reporting Evaluation Impact Classification Clustering Analysis CRISsystems An EU-CRIS system Data Repositories Metadata Full text Usage data Discovery Crowdsourcing APIs Trends Aggregators Enriching ServicesOpenAIRE PlatformData Providers 9
- 10. What‘s the currentstate of Open Access for FP7 and H2020? • FP7: 62% OA success rate for 193K identified publications. Of these about one third (34%) was published in gold OA (both pure OA journals and hybrid journals, where applicable with publication fees). (Somewhat higher for: ERC funded-researchers with 67% OA and EC SC39 projects with 71% OA) • H2020 so far: about 60% OA rate from the 6K identified publications, with an estimate of 37% of the OA set published in gold OA Note: The overall OA rate continues to grow as embargoes expire. In both programmes: deposition in repositories stays strong with a 60- 80% rate. 10
- 11. HOW TOS FOROPEN ACCESS TO PUBLICATIONS 11
- 12. OPEN ACCESS IS DEFAULTFOR PUBLICATIONS 12 Publications in H2020
- 13. Research results &their exploitation and/or dissemination The decision on whether to publish open access comes after the decision on whether to seek protection for intellectual property rights. We‘ll concentrate on cases where the researchers have decided to publish their results. IPR Helpdesk, Factsheet Open access to publications and data in Horizon 2020 https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Open_Access_in_H2020_0.pdf 13
- 14. Grant Agreement: §29.2 Open access to scientific publications Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results. In particular, it must: (a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications; Moreover, the beneficiary must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications. (b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest: (i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or (ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case. (c) ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication. The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following: - the terms ["European Union (EU)" and "Horizon 2020"]["Euratom" and Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018"]; - the name of the action, acronym and grant number; - the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and - a persistent identifier. 14
- 15. OA mandate ina nutshell: § 29.2 Open access to publications Each beneficiary must ensure open access to all scientific publications relating to its results How? Deposit a machine-readable copy of the published version or final peer-review manuscript in a repository for scientific publications When? Deposit as soon as possible and at the latest on publication Ensure open access to the publication: (i) immediately if the publication is published Open Access with a publisher, (ii) within 6 resp. 12 months (STM resp. HSS) Acknowledgment of funding (acronym, grant agreement number etc.) in the publication and bibliographic metadata 15
- 16. Where to deposit •Institutional repository OR • Disciplinary repository (arXiv, Europe PubMed Central, etc.) OR • Zenodo (www.zenodo.org) if none of the above is available – a EC-cofunded, multidisciplinary repository, for publications & data Remarks: • ERC: • Strong recommendation to use disciplinary repositories (agreements with arXiv and Europe PMC) • Deposit of books as well (endorsement of and agreement with the OAPEN library) • Finding a repository: via registries e.g. OpenDOAR http://www.opendoar.org/ or via OpenAIRE >> Why via repositories? OpenAIRE harvests and aggregates metadata from repositories and several publishers and displays the result by project 16
- 17. Researcher decides where to publish CheckSHERPA RoMEO to see what OA and self-archiving options are available www.sherpa.ac.uk/rom eo Publish in a subscription- based journal Publish in an open access journal IF OPTION EXISTS e.g. a ‘hybrid’ journal (a subscription-based journal that has a paid open access option) Immediate open access (via publisher) Immediate open access (via publisher) Pay Article Processing Charge (APC) Pay Article Processing Charge (APC) - if required Self-archive in a repository, based on publisher policy. Immediate or delayed open access, depending on publisher’s policy Search for a repository http://service.re3data.org/se arch or http://opendoar.org/ GOLD OA ROUTE GREEN OA ROUTE Adapted from Sarah Jones, see also: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/blog/fostering-open-science Opportunities in Open Science, Stockholm, 19 January 2017 17
- 18. What are projectsexpected to do? Start planning early on. 18 • During proposal writing phase • Outline of dissemination and exploitation strategy, including OA >> impact section of the proposal (how will results be shared, data be managed and shared?) • Include resources for publication costs (what journals, how many publications, what does it cost on average?) • Combine GREEN/GOLD strategies to achieve maximum of OA • During the project • Additional provisions in the Consortium Agreement? (where to deposit, who is responsible) • Implementation of the dissemination strategy, report at reviews and update • What issues occur and how can they be solved? (publisher embargos, repositories for specific material, etc.) • After the project end • Are there publications foreseen after the ending of the project (ie which will not be covered by the budget) – for post-FP7 project publications there is a pilot (funds granted by the EC, managed by OpenAIRE) • Who takes care of deposit in repositories after the project end?
- 19. Typical questions • Whatrole does Open Access play in the review of proposal/projects? At all stages: Take it seriously, standard formulations are not sufficient. • What budget should be added for publishing? Publishing in OA journals: c 1,500 EUR / paper, hybrid journals c 1,980 EUR / paper (average values!) How about monographs? c 3,000 – 10,000 EUR / book – needs to be checked with the targeted publishers • What about longer embargo periods? An obligation not just a best effort applies. The EC / ERC may apply sanctions in the future. • How about publications after the project end? These have to be covered too. Regarding publication costs: still ongoing FP7-post grant publication fund in OpenAIRE (pilot, for 2 years) • Helpdesks: • OpenAIRE Helpdesk, FAQs, Factsheets etc. https://www.openaire.eu/support/helpdesk • IPR Helpdesk https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/ 19
- 20. Targeted journals &publication strategy 1. List of targeted journals Project X • Ocean Science • Journal of Climate • Climate Dynamics • Progress in Oceanography 2. Look up the OA conditions (via SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php) 3. List all OA repositories that the consortium will be using 4. Decide as a consortium for which journals which strategy will be used (deposit + traditional, deposit + gold OA, deposit + hybrid OA) 5. Keep the information up to date. 20
- 21. Look up self-depositconditions 21 21
- 22. Example #1: NACLIM 22 Listof publications as discovered by OpenAIRE 22 Status as of 2015-09-09 22
- 23. More on theproject website but… Post-print sits in the website‘s CMS, ie non-permanent link, can‘t be cited nor metadata be harvested Check which version of the article can be deposited in repositories 23
- 24. OA Conditions oftargeted journals • Ocean Science and Open Science Discussions, Copernicus – OA journal, CC licensed, moderate APC • PLoS ONE – OA journal, CC licensed • Física de la Tierra – Open Access but no clear license information >> need to check with publisher • Geophysical Research Letters – postprint on author/department website, publisher’s PDF must be used in instutional repository 6m after publication • Journal of Climate, American Meterological Society – hybrid OA $800, publisher’s PDF must be used in instutional repository 6m after publication • Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, American Geophysical Union, Wiley – publisher’s PDF must be used in instutional repository 6m after publication • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres: deposit of postprint in repositories, publisher’s PDF must be used in institutional repository 6m after publication • Global Change Biology, Blackwell – hybrid OA $3,000, deposit of postprint in institutional repository (12m embargo) • Climate Dynamics, Springer – hybrid OA 2,200 EUR, postprint can be deposited (12m embargo) • Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meterological Society, Wiley – hybrid OA $3,000, deposit of postprints in repositories, use of publisher’s version after 36m embargo • Progress in Oceanography, Elsevier – hybrid OA $3,300, immediate deposit in a few disciplinary repositories (arXiv, RePEc), deposit in institutional repositories typically 12-48m embargo, or the author pays the hybrid OA fee Via SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php (search for journal name or ISSN) OA Journals EC mandate compatible journals Non-compatible journals – at least if you don‘t use the hybrid OA option 24
- 25.
- 26. 26 Status as of2017-01-10
- 27. Example #2: AMARSI •OpenAIRE records 112 publications – of these c 68% are OA, 32% closed access • Project website lists 200+ publications • The project has closed in February 2014 27
- 28. FP7 Post-Grant Open AccessPilot • Pilot runs for two years (until 30 April 2017) • Provides funding to cover the OA publishing fees for publications arising from completed FP7 projects • 4 million euros are made available by the EC to fund the OA “post-grant” publications of over 8,000 completed FP7 projects • No hybrid journals; 2000 EUR cap on APCs; max 3 pubs per project • Up to 6000 EUR per monograph https://postgrantoapilot.openaire.eu/ Opportunities in Open Science, Stockholm, 19 January 2017
- 29. FP7 postgrant publicationfunds 29
- 30. 1. Funding requestsmay be directly submitted by researchers or delivered by Libraries and/or Research Offices on their behalf 2. Users need to register with the Central System in order to submit a funding request 3. Data about the project and the accepted publication will be requested in order to check their eligibility. Once this is checked, the funding request will be approved and left pending until an invoice is available 4. Invoice for the OA publishing fee needs to be uploaded into the Central System when made available by the publisher. The invoice must be issued to Athena Research Centre (ARC). How to Apply for Funding 30
- 31. Uptake of thepilot Running until April 2017 31 • 635 publications from 493 projects have been approved for funding since 1/1/2015. • A total of 895k EUR has been paid for APCs, with an average of 1,613 EUR per publication: • 519 articles with an average of 1,448 EUR • 24 books with an average of 5,379 EUR • 9 book chapters with an average of 1,259 EUR
- 32.
- 33. Interim summary • Librariansprovide assistance for checking journals and publication costs (beware of low-quality journals) • Project websites or Research Gate are not sufficient (not OA) • Consider sharing early, preprints are an option via repositories and publishers (but there is no requirement) 33
- 34. HOW TOS FORRESEARCH DATA 34
- 35. AS OPEN AS POSSIBLEAS CLOSED AS NECESSARY 35 Research data in H2020
- 36. Why open accessand open data? “The European Commission’s vision is that information already paid for by the public purse should not be paid for again each time it is accessed or used, and that it should benefit European companies and citizens to the full.” http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h20 20/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot- guide_en.pdf 36 Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 36
- 37. Mandatory, with afew exceptions The Open Research Data Pilot applies to all thematic areas of Horizon 2020 from the start of the 2017 work programme. A few instruments are excluded: • "co-fund" and "prizes" instruments • "ERC proof of concept" grants • "ERA-Nets" that do not produce data • SME instrument, phase 1 37
- 38. What is researchdata? ‘Research data’ refers to information, in particular facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered as a basis for reasoning, discussion or calculation. In a research context, examples of data include statistics, results of experiments, measurements, observations resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview recordings and images. The focus is on research data that is available in digital form. Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020 v.1.0, 11 December 2013, Footnote 5, p3 Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 38
- 39. What is opendata? Openly accessible research data can typically be accessed, mined, exploited, reproduced and disseminated, free of charge for the user. Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020, p3 make your stuff available on the Web (whatever format) under an open licence make it available as structured data (e.g. Excel instead of a scan of a table) use non-proprietary formats (e.g. CSV instead of Excel) use URIs to denote things, so that people can point at your stuff link your data to other data to provide context Tim Berners-Lee’s proposal for five star open data - http://5stardata.info Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 39
- 40. What does FAIRdata management mean? F = Findable Making data findable, including provisions for metadata A = Accessible Making data openly accessible, e.g. by deposit in a repository I = Interoperable Making data interoperable, by allowing data exchange and re-use, adhering to standards (data formats, software applications) R = Re-useable Increase data re-use, e.g. through licences which permit wide re-use http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf 40
- 41. Which data doesthe pilot apply to? • Data, including associated metadata, needed to validate the results in scientific publications • Other curated and/or raw data, including associated metadata, as specified in the DMP Doesn’t apply to all data (researchers to define as appropriate) Don’t have to share data if inappropriate – exemptions apply Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 41
- 42. Exemptions – reasonsfor opting out • If results are expected to be commercially or industrially exploited • If participation is incompatible with the need for confidentiality in connection with security issues • Incompatible with existing rules on the protection of personal data • Would jeopardise the achievement of the main aim of the action • If the project will not generate / collect any research data • If there are other legitimate reason to not take part in the Pilot Can opt out at proposal stage OR during lifetime of project. Should describe issues in the project Data Management Plan. Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 42
- 43. 43 ORD pilot coreareas • Proposal stage: Out of 7869 proposals in the ORD core areas 66.3% stayed in the pilot,18.2% opted out (main reasons: IPR protection, privacy, no data generated) and 15.5% did not answer the question • Funded projects: Of the 431 funded projects 34.6% opted out Calls not in the core areas • Funded projects: Out of the calls not in the core areas of the ORD pilot 11.8% opted in (388 out of 3268 funded projects)
- 44. Requirements of the opendata pilot 1. Develop (and update) a Data Management Plan 2. Deposit in a research data repository 3. Make it possible for third parties to access, mine, exploit, reproduce and disseminate data – free of charge for any user 4. Provide information on the tools and instruments needed to validate the results (or provide the tools) Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 44
- 45. Develop a DataManagement Plan Not a fixed document – should evolve and gain precision • Deliver first version within initial 6 months of project • More elaborate versions whenever important changes to the project occur. • At least at the mid-term and final review. Templates provided. Note that the Commission does NOT require applicants to submit a DMP at the proposal stage. A DMP is therefore NOT part of the evaluation. However, all project proposals submitted to e.g. “Research and Innovation actions” (RIA), “Innovation actions” (IA), and “Community and Support Actions” (CSA) include a section on research data management which is evaluated under the criterion “Impact”. (Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions: calls until 25 July participate in the ODP on a voluntary basis, after Article 29.3 of the Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement applies.) Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020, v.3.0, 26 July 2016 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 45
- 46. A starting point:Impact section in proposals • What types of data will the project generate/collect? • What standards will be used? • How will this data be exploited and/or shared/made accessible for • verification and re-use? If data cannot be made available, explain why. • How will this data be curated and preserved? • How will the costs for data curation and preservation be covered? Basic questions to be answered (fleshed out later in the DMP) 46
- 47. Creating a DMP Basicstructure 1. Data summary 2. FAIR data: findable, accessible, interoperable, re-usable 3. Allocation of resources 4. Data security 5. Ethical aspects 6. Other (e.g. reference to national/funder/institutional procedures) 47
- 48. www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides/license-research-data Licensing research dataopenly This DCC guide outlines the pros and cons of each approach and gives practical advice on how to implement a data licence CREATIVE COMMONS LIMITATIONS NCNon-Commercial What counts as commercial? SA Share Alike Reduces interoperability NDNo Derivatives Severely restricts use These clauses are not open licenses Horizon 2020 Open Access guidelines point to: or Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 48
- 49. Where to deposit:Data repositories http://service.re3data.org/search Zenodo • OpenAIRE-CERN joint effort • Multidisciplinary repository • Multiple data types – Publications – Long tail of research data • Citable data (DOI) • Links funding, publications, data & software www.zenodo.org Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 49
- 50. Examples on whereto deposit data Institutional, disciplinary or general purpose repository 50
- 51. Enabling discovery: Metadataand documentation Metadata: basic info e.g. title, author, dates, access rights... Documentation: methods, code, data dictionary, context... Use standards wherever possible for interoperability www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/metadata-standards Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 51
- 52. Enabling reuse: Datafile formats If researchers want their data to be re-used and sustainable in the long- term, they should opt for open, non-proprietary formats. Type Recommended Avoid for data sharing Tabular data CSV, TSV, SPSS portable Excel Text Plain text, HTML, RTF PDF/A only if layout matters Word Media Container: MP4, Ogg Codec: Theora, Dirac, FLAC Quicktime H264 Images TIFF, JPEG2000, PNG GIF, JPG Structured data XML, RDF RDBMS Further examples: www.data-archive.ac.uk/create-manage/format/formats-table Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 52
- 53. Provide info ontools needed for validation Need to share much more than just the data for research to be reproducible... Difficult to validate data if you’re missing info on the steps between the initial idea and end results Slide adapted from: S Jones, DCC, FOSTER 53
- 54.
- 55. OpenAIRE helpdesk– direct point of contact for all H2020 and Open Science questions Regular webinars on meeting H2020 Open Science requirements and other key Open Science topics Workshops (~workshops in OpenAIRE2020) on open access, open data, Open Peer Review, measuring OA impact, etc. Factsheets, briefing papers & FAQs for researchers, research administrators, project coordinators & data providers Updates on Open Science via monthly newsletter and blog: • https://www.openaire.eu/newsletter/view • https://blogs.openaire.eu/ 55 Training, support and dissemination 55
- 56.
- 57. 57 The open repositoryfor all research objects zenodo.org
- 58.
- 59. Supporting the OpenData Pilot: Training & Support Materials • Briefing papers, factsheets, webinars, workshops, FAQs • Information on: • Open Research Data Pilot • Creating a DMP • Selecting a data repository • https://www.openaire.eu/opendatapilot • https://www.openaire.eu/support • https://www.openaire.eu/services-factsheets 59
- 60.
- 61. 61 Research and developmentinto new trends in scholarly communication • Linked Open Data • Legal issues in Open Data • Data Citation • Literature-Data Integration • OA Metrics • Open Peer Review New in OpenAIRE2020
- 62. What‘s next forthe Open Science agenda? • Expanding Open Science topics • EU copyright reform: Exceptions for Text and Data Mining (TDM) • ERC will commission a study on researchers‘ attitudes towards Open Science policies and practices and on how to step up assistance • Funders increasingly endorse preprints and alternative routes of publishing (e.g. Wellcome Trust, MRC) • Open Science Policy Platform (EOSPP) • High-level expert group, works on recommendations • Working group on Altmetrics in place, further will be created in 2017 • Consolidating and bridging eInfrastructures • European Open Science Cloud: High-level expert group provides advice to the EC; EOSCpilot project starting in Jan 2017 • Sustaining eInfrastructures and filling gaps • Linking up to Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) activities • Combine efforts in order to strengthen institutional/organisational uptake For an official view, see: DG RTD, Draft European Open Science Agenda, February 2016, EOSPP, http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-policy-platform A selection of current activities 62
- 63.
- 64. ERC Open Access Sameprinciples, with some specific recommendations 64
- 65. OPENAIRE‘S OPEN PEER REVIEWSTUDY 65
- 66. Why did OpenAIRElook into Open Peer Review? • Peer Review is still widely considered as the foundation for safeguarding quality of and therefore trust in published research – but it has several flaws, e.g. intransparency, social and publication bias (positive findings preferred!) • Open Peer Review claims to fix several of these issues but it comes in various sometimes confusing flavours • Strategy of the OpenAIRE study • Clearly define OPR based on its core properties, e.g. Open Reports, Open Identities, Open Participation >> literature review • Commission 3 OPR experiments and collect lessons learned • Community workshops • Study OPR perceptions and practices >> online survey Opening up review and communication processes 66
- 67. Open Peer Review Modulefor repositories • OPR Plug-in für Repositories (DSpace) • Open Reports • Open IDs • OPR plug-in for (DSpace) repositories to convert them into functional evaluation platforms • Includes published reviews, disclosed identities, reviewer reputation system • Complete code, with full documentation, available on Github under an open license: • https://github.com/arvoConsultores/Open-Peer-Review-Module 67
- 68. • Integration withZenodo • Capturing reviews from “journal clubs” • Experiment with small financial incentives • 68
- 69. • French journal •Blog platform hypotheses.org used for publishing and open peer review, hypothes.is annotation Plugin for comments • Not a technical but a social challenge (invitation to review is essential) 69
- 70. Findings from theOPR survey • Online survey, 8 September – 7 October 2016 • Disseminated via mailing lists, publishers‘ newsletters and contacts • Aims: • Exploration of author attitudes towards peer review, openness in various facets • Views on terminology/definition • Experiences with different aspects of openness • Over 3,000 responses received, primarily from STM research areas • High number of respondents with experiences in open peer review … as editor 19.4% (594 of 3062) … as author 63% (1930) … as publisher 2.2% (68) … as reviewer 59.1% (1808) 70
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 76. Outlook • Further researchand experimentation is needed, in different context (research data, conferences, books, proposals, etc.) • Uncouple review from publishing? (federated trusted services) • Common language and standards? • Disciplinary areas, publication types – some commonalities, but also different needs to be taken into account • What kind of openness works in which context • How effective are the services • How can reviewers be rewarded (e.g. on CVs / researcher profiles) • Citation of review reports? 76