- 06 Sep
- 07 Sep
- 08 Sep
- 09 Sep
- 10 Sep
Session 1: Scholarly Publishing
Scholarly publishing is highly diverse and constantly changing. Over the previous decades it has responded to a number of large challenges on the global and local levels. In this session we aim to take a snapshot of the current status of the industry with a global perspective and explore emerging models of open publishing. Which open access strategies can work together, and which lead to conflict? How do we value the diversity of models, and where do we need clear and more uniform strategies? What challenges do scholar-led, community-owned publishing initiatives face? What impact can we expect from transformative agreements and other big deals in the different regions of the world? Are the Plan S principles applicable worldwide, are they necessary or sufficient? How sustainable are existing open access strategies and business models?
Funding the future: the role of diamond in sustainable, full and fair open access
In 2020, cOAlition S commissioned a study to gain insights into the OA publishing landscape of diamond journals and platforms, which are free to readers and authors. The research, conducted by a group of 10 organizations lead by OPERAS, aggregated data from an online survey that gathered around 1600 responses from journal editors across the globe, a quantitative analysis of data from bibliographical databases and a qualitative analysis based on focus groups of journal editors and interviews with infrastructure providers.
The findings of the study point to a wide archipelago of relatively small journals serving diverse communities, with a mix of scientific strengths and operational challenges (including compliance with funder mandates) and an economy that is characterized by a large dependency on volunteers, universities and governments, modest publishing costs and a variety of funding models.
In this presentation, we will discuss the various recommendations of the study to increase the capacity of community-driven/governed journals and platforms, connecting them and technically supporting them in a coordinated way. We call upon funders to consistently finance the operations of diamond journals and platforms and invest in the future of diamond OA.
We connect this plea for support for diamond open access to the bigger theme of the conference by suggesting some concrete ways towards full and fair open access based on a much larger role of diamond.
China's ambitious plan to establish world-class STM journals
Two years ago, China triggered an “Excellence Action Plan” to help China-based STM journals further enhance their international impact. In 2019, 20 journals were selected as "leading journals" and will be charged with the goal of ranking among the world’s top STM journals within 5 years. Besides those, 30 "key journals" and 200 "emerging journals" were selected to improve international editorial practices, service capabilities, international communication, etc. Furthermore, for each year between 2019 and 2023, China will choose and launch 30 new titles as “high potential journals” based on China’s priority research fields. This presentation will introduce more details and some achievements of this ambitious plan.
Le développement des presses universitaires sénégalaises : enjeux et perspectives pour un envol de l’Open Acces au Sénégal - Development of Senegalese university presses: issues and perspectives for development of Open Access in Senegal
Les établissements d’enseignement supérieur jouent un rôle primordial dans le développement socio-économique en raison de leur triple mission : (1) assurer la formation aux études supérieures d’une portion de plus en plus large de la population, (2) promouvoir la Recherche scientifique et (3) réaliser des services à la communauté. C’est dans un tel contexte que l’Etat du Sénégal a décidé, en 2000, d’octroyer des moyens substantiels à l’Education en général et à l’Enseignement Supérieur en particulier par un financement public de près de 11 % du budget national alors que la moyenne africaine se situe actuellement autour 3,8%.
Ce dernier axe a été renforcé par la signature du Projet de Gouvernance et de Financement de l’Enseignement Supérieur axé sur les résultats (PGF-Sup), entre le gouvernement du Sénégal et la Banque Mondiale, en mai 2011 Le PGF-Sup a été financé à hauteur de 50,6 milliards FCFA (101.3 millions USD). Le Gouvernement du Sénégal a affecté à la sous-composante « financement basé sur des contrats de performance » la somme de 21,5 milliards FCFA (43 millions USD).
Toutefois, au bout des quatre années d’exécution du contrat de performance, les universités sénégalaises n’ont pas atteint l’indicateur de « publication de manuels et de fascicules » par le Personnel d’Enseignement et de Recherche (PER). L’activité d’Enseignement semble ainsi prendre le dessus, au sein du campus universitaire, sur celle de la Recherche et de la publication scientifique malgré l’accent mis par la réforme LMD (Licence-Master-Doctorat) sur l’importance de la documentation scientifique dans les syllabi de cours (bibliographie obligatoire) et les Travaux Personnels des Etudiants (TPE). Pourtant dans le paysage editorial on eu : Les presses universitaires de Dakar PUD mises en place par l’arrêté rectoral n° 626 du 2 Septembre 1991 La Direction des Presses universitaires de Saint Louis (PUS) créés en 2007 Université SAHEL en 2000. Création et missions des PUB en mars 2015. 4 presses sur 12 universités. Soit 0.33 pour cent.
Les PUB constituent un support institutionnel pour la valorisation de la Recherche et pour l’édition et la diffusion des travaux scientifiques et didactiques. Un règlement intérieur précise le fonctionnement pratique des PUB. Les pub ont lancé un appel à candidature et a reçu près de 25 demande de publications au bout des procédures de publication, A Bambey par exemple : on a retenu 14 publications mais malgré tous les efforts et un voyage de mise à niveau du président du conseil scientifique et du secrétaire administratif, les choses sont restées au point l’université n’a pas les moyens de publier les ouvrages des enseignants. Réel problématique, les services de l’état sollicités n’ont pas pu aussi faire face. Que faire farce à ce problème de manque de moyens ? Peut-on laisser les enseignants se faire publier ailleurs, En Europe par exemple, quel genres de stratégies peut-on mettre en place pour un circuit d’édition e faveur de la recherche au Sénégal et qui favorise le libre accès?
Higher education institutions play a primary role in socio-economic development due to their three-fold mission: (1) Providing advanced training and education to an increasing proportion of the population, (2) promoting scientific research, (3) providing services to the wider community. In this context, in the year 2000 Senegal decided to grant a significant means of education in general, and higher education in particular, through public financing close to 11% of the national budget, which compares to an average acros Africa of around 3.8%. This was reinforced by Project for Governance and Finance of Higher Education based on results (PGF-Sup), signed between the senegalese government and the World Bank in May 2011. The PGF-Sup was supported financially with 50.6 billion FCFA (101.3 million USD). The Government of Senegal has allocated the sum of CFAF 21.5 billion (USD 43 million) to the “financing based on performance contracts” sub-component.
However, at the end of the four years of performance of the performance contract, Senegalese universities have not achieved the aim of "publication of textbooks and booklets" by teaching and research staff (PER). Teaching therefore seems to have a higher priority on university campuses, above that of research and scientific publication, despite the emphasis placed by the LMD (Masters and Doctoral training) reform on the importance of scientific documentation in course syllabi and the work of students (TPE).
Meanwhile, on the editorial side:
The Dakar PUD university press was set up by rectoral decree No. 626 of September 2, 1991. The University Press of Saint Louis (PUS) was created in 2007, and for SAHEL University in 2000. The creation and mission of PUB was established in March 2015.
In other words, 4 presses in 12 universities: 33 percent.
PUBs provides institutional support for the promotion of research and for the publication and dissemination of scientific and didactic work. Internal regulations specify the functions of PUBs. A call for applications received nearly 25 requests which are ready for publication.
In Bambey, for example: we have retained 14 publications. Despite these efforts and a visit to request support from the president of the scientific council and the administrative secretary, things have remained at this point and the university does not have the means to publish the teachers' books.
This is very problematic, and the national agencies to which requests have been made have not been able to respond. What can we do about this lack of resources? Should we let teachers publish elsewhere, in Europe for example, and what kind of strategies can we put in place for a publishing operation that favors research in Senegal and promotes open access?
Coffee break and Music
‘Scaling Small’: A strategy to support scholar-led, open access book publishing
Open access (OA) book publishing is undergoing a period of transition. While scholar-led presses have long been at the forefront of OA book publishing, developing innovative business models and publication workflows and advocating for a broader shift to OA, larger commercial and university presses are now beginning to take OA books seriously. Community-led approaches such as the ScholarLed consortium and the Radical Open Access Collective may be threatened by the emergent trend towards 'big deals' and 'transformative' agreements in the OA book world, through which institutions and authors are encouraged to support only the ‘big players’ with money or manuscripts, potentially leaving smaller and academic-led presses out in the cold (e.g. see https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/new-open-access-book-partnership-with-uc-berkeley-library/18993926).
The ‘scaling small’ approach (see Adema & Moore, 2021, https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.918) offers one alternative to this monopolistic vision, focusing on collaboration between smaller, academic-led and non-profit entities to build systems and infrastructures that provide mutual support at multiple scales. This ‘scaling small’ philosophy is being put powerfully to work by the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project, a major three-year international project bringing together libraries, scholar-led OA publishers, researchers, and infrastructure providers to build open, non-profit, community-governed infrastructures to expand the publication of OA books.
COPIM, which includes members of both ScholarLed and the Radical Open Access Collective, is developing platforms and partnerships to address key technological, structural, and organisational hurdles around the funding, production, dissemination, discovery, reuse, and archiving of OA books. The project thus aims to build the structures that can sustain a diverse, scholar-led, not-for-profit OA publishing ecosystem according to the principle of ‘scaling small’. We are approaching the halfway point of our project and this paper will share insights into our progress so far, together with our plans for the next phase of our work, outlining how COPIM is putting ‘scaling small’ into action.
1) a non-profit, community-governed platform to facilitate the exchange of information and funding between libraries, OA book publishers, researchers and the wider public; 2) Opening the Future, a business model enabling the transition of legacy publishers to a non-BPC (book processing charge) OA business model; 3) the study and development of appropriate and robust governance models for non-profit, community-owned infrastructures; 4) Thoth, an open-source OA book metadata creation and dissemination system and service; 5) a report, toolset and use cases exploring the field of experimental book publishing practices, including a review of open-source tools and platforms; 6) technical and legal solutions to effectively archive and preserve complex digital research publications.
This paper will lay out these developments and the philosophy of the project as a whole, giving attendees at OAI 2021 valuable insight into a major new initiative supporting scholar-led OA for books. As Adema and Moore (2021) argue (building on the work of Anna Tsing): ‘scaling small’ can ‘be perceived “as a way to reconceptualize the world – and perhaps rebuild it”’.
See also: https://scholarled.org/ http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/ https://www.copim.ac.uk/ https://copim.pubpub.org/
Questions to a live Panel session with the speakers of today’s session
Session 2: Digital research data in the era of EOSC and FAIR
Data produced by public funds must be openly accessible and reusable: the European Open Science Cloud is the virtual environment in which researchers, innovators, service providers meet and create innovation for the benefit of society at large. FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data is the pillar of the European Open Science Cloud.
The COVID pandemic made clear the importance of Research Data sharing, in a fast and open way; fast data sharing enables discovery and can save lives . As data is the foundation of sound research, the crisis of reproducibility, although complex and thorny, can and will be overcome by virtue of encouraging and enabling researchers to share their RD in a FAIR way, as the Research Data pilot for Horizon 2020 underscored and Horizon Europe will reinforce.
By “data” we mean all materials and assets scholars collect, generate and use during all stages of the research cycle, in every discipline.
In this session we will aim to take a snapshot of what is happening around the issue of FAIR research data and their implementation according to disciplinary specificities. We will also explore the landscape for how things can be improved to support the sharing and re-use of data within the open research ecosystem and the European Open Science Cloud. As with open publishing, external factors include the rise of open access, a global pandemic, available tools and infrastructures, local research funding, and researcher assessment mechanisms, as well as rewarding.
FAIR data management and data sharing imply changing some practices in the everyday workflow.
Data as first-class citizens in the Science of the 21st century
The last science paradigm has marked the beginning of the e-Science, or Science 2.0: we are immersed in an enormous amount of data and are equipped with the computational resources and infrastructure needed to make sense of these data. However, the process of scholarly communication and especially the one of research evaluation need to still shift the focus from the traditional research outputs (aka, the paper) to data.
In this talk, I will make the case that the 21st century academic production can no longer be PDF-centric, but needs to look at data as first-class citizens of science, recognizing that the publishing system, as well as the assessment criteria, need to move towards dataset publication, citation, evaluation.
Making research data FAIR: the building of a CIDOC CRM extension for humanities and social sciences
This talk addresses the issue of interoperability of data generated by historical research in order to make them re-usable for new research agendas (as a realisation of the FAIR principles). The reasons for adopting the CIDOC CRM as a core ontology for this field, but extending it with some relevant, missing high-level classes, will be discussed while taking advantage of the methodological tools provided by the foundational ontologies DOLCE and DnS. Finally, the talk will show how collaborative data modelling carried out in the ontology management environment OntoME (ontome.net) makes it possible to elaborate a communal fine-grained and adaptive ontology of the domain.
Accelerating Open and FAIR Data Practices Across the Earth, Space, and Environmental Sciences
Data underlying published studies is difficult to find or access, which can hinder new scientific research. Currently, only about 20% of published papers have their supporting data in discoverable and accessible repositories. The AGU, working with our partners (Dryad, CHORUS, ESIP, Wiley), and supported by NSF grant 2025364, will focus on improving guidance and workflows to properly manage, link, and track data and software references throughout the publication pipeline. The resulting best practices will serve as a resource for AGU editors, reviewers and authors and help advance data and software publication policies. Beyond the AGU, this work will serve as a model for linking information across funders, data repositories and publishers, and improving public access to research outputs. In this talk, current publication practices as they relate to the FAIR principles will be described, together with lessons learned, and how workflows and guidance are being improved.
Coffee break and Music
FAIR Data Science in Africa on COVID-19 Prevalence
VODAN Africa has pioneered FAIR-Data Science for clinical patient and science data on COVID prevalence in nine countries in Africa. The concept is based on data visiting of data held in residence, and/or with strict data ownership controls. A return of data benefits to point of care is an explicit part of the model. The technical execution is based on data visiting of distributed data over the internet. The data is produced as both human and machine-readable instances. A proof of concept was realised in September 2020 and a Minimal Viable Product will be tested in September 2021. The approach resolved critical issues of data management in view of GDPR and the need for increased data protection in Africa which has suffered from data extraction, including in relation to health data. The research is a project if the Virus Outbreak data Network (VODAN) - Africa and Asia. It is coordinated by Kampala International University. It received seed funding from the Philips Foundation and support from the Dutch Development Bank, Philips Foundation, Cordaid and the Go-FAIR Foundation.
Questions to a live Panel session with the speakers of today’s session
Session 3: Changing times, challenging norms: How are changes in research practice re-shaping our thinking about what research integrity should be?
Often the language around ‘research integrity’ is focused on the behaviour of the individual researcher. Yet issues with research reproducibility and replicability are systemic. By re-focusing on the integrity of the research itself, rather than relying on ‘a few good people’, many of the issues will, if not completely disappear, be considerably less likely to occur. New institutional approaches to fostering reproducibility and research integrity are being developed. National research integrity networks in countries like Switzerland and the United Kingdom have been launched, and have generated initiatives like the Centre for Academic Research Quality and Improvement at Bristol University. Meanwhile, challenges to existing assumptions about research integrity continue to emerge. These are technological, as in the development of innovations which rely on opaque machine learning models or cultural and political such as evaluation frameworks which encourage ‘gaming’ in ways which dis-incentivise good practices and transparency. These pose new challenges to the already-problematic notion of ‘universal norms’ for science and research in a world of proliferating technology and every wider-networks of communication and collaboration.
This session brings together research practitioners who are grappling with these emerging challenges, and members of new institutions created to respond to them. We will learn about their work, and about the tensions and uncertainties which are changing the way we approach reproducibility and research integrity. The session will centre on discussion and debate, in which we will explore questions like: How are changes in research practice re-shaping our thinking about what research integrity should be? Does a focus on individual careers cause us to lose sight of the fact that research is a common endeavour? Can a broad definition of ‘openness’ help us to understand the myriad ways that ‘research integrity’ is evolving across disciplines and cultural groups? This will be a lively, informative and interesting session!
Incentivising sustainable and collaborative research
Working in a truly open, reproducible and inclusive way is not yet fully supported within modern research culture. Metrics, rewards and progression still focus on the publication record of the individual researcher and the end product of the research, instead of the process by which the research is conducted. For example, the sustainability of software and data which underpin research is vital to ensure the work is reproducible in the future and can be built upon, but is not sufficiently incentivised or supported. Emerging roles and ways of working highlight how unfit current measures of success in research are. Systemic solutions such as promoting collaborative ways of working and professionalising alternative but essential roles to support them, such as Research Software Engineers, Data Stewards and Community Managers, can lead to more sustainable, reproducible and efficient research.
Implementing Systems-level Reform: Institutional Change towards Transparency
In recent years, the academic community has evaluated the research ecosystem and identified key issues which undermine the trustworthiness of its output. With it, myriad suggestions, and solutions. Despite this, change is slow and well-meaning initiatives often have adverse reactions. This is because the process of determining a vision for an ideal research system and implementing it are altogether different challenges. Furthermore, research systems in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are substantially more heterogenous than in North America, Europe, and Australia. For example, in many countries in the Global South, research culture is still labile due to the sudden introduction of policies and unique incentive structures which champion research quantity .Thus many ideas generated in one research system do not translate well and vice versa. The question becomes given reach region's unique state, how do we champion process and institutional transparency? In this talk I discuss the different factors that affect how we approach each country, including but not limited to existing policies, centralisation of research authority, and inherent cultural beliefs. Further, I outline strategies for reform using Indonesia as an example, from a grassroots movement to influencing national infrastructure and policy.
Moving from Trust to Trustworthiness
Academia represents a paradox. On the one hand, many of the methods and techniques used across disciplines are cutting edge and constantly evolving. However, at the same time, our underlying cultures and working practices remain rooted in the 19th Century model of the independent researcher. Research groups are effectively small, artisanal businesses, each crafting outputs – often exquisite, but the product of the unique skills and processes of that group. This model risks poor reproducibility and replicability of research – closed workflows, closed data, use of proprietary file formats, and variability in skills across researchers. It also relies on trust – we have to trust that the researcher or group has fully disclosed all aspects of the process that generated an output. There is empirical evidence that this is not the case, a situation exacerbated by current incentive structures but also legacy systems such as journal article limits on word counts and display items – an echo of the print medium that is now largely defunct. However, existing technologies allow us to make transparent many (if not all) of the elements of a research workflow – protocols, data, code and so on. This transparency of process has the potential to make the system inherently more trustworthy, by allowing it to be scrutinised, thereby moving away from a model of trust in individuals.
Coffee break and Music
How trustworthy is ’science'?
During the past year, ’trusting the science’ and ‘following the science’ have become top of every news agenda as it has become abundantly clear that the pronouncements of scientists can mean life or death for millions of people. In reality, the outputs of the research community dramatically affect all our lives whether there is a pandemic or not: published research forms the basis of our medical treatments, economic decisions, development programmes, conservation initiatives and much, much more. But does academic research provide a firm enough base on which to build our world? This is the real definition of ‘research integrity’ - research that you can trust with your life. I venture to suggest that researchers in most disciplines would not bet their life on the predictions of their own field. To produce research with this level of integrity requires an approach different from that found in many disciplines today: a professionalisation of the research community, a clarification of goals and re-alignment of incentives, and the development of tools to match those goals and professional pathways.
Most young scientists are excited by the prospect of helping solve the world’s problems and ‘making a difference’. During their PhDs and onwards, most are taught instead that their aim should be to write scientific papers, the great majority of which will have minimal readerships and real-world impact. If we want our research base and our science to be truly trustworthy we need instead to continue to inspire and enable bright minds to come up with ideas, to test them exhaustively and work out how they can be used in the real world. We need sparks of creativity to meet relentless slog, sharp critique to meet appreciation and encouragement, practical experience to meet fresh perspectives. In short: a very different research culture. And I think that can be achieved through a relatively simple change in the way that research is shared.
Questions to a live Panel session with the speakers of today’s session
Session 4: Diversity, inclusion and collaboration
The conversation on innovation in scholarly communication is still very much dominated by white males from institutions from the Global North. We strongly believe that innovation in scholarly communication would benefit from correcting this bias and opening up a true, inclusive dialogue among stakeholders with more diverse backgrounds and profiles. How can we convert scholarly communication into a global, participatory, accessible and equitable ecosystem? What strategies might we use to make our in-person, hybrid and online conferences and events as open and accessible as possible? Rather than simply focusing on Western models for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, as well as for Open Access and Open Science, what can we learn from the different approaches to achieving these goals as practiced in non-Western settings? And, most broadly, how can science and scholarly communication best help facilitate multilateralism, mutual understanding and international cooperation?
Unir les forces pour accélérer le changement - Joining Forces to Accelerate Change
Coalition Publica est une initiative commune de deux projets basés au Canada, Érudit (erudit.org) et le Public Knowledge Project (PKP), qui collaborent pour développer et coordonner une infrastructure nationale ouverte et durable soutenant la diffusion de la recherche et l'édition scientifique numérique.
L'effort de collaboration vise l’atteinte d'objectifs communs : renforcer les capacités locales et l'expertise en édition dans le but de soutenir les revues en sciences humaines et sociales en anglais et en français. Grâce à un modèle financier basé sur des partenariats avec des bibliothèques, des agences gouvernementales, des universités et d'autres institutions connexes, Coalition Publica encourage une transition juste et durable vers le libre accès.
Les principes de diversité, d’équité et d’inclusion sont au cœur du mandat de Coalition Publica. Cependant, atteindre ces principes exige des efforts concertés et continus. Cette présentation propose une brève auto-évaluation afin de discuter de nos bons coups et de ce qui peut encore être amélioré en termes de principes EDI.
Coalition Publica is a joint partnership initiative of two key Canadian-based projects, Érudit (erudit.org) and the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), collaborating to develop and coordinate an open and sustainable national infrastructure supporting research dissemination and digital scholarly publishing.
The collaborative effort aims to achieve a purpose common to both entities: build local capacity and publishing expertise to support humanities and social sciences journals either in English or in French. Through a financial model based on partnerships with libraries, government agencies, universities, and other related institutions, Coalition Publica encourages a fair and sustainable transition to open access.
Diversity, equity and inclusion principles are at the heart of Coalition Publica’s mandate. However, reaching those principles requires concerted and continuous efforts. This presentation will offer a short self-assessment to discuss what we do well and what can still be improved with regards to EDI principles.
¿Qué tipo de diversidad, inclusión y colaboración? Redefiniendo los valores de la comunicación científica desde las Humanidades Digitales - What diversity, inclusion and collaboration? (Re)defining the values of Scholarly Communication from the Digital Humanities
[español] Junto con las innovadores metodologías y prácticas digitales y computacionales, las Humanidades Digitales proponen nuevos modelos de trabajo, publicación y evaluación. Si bien los debates sobre los valores y la ética del trabajo en las Humanidades Digitales tienen una larga data en las academias anglófonas interesadas en el campo, en América Latina han surgido formas de repensar las Humanidades Digitales desde los movimientos de acceso abierto y ciencia abierta. Valores como la diversidad, la inclusión y la colaboración se han visto así beneficiados por nuevas aproximaciones teóricas y la puesta en práctica a través de diferentes recursos y herramientas digitales del ámbito de la comunicación científica.
The Digital Humanities propose innovative digital and computational methodologies and practices, together with new approaches to research, publication and evaluation. Although debates about the values of the Digital Humanities have a long history in Northern academies, Latin America has been more interested in rethinking the Digital Humanities from open access and open science movements. Values such as diversity, inclusion and collaboration have thus been benefited by new theoretical approaches and implementation through different scholarly communication resources and digital tools.
Open access but persistent divide: what are we missing of the challenges of African biomedical journal editors?
Africa is undoubtedly a major beneficiary of the open access movement; however, its contribution to open access remains extremely limited. In 2019, 196 out of 13,773 journals indexed in the DOAJ, were from Africa, down from 219 in 2011. The persistent North-South divide and the lack of representation of the big South in the open access conversation should be a cause for concern for the open access movement. Beyond the structural and environment challenges to research in Africa, the speaker will provide an overview of the challenges in developing a publishing industry in African including the views of the open access movement towards African journals. He will also discuss the need to reflect on the lack of geographical diversity in the open access movement, both in terms of content contribution and voices, and will explore how the open access movement could respond.
Text, techné and tenure: what remains out of scope of research evaluation in Humanities disciplines and how to change it for the better?
Peer review is central scholarly practice that carries fundamental paradoxes from its inception. On the one hand, it is very difficult to open up peer review for the sake of empirical analysis, as it usually happens in closed black boxes of publishing and other gatekeeping workflows that are embedded in a myriad of disciplinary cultures, each of which comes very different, and usually competing notions of excellence. On the other hand, it is a practice that carries an enormous weight in terms of gatekeeping; shaping disciplines, publication patterns and power relations within academia. This central role of peer review alone explains why it is crucial to study to better understand situated evaluation practices, and to continually rethink them to strive for their best, and least imperfect (or reasonably imperfect) instances.
How the notion of excellence and other peer review proxies are constructed and (re)negotiated in everyday practices across the SSH disciplines; who are involved in the processes and who remain out; what are the boundaries of peer review in terms of inclusiveness with content types; and how the processes are aligned or misaligned to research realities? What are the underlying reasons behind the persistence of certain proxies in the system and what are emerging trends and future innovations?
To gain an in-depth understanding of these questions, as part of the H2020 project OPERAS-P, our task force collected and analysed 32 in-depth interviews with scholars about their motivations, challenges and experiences with novel practices in scholarly writing and in peer-review. The presentation will showcase the results of this study. Focus will be on the conflict between the richness of contemporary scholarship and the prestige economy that defines our current academic evaluation culture.
The encoded and pseudonymized interview transcripts that form the basis of our analysis will be shared as open data in a certified data repository together with a rich documentation of the process so that our interpretations, conclusions and the resulting recommendations are clearly delineable from the rich input we had been working with and which are thus openly reusable for other purposes.
Diversity, inclusion and collaboration: A critical open knowledge perspective
When universities need to address strategic issues, they increasingly demand data to support decisions. With equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) high on the agenda for universities and governments, at least in the Anglophone North, there is a growing amount of data available. This data tells a largely depressing story of limited progress. But there is more to this story than might first appear. Decisions about whether or not to collect data about EDI; and the terms that are used to describe the aspects of diversity considered relevant to a specific national or institutional context may have as much to tell us about the geographies of our EDI conversations as the data itself. Taking a critical perspective to the data available can help us to identify differing priorities and concerns in various contexts. This presentation draws on the very large data set that has been gathered as part of the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative: tens of trillions of data points relating to research communication, open access, collaboration and diversity. Outside the Anglophone North ethnic diversity and minority inclusion as understood in the West is not always a priority, and although gender equity may be an intention, outcomes indicate great disparities in some countries. Similarly we can compare rhetoric on diversity and inclusion (for example in Annual reports) with actual performance, not just identifying a gap, but seeing how that gap is related to prestige and resources. Using our model of Open Knowledge Institutions, this talk will examine both what the available data tells us, and what it cannot tell us, and in turn, what that tells us.
Is inclusiveness in scholcom really beneficial for scholarship?
Talking about diversity and inclusion, we often take for granted that it benefits everyone and that it is a goal to be pursued for the sake of equality and innovation. However, there are cases where inclusion, in fact, can harm local scholarship. For instance, being included in global scholcomm assumes working on research topics that are interesting and relevant to the global audience. This presumption can undermine local scholarship focused on domestic issues such as national history, literature, local economy, legal framework, and other social issues. Since many countries put it on their agenda to compete globally and achieve high world university rankings, their researchers are sometimes forced to change their research topics to be able to publish in global and high-impact journals if they want to sustain their academic career. Thus, it can be said that the pursuit towards inclusive scholcom largely distorts the scholarship landscape, ending up in research detached from local interests. But shouldn’t research also serve local interests, especially if it is publicly funded? This presentation is based on discussions and confrontations that occurred at forming the internationalization of the University of Tokyo.
Coffee break and Music
Breakout sessions in English, French and Spanish
Reporting of breakout sessions
Session 5: The Future of Open Science
The topics of this section are broad, from a visionary look into how the world will look like if the research process is fully transparent, to more specific conversations about the future of scholarly communication, research data, open research and commercialization, etc.
The future of open science aims to distill from existing experience and to suggest a possible future for open science. Tiberius and I both favour exploring a deep and diverse view on what open science and its consequences could be. We believe that a genuine contribution to open science is to explore all of its implications, to anticipate consequences, to manage risks and opportunities, to offer equal opportunities to the public, private, NGOs, etc. Not the least, to distil and reward those working hard and with good intentions for research.
This session is a mix of 15-minutes contributions, lightning talks and a live conversation. It will combine opportunities with challenges, hopes with cautions. Not everything will suggest a world of splendours if open science is achieved. This session aims for ground based experience, anticipation and realistic views on what mankind should expect when science becomes a fully transparent process, from data collection, through methods and software, to the peer-reviewed and public output.
Making all science open - healthy lives on a sustainable planet
Neuroscientist and autism researcher Dr. Kamila Markram is the CEO and co-founder of the open-access publisher Frontiers. Since 2007, Frontiers has been on a mission to make all research openly accessible so that everybody can live a healthy life on a healthy planet. Launched as an EPFL spin-off, Frontiers has grown into the third most highly cited publisher worldwide with offices in eight countries. In her discussion, Dr. Markram will focus on the power of open science. She will make the case for why open science is the key to innovation, economic growth, and solutions to a sustainable future. Dr. Markram will look at how open access science led to unprecedented scientific collaboration during the pandemic, delivering effective treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 at a speed never seen before in human history. Dr. Markram will also examine the potential of unlocking all science in the fight for a sustainable future. Today around three quarters of all research publications remain locked behind expensive paywalls, bottlenecking our knowledge economy, hindering societal progress, stifling innovation, and slowing down solutions to the biggest challenges humanity faces: disease and climate change. With open science and a free flow of scientific knowledge, we can accelerate innovation, stimulate economic growth, and find solutions to enable all of us to live on a healthy and sustainable planet.
The balancing act: Timing openness and commercialization to optimize societal value from university research
Can a research platform with a strict “no-IP” rule – and open sharing of all its results – accelerate drug discovery, engage industry in collective problem solving, and go hand in hand with commercialization downstream? And can this open approach even help address future public emergencies?
Aarhus University is currently embracing an open approach to collaboration with industry – where data, ideas, knowledge and materials are freely shared within the research projects and with the public. In the presentation, Marie Louise Conradsen will talk about the learnings from a current project within drug discovery (called ODIN), she will describe why the university now wishes to transfer the open concept to other research areas – and give her take on the potentials and problems of using this version of open science to i.e. help solve societal challenges in the form of climate change or pandemics. For is the future of all science open? Or does openness drive change more efficiently through careful interplay with proprietary tools and mechanisms?
arXiv medium as a prerequisite of open access as an important component of open science
Paul Ginsparg recognized the need for central storage of scientific papers and in August 1991 he created a central repository mailbox stored at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) accessible from any computer. Additional modes of access were soon added: FTP in 1991, Gopher in 1992, and the World Wide Web in 1993. LANL archive began as a physics archive and later expanded to include astronomy, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics. In 2001 the archive was moved to Cornell University and named arXiv.org. In a sense the open-access nature of the arXiv pre-prints can be considered as a prerequisite of the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing in June 2003, and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities in October 2003.
The “arXiv culture” stimulates the researcher’s ability to share a pre-print of an article before its publication in a journal. The arXiv deposition opens the peer-review process to the entire scientific community with no delay. A remarkable consequence of this peer review is the potential for experts publishing litigation-related work in what are called “predatory journals”.
The Open Access opens the road to the Open Science – a term/concept that describes the entire process of conducting and communicating science – sharing FAIR data, methods, codes, open practices to allow critical scrutiny, so that knowledge can be validated and used by the whole community. Open science (“open research”) includes not only open access to content and information but could comprise citizen science projects, scholarly communication networks, open source software and open lab notebooks.
How to combine the peer-review process typical for scientific journals and how to protect the intellectual property rights in the realm of openness are Open Questions to be discussed in the talk.
Lightning Talk: Open Science in the Age of Robotics
Due to the adaptation of technological advancements in our digital society in 21st century, one shall ponder how the open science will be meaningful and applicable to humans by the means of information technology components, ranging widely from wearable smart technologies to robotics, constantly sharing information to its end users. For the future of open science, the contributions derived from artificial intelligence concepts may provide a promising and eccentric road to distribute scientific knowledge respectively, connecting research data across the continents in the form of transparent knowledge process.
Lightning Talk: OpenLitterMap - A Revolutionary App to Map Litter
OpenLitterMap is an open source, interactive, and accessible database of the world's litter and plastic pollution. Inspired by the open values of OpenStreetMap, we apply the same principles of crowdsourcing and open data to litter and plastic pollution. All around the world, 100s of millions of people have been equipped with powerful devices that can collect data but this unprecedented human potential remains significantly underdeveloped. We are developing a fun, open, and rewarding data collection experience to harness this emerging resource, and empowering many people to share data and be a part of the scientific and public process for the first time. Although plastic pollution was first recognised to have a global distribution in the world's oceans as early as 1975, nothing was done for decades as access to knowledge was restricted. Once social media arrived, huge numbers of people were able to easily share and consume information. This resulted in a huge awakening of global pollution that changed mainstream political dialogue almost overnight. We are doing to data what social media did to information. OpenLitterMap is available as a web and mobile app on all platforms and is free to download and use.
Lightning Talk: Open Science and scholarly publishing
Science most effectively serves the global public good when the knowledge and understanding that it creates is shared efficiently within the international science community and communicated promptly and comprehensibly into the public sphere. Such open access to the record of science is the bedrock of a new era of Open Science. In aggregate, the current system of scientific and scholarly publishing falls short in terms of market efficiency, economic sustainability, global equity, and monopolistic trends that work against innovation and towards private governance of public assets. The International Science Council is working with its members, national academies, international scientific unions and associations to seek tractable solutions to these problems and to ensure that the scientific community engages more deeply with the functioning and governance of its publishing systems.
Lightning Talk: Citizen Science as science innovation
We present findings from a current project in the Hout Catchment, Limpopo Province in South Africa, adding value to current discourse on citizen science (CS) and science innovation proposing that citizen science narrows the gap between technical expertise and concerns of social justice and research integrity. We propose a citizen science framework that builds on ideas of the living lab, trust and research integrity – building a new science platform. The idea of research integrity is not only about ethics but also about methods and we propose participatory methods that are in inclusive, just and fair. The frame presents the idea of water literacy – where the material or ‘science’ aspects of CS (dip-meters, rain gauges etc) intersect with the more intangible goods that have to do with human well-being. Considering CS within the frame of feminist philosophy, it is personally transformative with the element of ‘surprise’ that the end point is undetermined – and the process, however much ‘planned’ is unknown. CS in this instance is a powerful emancipatory tool that is able to generate virtuous cycles of inclusion and equality and contribute to innovative solutions in the realm of science.
Lightning Talk: The Pierre Auger Observatory Open Data release: not only data
On February 15, 2021, the Pierre Auger Collaboration released a first dataset representing 10% of all its cosmic ray data acquired since 2004. During the 16 months preceding the release, most work went into creating a framework allowing for releasing more than just the high level reconstructed parameters of observed cosmic rays. The framework contains: pseudo-raw data at the detector level, a website providing a complete description of the data as well as their recording and analysis by the Collaboration, an event display for visualising the different detector signals, and a series of analysis notebooks that can be run online to replicate the main physics results published by the Collaboration and improve the understanding of the use of these data. This presentation will focus on the importance and the added value of this framework to help scientists or science enthusiasts delve into the data without being discouraged at first sight.
The Tanenbaum Open Science Institute: putting Open Science in practice at the Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital and creating a snowball effect across Canadian neuroscience
COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated how acting collectively and sharing quickly can save lives. Millions of people around the world are currently affected by neurological diseases; as people get older, the number of people that will develop or die from these will dramatically increase in the years to come. Can putting Open Science in practice actually help? Does giving access to deeply characterized cohorts of patients drive reproducible science and empower research participants? Are donors, patients, pharma companies, researchers, institutions, clinicians, trainees ready for that cultural shift? The Neuro is the first academic institution in the world to fully embrace Open Science as institutional guiding principles. The Tanenbaum Open Science Institute is the vehicle to implement this within the walls of the institution, and across Canada. In her presentation, Annabel Seyller will talk about the lessons learned from their initial 5 years in the Open, and what she starts to see as the future of Open Science. She will also share some pending challenges, related to institutions’ reaction towards OS.
Open Science or Open Season — The Roles of Reach, Motivation, and Trust in Charting a Course Forward
All Speakers at OAI12
All Session Chairs at OAI12
- Paul Ayris (Chair) – UCL (University College London)
- Josh Brown – MoreBrains Cooperative
- Elena Giglia – University of Turin
- Tiberius Ignat – SKS (Scientific Knowledge Services)
- Danny Kingsley – Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (ANU)
- Frank Manista – Jisc
- Catherine Mitchell – California Digital Library
- Martyn Rittman – Crossref
- Wouter Schallier – Hernán Santa Cruz Library, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carribean (ECLAC)
- Katherine Skinner – Educopia Institute
- Marco Tullney – Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB)
- Jens Vigen – CERN
Local Organizing Committee
- Paulina Baranowska – CERN
- Tullio Basaglia – CERN
- Jean-Blaise Claivaz – University of Geneva
- Dimitri Donzé – Head of the local committee – University of Geneva
- Anne Gentil-Beccot – CERN
- Stéphanie Haesen – University of Geneva
- Pablo Iriarte – University of Geneva
- Floriane Muller – University of Geneva
- Salomé Rohr – CERN
- Marina Savino – CERN
- Jens Vigen – CERN