Short Description
The European Commission joined many other research funders in 2013 when it announced that one central requirement of future research grantees of Horizon 2020 would be that their research publications be made freely available to all. The Commission’s vision is open access for research outputs, as announced in its 2012 Communication. This states: “Information already paid for by the public purse should not be paid for again each time it is accessed or used, and […] should benefit European companies and citizens to the full.”
The Commission has no preferred model for how to achieve open access. It is searching for innovation wherever it may be found, from traditional commercial publishers, new organisations, distributed academic networks, and research libraries. The goal of achieving open access is a public one that sits above private interests. This sometimes means that businesses are obliged to evolve and adapt in light of the project to move towards open access.
The move to open access scholarly publishing has been accelerating for many years. It is driven by many factors, including: the emergence and expansion of the internet, which enables the fast and free dissemination of research outputs; the fact that many academic libraries are reporting the rising cost of subscription journals and the declining number of journals they can subscribe to; a moral case that publicly funded research should be freely available for all to see; and a case that more dissemination of knowledge will lead to more innovation and therefore economic growth.
Authors/Initiatives
Diane Harley, Sophia Krzys Acord, Sarah Earl-Novell, Shannon Lawrence, C. Judson King
Copyright: Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkley
Short Description
Since 2005, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), has been conducting research to understand the needs and practices of faculty for in-progress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. This report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. The overview document summarizes the main practices explored across all seven disciplines: tenure and promotion, dissemination, sharing, collaboration, resource creation and consumption, and public engagement. In this report, readers can search various topics within and across case studies. The report identifies five key topics, addressed in detail in the case studies, that require real attention:
SHORT DESCRIPTION
The report proposes a vision for the future of scholarly communication; it examines the current system -with its strengths and weaknesses- and its main actors. It considers the roles of researchers, research institutions, funders and policymakers, publishers and other service providers, as well as citizens and puts forward recommendations addressed to each of them.
Short Description
Report of the European Commission Expert Group on Altmetrics. The Expert Group on Altmetrics outlines in this report how to advance a next-generation metrics in the context of Open Science and delivers an advice corresponding to the following policy lines of the Open Science Agenda: Fostering Open Science, Removing barriers to Open Science, Developing research infrastructures and Embed Open Science in society.
Authors/Initiative
Elsevier, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), part of Leiden University
Short Description
Open data practices facilitate collaboration, drive data analysis, and promote transparency and reproducibility. Yet the research community has not uniformly embraced open data or data sharing practices. This report describes the findings of a complementary methods approach to examine the practices, motivations, and obstacles to data sharing as well as perceived advantages among researchers across disciplines worldwide. Combining information from a bibliometric analysis, a survey and case studies, this report examines how researchers share data, the attitudes of researchers toward sharing data, and why researchers might be reticent to share data.
Short Description
A project report and associated recommendations, proceedings from a meeting and background papers.
Short Description
This global survey reports on the attitudes and behaviour of 3040 academics in relation to peer review in journals. Peer review is seen as an essential component of scholarly communication, the mechanism that facilitates the publication of primary research in academic journals.
Short Description
Peer review in scholarly publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In recent years there have been an increasing number of reports and articles assessing the current state of peer review. In view of the importance of evidence-based scientific information to government, this report covers a detailed examination of the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications. Both to see whether it is operating effectively and to shine light on new and innovative approaches. In addition. it explores some of the broader issues around research impact, publication ethics and research integrity.
Authors/Initiative
British Academy
Short Description
Peer review is the practice by which the worth of research is evaluated by those with demonstrated competence to make a judgment. It is the traditional means by which research quality is guaranteed in academic studies. The British Academy was concerned that the role peer review plays in underpinning the success of the UK research enterprise in the humanities and social sciences needed to be better understood by policy-makers.
Link
http://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/23-weale.pdf
Short Description
Peer review is the practice by which the worth of research is evaluated by those with demonstrated competence to make a judgment. It is the traditional means by which research quality is guaranteed in academic studies. The British Academy was concerned that the role peer review plays in underpinning the success of the UK research enterprise in the humanities and social sciences needed to be better understood by policy-makers.
Short Description
A guide to peer review written for early career researchers.
This is a nuts and bolts guide to peer review for early career researchers written by members of the VoYS network. Using a collection of concerns raised by their peers, the VoYS writing team set off to interview scientists, journal editors, grant bodies’ representatives, patient group workers and journalists in the UK and around the world to find out how peer review works, the challenges for peer review and how to get involved.
Short Description
Several market research studies have evaluated peer review in recent years. A goal of the present research, commissioned by PRE, is to extend those findings to provide insight into the indicators of quality of peer review. In January, 2016 Wicherts proposed that transparency of the peer review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer review. By testing a questionnaire tool with several audiences with different methods, he concludes that the tool has promising reliability and validity in assessing transparency of the peer-review process as an indicator of peer-review quality. In this market research, we ask respondents to rate the helpfulness of several criteria based in part on Wicherts’ 14-item tool which rates the transparency of a journal’s peer review process, regardless of peer review model, open or blinded, pre-publication or post-publication.
Short Description
Several market research studies have evaluated peer review in recent years. A goal of the present research, commissioned by PRE, is to extend those findings to provide insight into the indicators of quality of peer review. In January, 2016 Wicherts proposed that transparency of the peer review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer review. By testing a questionnaire tool with several audiences with different methods, he concludes that the tool has promising reliability and validity in assessing transparency of the peer-review process as an indicator of peer-review quality. In this market research, we ask respondents to rate the helpfulness of several criteria based in part on Wicherts’ 14-item tool which rates the transparency of a journal’s peer review process, regardless of peer review model, open or blinded, pre-publication or post-publication.
Authors/Initiative
Bev Acreman, Peter Berkery, Caroline Black, Chis Bourg, Becky Brasington Clark, Angela Cochran, Kevin Davies, Rachel Dresbeck, Catriona MacCallum, Paul Peters, Bobby Schnabel, Francisco Valdés Ugalde
Short Description
The Open Scholarship Initiative 2016 (OSI2016) Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholarship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accountability, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing models. The group recommended facilitation of peer review outside the traditional publication process—for example, in the context of preprint servers and after publication—with incentives for broad participation. These incentives need to include a cultural shift in recognition of peer review as a valid activity contributing to career progression.
Short Description
The Open Scholarship Initiative 2016 (OSI2016) Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholarship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accountability, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing models. The group recommended facilitation of peer review outside the traditional publication process—for example, in the context of preprint servers and after publication—with incentives for broad participation. These incentives need to include a cultural shift in recognition of peer review as a valid activity contributing to career progression.
Authors/Initiative
Council of Science Editors
Short Description
Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request 3 reviews. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician is needed. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.
Link
http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/
Short Description
Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request 3 reviews. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician is needed. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.
Short Description
The Science as an open enterprise report highlights the need to grapple with the huge deluge of data created by modern technologies in order to preserve the principle of openness and to exploit data in ways that have the potential to create a second open science revolution.
Exploring massive amounts of data using modern digital technologies has enormous potential for science and its application in public policy and business. The report maps out the changes that are required by scientists, their institutions and those that fund and support science if this potential is to be realised.
Short Description
The Science as an open enterprise report highlights the need to grapple with the huge deluge of data created by modern technologies in order to preserve the principle of openness and to exploit data in ways that have the potential to create a second open science revolution.
Exploring massive amounts of data using modern digital technologies has enormous potential for science and its application in public policy and business. The report maps out the changes that are required by scientists, their institutions and those that fund and support science if this potential is to be realised.
SHORT DESCRIPTION
This report was produced by the GENDERACTION project to explore the possible intersections between gender and Open Science and Open Innovation. It should be considered as a starting point for stakeholders to reflect on how the two ERA priorities may create reinforcing synergies. The report also underscores the need for further studies and analyses. It was submitted on 31 January 2019.
