How society publishers practice open science beyond open access publishing?

Open data is becoming more and more a recognised research output in the research life cycle. Research validation and replication depend on open data which enriches the research output. Open data goes beyond the traditional article and book publishing format. As such open data reinforces Open Access (OA) publishing, and OA publishing reinforces open data. Open data and OA publishing stimulate collaboration and increase both the impact of research findings and the visibility of researchers and research groups. In the past years, funders and institutions developed independently policies that support open data and OA publishing. Researchers are increasingly required to publish OA and make their data open. The question is how we can evaluate the impact of Open data on OA publishing. Subsequently, to what extent does OA publishing influence open data? At the TU Delft, 82% of peer-reviewed articles and 71% of conference papers are published OA in 2021, but how many of those publications refer to open data? We have no records and no traceability processes in place to answer this question. As a consequence, few datastewards took on themselves to count manually the number of OA publications that include open data. It is nevertheless clear some changes need to occur to help open data and OA publishing joining forces. The current challenges and barriers faced could be reduced with an increase in OA research outputs (OA books or educational resources), a change in research culture and a change in reviewers’ practices. Recognising and rewarding data publishing; credit data review activities; developing a different workflow of the review process if including data review and requiring different expertise from the reviewers on the data review (data management and research insights) are realistic options. In parallel, new features of innovation for the publishing platform (open data review workflow, link to datasets for download) and for data repositories (quality badge on reviewed datasets, flexibility of incorporating review changes) are worth exploring. There are few possible solutions or workaround available that could help all. We can make it easy for the researchers by connecting different blocks of open science and optimising the benefits with the Data Access Statement (DAS) as a standard section of the article template and with publishers providing a DAS template with basic requirements. For institutions, having a dashboard connecting all research outputs with DOIs together will be very beneficial. Another option is giving authors control of their publications by publishing their findings in an open peer-reviewed community-driven journal. Our framework for connecting open data to OA publishing includes an OA publishing platform, data and publication repositories, a funding policy for OA publishing, expertise in Open Science and research lifecycle; and collaboration.

Public science is critical to the economy and to society. However, much of the beneficial impact of scientific research only occurs when scientific knowledge is disseminated broadly and is used by others. This thesis examines the emerging policy, law, and practice of facilitating open access to scientific research data. One particular focus is to examine the open data policies recently introduced by research funders and publishers, and the potential in these for driving the practice of open scientific data into the future. This thesis identifies five major stumbling blocks to sustainable open scientific data. Firstly, the prevailing ‘mindset’ that facilitating open access to data is analogous to facilitating open access to publications and, therefore, research data can easily be shared, with research funders and librarians effectively leading the process. Secondly, the unclear meaning of the term ‘data’, which causes confusion among stakeholders. Thirdly, ‘misunderstood incentives’ for data sharing and the additional inputs required from researchers. Fourthly, ‘data privacy’—an issue that only applies to selected research datasets, and yet appears to dominate the discussion about open research data. Finally, there is ‘copyright law’, which poses challenges at different stages of data release and reuse. In this thesis, I argue that the above problems can be addressed using a staged model for open scientific data. I draw specifically on the practice with open scientific data at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) and the practice of sharing clinical trial data to argue that open data can be shared at various stages of processing and diversification. This model is supplemented by recommendations proposing changes to existing open data mandates and the introduction of a text and data mining exemption into Australian copyright law.

The impact openness to knowledge is having, not only in the Higher Education (HE) sector but at the public and institutional policy level, is largely due to the efforts of information professionals and researchers, and thanks to these two groups, initiatives such as open access (OA), open education (OE), and open science (OSC) have changed the way in which research is being taught, conducted, and communicated. Openness is a way to democratise access to knowledge developed through public funds, and this movement has been led by informational professionals worldwide; however, we have observed that to a large extent, professional development in different areas of openness is rather self-taught, informal, mentored, or continuous, but not formalised in information science, documentation, or scientific educational programmes. In this exploratory research, we gathered evidence on how (or if) openness to knowledge is being taught by reviewing a series of syllabi from undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in Library and Information Science (LIS) schools sampled from universities that either (a) are leading the agenda in OA, OSC, or OE; or (b) have policies in OA, OSC, or OE; or (c) have national/federal mandates, policies, or regulations regarding OA, OSC, or OE and also from a range of non-formal and/or lifelong learning training programmes offered in these same three areas. We found that while LIS schools are not providing formal training to gain skills and competencies in openness, their libraries are offering different kinds of training in this respect. On the other hand, the good intentions and openness awareness of policies have not yet materialised in actions to ensure capacity building. Research implications aim to influence the development of capacity building in open knowledge, by providing solid evidence for enhancing curriculum advancement in LIS schools and by proposing some recommendations in this direction.

Introduction: The open science movement has grown rapidly since the mid-2010s, and research has been conducted in various disciplines such as public health, medicine, education, and computer science. Research results have mainly been published in the journals of information science, computer science, and multidisciplinary fields. Method: To identify the intellectual structure of open science, we constructed a keyword bibliographic coupling analysis network. We examined a total of 1,000 articles on open science from the Web of Science, extracting and analysing 4,645 keywords. Then, we implemented and visualised the keyword bibliographic coupling network by constructing a keyword dataset and a reference dataset for each keyword. Results: By analysing the backbone keywords and clusters in the network, the study revealed that the most prominent keywords were open access, open data, and reproducibility. The analysis also uncovered nine clusters in open science research: open access, reproducibility, data sharing, preregistrations and registered reports, research data, open peer review, tools and platforms for reproducible research, open innovation, science policy, and preprints. These results indicated that open science research focuses on transparency and reproducibility. Additionally, it is noteworthy that this study revealed a considerable focus on the open innovation and science policy areas, which have not received much attention in previous studies. Conclusions: The findings can help to understand the landscape of open science research and may guide research funding institutes and research policymakers to design their policies to improve the open science scholarly environment.

Should research institutions from developing countries provide open access to their data? Who would benefit? These are highly relevant questions for environmental research. In the backdrop of increasing discussions regarding open data, attention should be paid to guarantee that research institutions from developing countries do not become mere data providers. At the same time, restricted access to data should not become a barrier for advancing our knowledge of critical environmental issues. Open access policies for environmental data must be developed not only for advancing science, but also to provide growing opportunities for researchers in developing countries.

This chapter aims to map the impact of copyright law on the circulation of information, progress of knowledge, innovation and development within some selected case studies extracted from a paradigmatic Free Trade Agreement (FTA): the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). On the one hand, excessively restrictive copyright rules—the Western overprotection approach—may threaten policies to foster science and innovation. On the other hand, Open Science (Open Source software, Open Access publications, Open Research Data, Open Educational Resources, Open Peer Review)—based essentially on lowering economic, technological and legal (copyright and contract) barriers to access information—seem to boost a more fair and global development approach, by stimulating free flow of ideas and information across borders. If the latter more flexible regime of intellectual property could be accepted as a favourable context for Open Science, we argue in favour of a more balanced copyright law in the FTAs context.

This chapter presents a new paradigm for sustainable data-driven language learning systems design in higher education that draws on qualitative reflections spanning a decade (2012–2022) with stakeholders from an ongoing global research study with the FLAX (Flexible Language Acquisition) and F-Lingo projects at the University of Waikato in Aotearoa New Zealand (Fitzgerald (2019) A new paradigm for open data-driven language learning systems design in higher education; König et al. (2022) Smart CALL). Design considerations are presented for remixing domain-specific open access content into Open Educational Resources (OER) for academic English language provision across formal and non-formal higher education contexts. Primary stakeholders in the research collaboration include the following three groups: (1) Knowledge organisations that provide open access to academic content—libraries and archives, including the British Library and the Oxford Text Archive, universities in collaboration with MOOC providers and the CORE (COnnecting REpositories) open access aggregation service at the UK Open University; (2) Researchers who mine and remix academic content into corpora and open data-driven language learning systems—converging from the fields of open education, computer science and applied corpus linguistics; (3) Knowledge users who re-use and remix academic content into OER—English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioners from university language centres. Automated content analysis was carried out on a corpus of interview and focus discussion data with the three stakeholder groups in this research. We discuss themes arising from the research data that reflect the different stakeholders’ experiences of remixing open access research content that has been produced within the academy for re-use as open educational content for teaching and learning features of academic language within open data-driven language learning systems. These open learning systems have been specifically designed to scale with OER expansion and traction in mind for their sustainable uptake both within and beyond the brick and mortar of the traditional university. The new paradigm presented in this chapter challenges, as the OER movement must, established business models and deeply embedded cultural or institutional norms that present obstacles to OER expansion and traction and the sustainability of the movement. One persistent challenge concerns the lack of open education policy across the higher education sector for full open access (for use, modification, adaptation) via Creative Commons licensing to content produced within the academy. Thus, while this research has theoretical and practical implications in applied linguistics, computer science, language teaching and learning and open education, more generally, it also has significant cultural, business model and policy implications for higher education.KeywordsData-driven learningDesign-based researchEnglish for academic purposes (EAP)Higher educationMassive open online courses (MOOCs)Open accessOpen educational practicesOpen educational resources (OER)Systems design

Objectives:To identify the engagement of health sciences librarians (HSLs) in open science (OS) through the delivery of library services, support, and programs for researchers.Methods:We performed a scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and Joanna Briggs' Manual for Scoping Reviews. Our search methods consisted of searching five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, and Web of Science Core Collection), reference harvesting, and targeted website and journal searching. To determine study eligibility, we applied predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and reached consensus when there was disagreement. We extracted data in duplicate and performed qualitative analysis to map key themes.Results:We included fifty-four studies. Research methods included descriptive or narrative approaches (76%); surveys, questionnaires, and interviews (15%); or mixed methods (9%). We labeled studies with one or more of FOSTER's six OS themes: open access (54%), open data (43%), open science (24%), open education (6%), open source (6%), and citizen science (6%). Key drivers in OS were scientific integrity and transparency, openness as a guiding principle in research, and funder mandates making research publicly accessible.Conclusions:HSLs play key roles in advancing OS worldwide. Formal studies are needed to assess the impact of HSLs' engagement in OS. HSLs should promote adoption of OS within their research communities and develop strategic plans aligned with institutional partners. HSLs can promote OS by adopting more rigorous and transparent research practices of their own. Future research should examine HSLs' engagement in OS through social justice and equity perspectives.

A Review of: Hadad, S., & Aharony, N. (2024). Librarians and academic libraries’ role in promoting open access: What needs to change? College & Research Libraries, 85(4), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.4.464 Objective – The study aims to explore and examine how Israeli librarians perceive their role and the academic library's role in promoting open access (OA) publishing; identify the barriers, challenges, and difficulties in implementing OA; and determine the factors and needs that are required to promote OA. By examining these aspects, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of OA promotion in Israeli academic libraries, the challenges faced by librarians, and the necessary changes and support required to enhance OA adoption in the country's academic institutions. Design – Qualitative design using semi-structured interviews. Setting – University libraries in Israel. Subjects – One representative from each of the ten existing universities in Israel. The ten participants held positions as administrators of the library system at their institution (50%), directors of disciplinary libraries (30%), or directors of information systems in academic libraries of Israeli universities. Among the subjects, 90% were female. In terms of seniority, 60% of respondents had been employed by their institution for over 10 years, while 40% had been less than 10 years in their current positions. Methods – Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and June of 2020. The interviews were based on items from existing surveys on librarians' attitudes towards open access and changes in academic library practices. The authors used thematic analysis to categorize and code the interview responses. This "bottom-up" approach allowed researchers to identify common expressions and recurring themes. The analysis yielded 1,264 statements classified into three main categories with several sub-categories. To ensure reliability, 25% of the statements were analyzed by a second coder, resulting in a Cohen's Kappa of .86 (.8 and above is rated as “almost perfect”). The researchers ensured trustworthiness of data by adhering to four principles: truth-value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality of data. Main Results – The interview data revealed that, in general, librarians see their role as crucial in advising researchers about OA publishing. They view themselves as responsible for implementing changes related to OA after institutional policies are set. The authors identify a myriad of barriers to overcome if OA is going to grow and become a more accepted practice of publishing for Israeli researchers. These barriers include, but are not limited to, lack of budget for OA agreements, lack of cooperation from university management, researchers' unfamiliarity with OA and fears about predatory journals, the influence of journal impact factors, and lack of personnel and training for librarians. In order to overcome these barriers, librarians believe they need clear national and institutional OA policies, as well as cooperation and collaboration between academic institutions on OA initiatives. Librarians also believe that systematic training for library staff in OA publishing is imperative, along with guidance and incentives for researchers to publish in OA journals. The results also yielded qualitative data about librarians’ current involvement in OA, which include participating in OA agreements through library consortia, operating current research information systems (CRIS), promoting institutional policies, and interfacing with university administration on OA issues. The study also revealed that there is a desire among librarians to establish the library as the central body for OA matters within their institutions. Conclusion – Librarians see their role as crucial in promoting open access (OA) publishing, particularly in advising researchers and implementing changes after institutional policies are set. Overall, the study concludes that while librarians see themselves as playing important roles in promoting OA, they face numerous challenges and require additional support and resources to fulfill this role effectively. The research highlights the need for systemic changes at both institutional and national levels to advance OA adoption in Israeli academic institutions.

Open content is typically digital content that allows broader use than traditionally printed or copyrighted content. Open content isfreed upcontent, for instance through permissive licensing, such as Creative Commons. Open content includes open educational resources (OER),OpenCourseWare(OCW), open video, open access publications, as well as open data. It shares some similarity with open source software. Open content can have different freedoms, such as legal freedom, technological freedom (including usability and accessibility), as well as freedom in terms of education and participation, related to inclusion and interactive pedagogy. More broadly open content is related to open education and open educational practices. Although open content can be traced back further, the movement developed particularly rapidly in the 2000s, with major education and research stakeholders publishing open content and adopting policies promoting open content and open research practices.This entry reviews the origins of open content, and discusses different aspects of “open.” Two specific areas are highlighted: first, open content in higher education, including open textbooks, massively open online courses, open video, and research on open content, pointing to cost savings; second, open educational resources in Africa through recent developments and success stories, particularly in the context ofOERAfrica.

The current openness trend includes concepts such as transparency, democracy, sharing, collective, free, common, or commons, and working areas such as open access, open data, open linked data, dataset curation, open content, open research, open education, open innovation, or open knowledge. All these issues were addressed in the 13 th Jornadas espanolas de documentacion (Fesabid 2015, 28-29 May, Gijon, Spain). The conference offered 3 tracks: 1) Public information, open data and collections: transparent administration and shared culture; 2) Open research: from open access to open data; and 3) Open education and new skills: reactivating the educational role of libraries and information services.

New areas of research and discovery benefit from a space in which a community can discuss key questions, interact and be allowed to grow. For the open education data community these questions are still crude and fundamental. For example: what exactly is open education data, why is open data relevant to education and how can we use open datasets to meet educational needs? The Open Education Working Group inaugurated by Open Knowledge, a community-based not-for-profit organisation that promotes open knowledge in the digital age, is beginning to explore the relationship between data and education by exposing projects and bringing together people working on related activities. This chapter will consider initial discussions and explorations related to open data in education that have taken place through recent online activity and workshops. It will also look at the creation of a working group established with the intention of taking these discussions further.

The study is devoted to a systematic analysis of the implementation of open science principles in Ukrainian higher education institutions and research organizations. The methodological basis is the content analysis of official websites of universities, research insti-tutes, and libraries, which made it possible to assess the level of openness of scientific commu-nications and the availability of research outputs. Particular attention is paid to the evaluation of the National Open Science Plan and the provisions reflected in the draft law “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Implementation of Open Science Principles.”The purpose of the article is to determine the degree of integration of open access policies, research data management, and FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reus-able) into the activities of Ukrainian universities and research institutions. The study focuses on key terms, criteria, and indicators that make it possible to assess progress in implementing open science at the institutional level and to compare Ukrainian practices with international standards.The results highlight the uneven nature of open science implementation: leading universi-ties and institutions engaged in international projects demonstrate higher levels of adaptation, while the majority of organizations remain at the initial stage of establishing open access and research data management policies. Both positive practices (creation of institutional reposito-ries, introduction of copyright transfer agreements, organization of seminars and training courses) and barriers (technical, organizational, and regulatory) were identified.Thus, this research has practical significance for developing recommendations on harmo-nizing national science policy with European requirements, as well as for defining priorities for the further development of Ukraine’s institutional open science infrastructure

Striking creative new partnership models, updating publishing practices, transforming business models Our first Learned Publishing issue of 2020 addresses the shifting economic and cultural realities facing the publishing enterprises of member-based associations with scholarly and professional missions. The diverse contributors consider case studies, original research, and industry updates that paint a portrait of an industry in transition, striking creative new partnership models, updating publishing practices, and transforming business models. As evidenced by the Fifth Wiley Society Member Survey, reported in this issue by Jonathan Roscoe, society publishers are challenged to meet demands for high-quality, competitive offerings while balancing financial sustainability and the ever-changing expectations of research funders, corporate customers, and institutional subscribers. In his Industry Update, Phill Jones offers highlights of how societies are responding to these adversities with his report of a 2019 SSP webinar. And, looking at the experiences of learned societies in Finland as a case study, Elina Late and colleagues outline the ways in which society publishers are critical players in the dissemination of high-quality research, particularly open access publishing. Transforming traditional business models and addressing systematic campaigns to accelerate the shift to open access publishing is a dominant theme in this special issue. While the specific impact of Plan S will vary greatly between different publishers and journals, it has acted as a general catalyst for publishers of all kinds, whose revenues are still heavily dependent on subscriptions and must now consider how to transition their income streams from ‘read’ to ‘publish’. From a variety of expert perspectives, contributors to this issue highlight the latest trends to be aware of going into the new year. Reporting the latest analysis coming out of the Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S (SPA-OPS) project, Alicia Wise and Lorraine Estelle discuss the remarkable 27 models currently being tested and highlight findings of their survey of society publisher experiences. Putting such models into practice for 2020, Malavika Legge at Portland Press discusses their commitment to develop and deploy transformative agreements with research institutions, taking on an exploratory approach to strike new arrangements that work for each customer. Quan Hoang Vuong also reflects on such transformations and observes an ‘existential threat’ to the economic models that have sustained independent society-based publishing for decades. Many societies are engaging with changing business models and editorial policies, struggling to maintain academic freedom in today's information economy. The authors in this issue demonstrate that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. Instead, we find an industry ripe for innovation and experimentation. Some publishers, such as those behind the British Ecological Society, have found partnerships with larger commercial publishers to be a beneficial path to support the society's mission, community, and future sustainability. Michael Clarke outlines best practices in exploring and establishing publishing service agreements with such commercial partners, raising important points to consider in this type of decision-making. Some society-based publications, such as the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT), have carved a path that retains full editorial and publishing independence. Limited partnerships models, for example, where one specific publishing aspect is outsourced to a commercial publisher, work for other society publishers as described by Sophia Anderton at the British Institute of Radiology. And others, such as those geological and earth science publishers that partner with GeoScience World, look to non-profit collaborative models, as outlined by Marc Segers and his colleagues. The value proposition that society publishing brings to a membership organization can create fulfilling career opportunities. Edith Holmes relates her experience with JOSPT and how the independent publishing operation adds to the enrichment of the community. The contribution to science, professional development, and advancement of research are additional benefits of a career in society publishing highlighted by Richard Dodenhoff. We hope that all our industry colleagues, whether society publishers or otherwise, will find something in this issue that offers insights or inspiration for the new year ahead. Please send us feedback – reach out to us (www.alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing) or find us on Twitter (@LearnedPublish) – we want to hear what you think! Special issue editorial team, Lettie Y. Conrad, Peter Richardson, and Rebecca Rinehart L. Y. Conrad P. Richardson R. Rinehart

<strong> Open Scholarship (my preferred definition) </strong> Open Scholarship as a paradigm consists of three dimensions: <strong> Open output </strong> , comprising specific content / products from the fields of open publishing, open data, open source, open education, open access, and similar open movements.