LIBER Open Science Roadmap

Focuses on open science practices in suicide research. Specifically, the authors use examples from their own and others' work to demonstrate the opportunities for future-proofing research by implementing open science practices, and they discuss some of the challenges and their potential solutions. They cover implementing open science practices in new, ongoing, and concluded studies, and discuss practices in order of being 'low' to 'high' threshold to implement (based on Kathawalla et al., 2021). Space constraints preclude an extensive presentation of all open science practices although they briefly describe the strategies of providing preprints, sharing study materials and codes, preregistration of studies and registered reports, and sharing research data. To highlight the open science work of as many researchers as possible, examples are provided in Electronic Supplementary Material 1 (ESM 1) rather than in the text. The authors ask for readers' help in adding to these examples via their 'living' reading list (https://osf.io/v6y3t/).

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.

Open Science is directly linked to the present trend of Research Data Management. To have fully open research data, systems that allow free access to the data need to be present. As a result, research institutions have tried to adapt to the changes required to be deemed as Open Science supporters. Several institutions implement a Current Research Information System (CRIS) and an Open Science Policy for all their published research data.Interoperable data between different systems implemented is a key feature of Open Science. In Europe, the European Open Science Cloud provides a set of standards and guidelines that must be followed so the implemented systems offer an interoperable service to their researchers.Previous research revealed that Albania is ready to take its first steps toward Open Science, and future ideas for how to contribute to the field were proposed. There were two significant findings: first, there is no CRIS implementation in Albanian institutions, and second, there is no strategy or policy to support Open Science. The research also proposed an Albanian Open Science Digital Repository.In this paper, we show how the implementation of the system is done and how it relates to the newly proposed Open Science Policy. The goal is to demonstrate how Albanian institutions are implementing advances towards Open Science.In conclusion, this paper demonstrates Albanian researchers' support for Open Science and the European Open Science Cloud.

Funders are well positioned to shift the incentives for open science inherent in grant application processes and improve the way research is evaluated. Institutions can change the status quo by promoting and rewarding researchers careers, and collaborating with research libraries in contributing to development of the European Open Science (EOSC) infrastructure, tools and relevant skills. This document elaborates on the outcome of the workshop Research Institutions and Libraries and the role of Funders in the European Open Science Cloud held at the LIBER 2018 Conference in Lille, France. It sets a vision in which open science is the norm, and all funding bodies as well as institutions and researchers recognise the benefit of open science and embed best open science practice into their processes.

Problem setting. One of the modern common directions for the development of the European Research Area is the introduction of a new approach to scientific research. The basis of this approach is the paradigm innovation, Open science, Open to the world. The full implementation of this paradigm within the European Research Area is possible only if the implementation of open science policy at the level of individual countries is ensured.The essence of open science policy is the provision of open access to research data, scientific publications and research infrastructures and the like.Open access to research infrastructures should be noted separately, as research infrastructures are one of the main means of obtaining scientific output. Accordingly, there is a need to analyze existing and develop new approaches to maximize access to research infrastructures with a view to their continued use in the process of public policymaking of open science in Ukraine.Recent research and publications analysis. Some foreign scientists (Foster I., Hey T., Trefethen A., and others) have researched open science and access to research infrastructures as part of it, but the focus of their research is placed on a particular variety of research infrastructures - on e-infrastructure, while the issue of open access also applies to the so-called classic research infrastructures. Ukrainian scientists researched the importance of digital information resources, including portals and registers, for the development of the state (Karpenko O. V., Vatkovskaya M. G., Kulak N. V., and others), but some focused research into the role of such resources in public policy on open science has not yet been conducted.The paper objective. The article aims to substantiate the need to create an open register of research infrastructures as one of the important conditions for implementing a public policy of open science, to demonstrate the benefits of using such a register in general and for Ukraine in particular, and to consider the example of a Romanian open register of research infrastructures.The paper main body. The article demonstrates the importance of creating an open registry of research infrastructures to ensure the implementation of public open science policy, as well as its importance for particular research infrastructures. The list of advantages that the state and the average user of R&D and technical services received in the conditions of creation and operation of such an open register are outlined. The importance of the visibility of research infrastructures to search users and partners for further collaborative research is demonstrated. The functioning and algorithm of user actions on the example of the Romanian open register of research infrastructures are considered.Conclusions of the research. The European Commission and other European institutions, which influence the formation of rules and the direct pursuit of research within the European Research Area, are currently implementing the paradigm innovation, Open science, Openness to the world. Open science policy, as a component of it, is divided into several areas, in particular, open access to research infrastructures. However, without ensuring the visibility of research infrastructures to the end-user, efforts spent to increase the openness of research infrastructures can be considered wasteful.Creating an open register of research infrastructures helps to systematize information on existing research infrastructures and the services they provide, to increase the visibility of research infrastructures for all stakeholders, and to facilitate the accounting, monitoring and evaluation of their status and activities, etc.Besides, the creation of such a registry and a platform that provides effective access to it facilitates easy and clear communication between providers and consumers of scientific and technical services, which is an important prerequisite for accelerating scientific and technological progress in general.The example of Romania illustrates a possible algorithm for the operation of such a registry and platform. A well-defined mechanism of work, limits of liability and user instructions for access and communication can serve as a benchmark for Ukraine when creating similar digital resources. Given the international development of ERRIS services, it is advisable to consider using them for Ukrainian research infrastructures.The areas of further research may be to study the process of creating open registers of research infrastructures in other countries of the European Research Area to use their experience in Ukraine. Also, research openings may include mechanisms for ensuring the openness of research infrastructures.

‘Open science’ is a term that remains under constant discussion. Based on 29 semi-structured interviews with researchers from the natural sciences working in Brazil, France and Peru, this paper discusses the different meanings and values associated with open science. The different imaginaries concerning open science can be organized into three main categories: open science as research outputs, as embedded in the research process, and as related to the science–society relationship, the latter being more common in the two South American countries in this study. Openness, freedom and democracy are values commonly associated with this concept. In addition, Mertonian values such as universalism and organized skepticism are highlighted, although with nuanced variations due to open science practices.

Whereas the first digital revolution of science by digitisation changed the scientific practices of data collection, analysis and reporting of results, the second digital revolution, i.e. open science, will also challenge the current roles of researchers, research organisations, libraries and publishers. From the early days of development, research libraries have joined different networks and been among the most active stakeholders working towards open science. Cohesive networks are needed for coordinated actions and support, whereas bridging networks can provide new approaches and novel information. The Finnish Open Science and Research Initiative is presented in this paper as an example of joining networks, motivating individuals and organisations to deliver high-quality services, infrastructures and competence building to promote a transition towards open science. This paper also presents milestones such as the publication of the academic publishing costs of Finnish research organisations and the maturity level of open science operating cultures in HEIs. Based on the experience of the Finnish open science initiative, joining different networks at the national level on an open mode of operation can significantly speed up the transition towards the era of open science.

Open Science is transformative, removing barriers to sharing science and increasing reproducibility and transparency. The benefits of Open Science are maximized when its principles are incorporated throughout the research process, through working collaboratively with community members and sharing data, software, workflows, samples, and other aspects of scientific research as FAIRly and openly as possible. However, the paths toward Open Science are not always apparent. Developing Open Science skills is an ongoing practice, and while these skills enhance outcomes for individual researchers as well as the broader community, there are many concepts, approaches, and tools to learn along the way.How can we break down the barriers confronting researchers in their Open Science journey? How can we develop and support necessary infrastructure to reuse, distribute, and reproduce the outputs of scientific research? How do we create a culture where having better tools, practices, and methods helps us achieve this goal? We will share work by AGU, our collaborators, and the broader community to support researchers in the Open Science journey, build groups to share resources, leading practices, and experiences, and help develop networks of support across the Earth, space, and environmental science community at all levels, to better support the culture of the future.

As a new paradigm of global scientific and technological innovation, open science has attracted widespread attention from the scientific community and society. Reviewing the current research progress and exploring open science in practice can promote the development of this field and provide experience for future research. Through the literature survey, the concept and connotation, development motivation and practical significance of open science are summarized, and the main research viewpoints are analyzed from three aspects: open access, open data and open infrastructure. At present, some issues in the existing research have been extensively discussed, including concepts, historical evolutions, characteristic advantages, driving force, influence, challenges, practices, policies of open science, which have significantly promoted the theoretical research and practical development of open science. In the future, it is suggested to deepen the systematic study of open science policy system, strengthen the research of open science practice and development path, as well as perfect open science practice in the whole process of scientific research.

The open science movement promotes use of digital technology to increase the efficiency, inclusivity, and quality of scientific research. Developers of these platforms often advocate for open science on the grounds that it is in keeping with scientific values, specifically referencing Mertonian norms. However, many scientists are agnostic toward open science; as policies and technology enforce the movement’s aims of sharing openly, they seek to protect the research they view as their own. My dissertation work studies the enactment of open science by a variety of stakeholders in the Open Science Framework (OSF)—its developers, its users, and also its non-users. Through interviews, trace data collection, and observation of these various populations, I will explore how these stakeholders construct different technologies-in-practice. By taking the OSF not as a given, but as a technology whose purpose and effects are structured by the constraints and resources of its stakeholders, I will unpack the tensions among open science advocates, agnostics, and their use of technology. With these insights, science policy and open systems can be designed to better accommodate the diverse concerns of stakeholders.

BackgroundEfforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. Over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work. Concurrently, they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open science model) in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and to maximize the impact of their research.DiscussionWe present selected guidelines from three countries (Canada, United States, and United Kingdom) situated at the forefront of genomics to illustrate this potential policy conflict. Examining the innovation ecosystem and the messages conveyed by the different policies surveyed, we further investigate the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies.SummaryCommercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we wish to point out the need to gather additional evidence on the coexistence of open science and commercialization policies and on its impact, both positive and negative, on genomics academic research.

Liz Lyon, Open Science and the Research Library: Roles, Challenges and Opportunities? The keynote address (slide presentation) at the Directors' Meeting of the Association of Research Libraries in Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 2007.

There is a dearth of research that provides robust empirical studies of policy implementation in the context of open science. In the United States, a series of Presidential Memoranda issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) lays much of the federal policy foundation for open science, including a requirement for equitable access to federally funded public research. Benefits from research results and scientific data are often constrained by barriers to access, creating inequities in knowledge sharing. Hence, equitable public access to research results is still lacking. This study provides an exploratory qualitative study of practical challenges, organizational tensions, and tradeoffs experienced by agency actors in U.S. federal agencies seeking to implement equitable public access. We contribute to further research towards advancing policy implementation in open science by offering insights into how U.S. federal agencies understand and implement equitable public access. Our study also contributes to the practice of implementing policy mandates regardless of political administrations by increasing government agency actors' awareness of four dimensions latent in the implementation process: striving with ambiguity, overcoming fragmentation, reducing disparity, and mitigating perplexity. • We explored advancing the policy implementation process in open science. • Policy implementation in open science necessitates an iterative, adaptive process. • We found four dimensions that diminish policy implementation for equitable public access.

This is a case study about the creation of open science services in the University of Eastern Finland. The library has overseen the open science services that have been actively implemented from 2010 onwards due to the development of the digitalisation of science and open science policies. A survey was conducted to determine how the UEF’s academic faculty use the services provided as well as their attitudes towards opening their own research findings in this manner. The researchers seem to be most interested in issues that influence their daily work, i.e. data management plans and opening their publications. It seems that the culture of openness is still at the development stage within UEF. The innovators, i.e. active research groups and researchers, are already practicing and encouraging openness, but the majority of the academic staff seems to be either unaware of open science or unwilling to implement it, due to the fact that incentives and career advancements still support the traditional way of conducting research.

In the past few years, there has been a notable shift in the open science landscape as more countries and international agencies release recommendations and implementation guidelines for open scholarship [1-7]. In August 2022, the US White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) released a memo [8] with guidance that all federally funded research articles be (1) open access and (2) include sharing of underlying datasets in public repositories. The global open scholarship conversation has shifted from making a case for open science to developing operational workflows to assess, monitor, and enforce open policies that can normalize, simplify, and streamline these processes for use in daily research practice. As various workflows are proposed, there is a need for collective action across funders, institutions, and governments to align on open science policies and practices to reduce the cost and friction of adoption [9-12].