Search

The need to reform research assessment processes related to career advancement at research institutions has become increasingly recognized in recent years, especially to better foster open and responsible research practices. Current assessment criteria are believed to focus too heavily on inappropriate criteria related to productivity and quantity as opposed to quality, collaborative open research practices, and the socioeconomic impact of research. Evidence of the extent of these issues is urgently needed to inform actions for reform, however. We analyze current practices as revealed by documentation on institutional review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes in seven countries (Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States). Through systematic coding and analysis of 143 RPT policy documents from 107 institutions for the prevalence of 17 criteria (including those related to qualitative or quantitative assessment of research, service to the institution or profession, and open and responsible research practices), we compare assessment practices across a range of international institutions to significantly broaden this evidence base. Although the prevalence of indicators varies considerably between countries, overall we find that currently open and responsible research practices are minimally rewarded and problematic practices of quantification continue to dominate.

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivise open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence-base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a deep disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (“value dissonance”), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as “research citizenship” comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments which better foster quality, openness and responsibility.

We present a novel dataset which enables quantitative analysis of the relationship between institutional support for Open Science and research performance. We analysed promotion, review, and tenure policies (PRT) from institutions originating from seven countries and combined them with bibliographical data from the outputs generated by each institution. The data were normalised and evaluated against Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) indicators, to enable comparisons and easy machine readable access. The significance of this dataset lies in its potential to answer a range of questions that are key to the understanding of what motivates academics with regards to their research practices and publishing behaviors, using various indicators, including the MoRRI. To our knowledge, this collection constitutes one of the first efforts in delivering a large machine readable dataset enabling quantitative analysis on these aspects, as much work in this area has been carried out only through surveys and qualitative analysis.

The need to reform research assessment processes related to career advancement at research institutions has become increasingly recognised in recent years, especially to better foster open and responsible research practices. Current assessment criteria are believed to focus too heavily on inappropriate criteria related to productivity and quantity as opposed to quality, collaborative open research practices, and the socio-economic impact of research. Evidence of the extent of these issues is urgently needed to inform actions for reform, however. We analyse current practices as revealed by documentation on institutional review, promotion and tenure processes in seven countries (Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States of America). Through systematic coding and analysis of 143 RPT policy documents from 107 institutions for the prevalence of 17 criteria (including those related to qualitative or quantitative assessment of research, service to the institution or profession, and open and responsible research practices), we compare assessment practices across a range of international institutions to significantly broaden this evidence-base. Although prevalence of indicators varies considerably between countries, overall we find that currently open and responsible research practices are minimally rewarded and problematic practices of quantification continue to dominate.

The conference paper was included in the 25th Panhellenic Conference of Academic Libraries (Rethymno, Crete 2019) and is about how to promote the dissemination of open science in the Greek Higher Education Institutions, with special reference to FOSTER portal, guides and taxonomy of related terms. Video https://youtu.be/ZlqVKd5K3Ds &nbsp

Technologiczny postęp ostatnich 20 lat zmusił biblioteki akademickie do uaktualnienia bieżących zakresów obowiązków i odpowiedzialności swoich pracowników oraz do wyznaczenia bibliotekarzom całkowicie nowych ról. Pozwoliło im to jednak zaadaptować się do dynamicznego rozwoju i postępu w komunikacji naukowej, a w konsekwencji umożliwiło przedstawienie swoim użytkownikom oferty kompetentnie i sprawnie wykonywanych usług. Globalne wezwania do otwartego dostępu do wyników badań naukowych, zainteresowanie udostępnianiem instytucjonalnym, ogólnokrajowym czy międzynarodowym, nieustająca ewolucja i rozwój związanych z tym usług wymusiły potrzebę stworzenia w bibliotekach akademickich nowych stanowisk badawczych. Artykuł przedstawia wyniki badań zakresów obowiązków nowych stanowisk bibliotecznych w usługach otwartej nauki na podstawie ofert pracy zamieszczanych przez biblioteki akademickie w Zjednoczonym Królestwie.

This Lighting talk will analyse data on career pathways and institutional policies to investigate how institutional structures of recognition and reward shape the uptake of principles and practices of Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). The termOpen Sciencerefers to the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of inquiring society.RRIis a broader concept incorporating Open Science (along with Science Education, Public Engagement, Governance, Gender, Ethics); it involves society and innovation in science and tries to align these outcomes with the values of society. Our work seeks to add to our knowledge of how current institutional recognition and reward structures (especially as contained in promotion policies) shape open practices. Could it be that reward structures could be reshaped to foster increased adoption of these principles? To this end, this work involved two main activities: A qualitative study of institutional promotion policies to determine the extent to which a range of criteria relevant for Open Science and RRI practices are currently reflected. A survey of active researchers to assess their own opinions in relation to the current assessment criteria used in their own institutional promotion policies, as well as their own extent of uptake of Open Science/RRI, and reflections on what may further incentivise uptake. This work will present the collected data and the general conclusions that can be brought together to draw broader conclusions. It will set recommendations on the role and potential of existing as well as new RRI and Open Science incentives, as well as a proposal for new indicators that both incentivise researchers in applying RRI and Open Science principles as well as help them further develop their careers.

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will notper sedrive wide reuse or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science's agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of ‘cumulative advantage’. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: ‘What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?’ Aiming to synthesize findings, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open and FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as ‘reproducibility’ becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

Each year the number of Open Access (OA) papers is gradually increasing. We carried out a study investigating 400 universities from 8 countries to examine: i) the total number of OA papers per country, ii) proportion of OA papers published by representative universities in each country classified into three tiers of research quality: high, middle and low, iii) how universities within the same country compare to each other and iv) the growth of OA papers in countries per year. We conclude that among the analysed countries the UK and USA rank first and second respectively, while Russia and India are positioned towards the bottom of the list. We observe no link between the proportion of OA papers published by authors at a university and the university ranking, with some universities in the middle university rank tier having a larger proportion of OA papers than those in the high tier.

Recent years have seen fast growth in the number of policies mandating Open Access (OA) to research outputs. We conduct a large-scale analysis of over 800 thousand papers from repositories around the world published over a period of 5 years to investigate: a) if the time lag between the date of publication and date of deposit in a repository can be effectively tracked across thousands of repositories globally, and b) if introducing deposit deadlines is associated with a reduction of time from acceptance to public availability of research outputs. We show that after the introduction of the UK REF 2021 OA policy, this time lag has decreased significantly in the UK and that the policy introduction might have accelerated the UK's move towards immediate OA compared to other countries. This supports the argument for the inclusion of a time-limited deposit requirement in OA policies., \c{opyright} 2019 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works

To foster responsible research and innovation, research communities, institutions, and funders are shifting their practices and requirements towards Open Science. Open Science skills are becoming increasingly essential for researchers. Indeed general awareness of Open Science has grown among EU researchers, but the practical adoption can be further improved. Recognizing a gap between the needed and the provided training offer, the FOSTER project offers practical guidance and training to help researchers learn how to open up their research within a particular domain or research environment. Aiming for a sustainable approach, FOSTER focused on strengthening the Open Science training capacity by establishing and supporting a community of trainers. The creation of an Open Science training handbook was a first step towards bringing together trainers to share their experiences and to create an open and living knowledge resource. A subsequent series of train-the-trainer bootcamps helped trainers to find inspiration, improve their skills and to intensify exchange within a peer group. Four trainers, who attended one of the bootcamps, contributed a case study on their experiences and how they rolled out Open Science training within their own institutions. On its platform the project provides a range of online courses and resources to learn about key Open Science topics. FOSTER awards users gamification badges when completing courses in order to provide incentives and rewards, and to spur them on to even greater achievements in learning. The paper at hand describes FOSTER Plus’ training strategies, shares the lessons learnt and provides guidance on how to re-use the project’s materials and training approaches.

CORE, a harvesting service offering access to millions of open access research papers from around the world, has shifted its harvesting process from following a monolithic approach to the adoption of a microservices infrastructure. In this paper, we explain how we rearranged and re-scheduled our old ingestion pipeline, present CORE's move to managing microservices and outline the tools we use in a new and optimised ingestion system. In addition, we discuss the ineffciencies of our old harvesting process, the advantages, and challenges of our new ingestion system and our future plans. We conclude that via the adoption of microservices architecture we managed to achieve a scalable and distributed system that would assist with CORE's future performance\ud and evolution.

When entering the research world, Early Career Researchers (ECRs) may encounter difficulties building a good reputation for their research, its quality and the research results. Open access is the movement that could assist ECRs to: (a) widely disseminate their scholarly outputs, (b) demonstrate the research and societal impact of their work and, (c) organise online research portfolios that can be accessed by all researchers, as well as prospective employers.

The presentation was given at the 25th Panhellenic Conference of Academic Libraries (Rethymno, Crete 2019) and is about how to promote the dissemination of open science in the Greek Higher Education Institutions, with special reference to FOSTER portal, guides and taxonomy of related terms. Video https://youtu.be/ZlqVKd5K3Ds