Search

Extended abstract presented at the CRIS2022 conference in Dubrovnik.-- Event programme available at https://cris2022.srce.hr/#section-program 41 slides.-- Presentation delivered within the session "Discussing PID infrastructure" Funding information is one of the pillars of the research information ecosystem. Despite this, it is still very challenging to associate scientific outputs to all the entities that financially support a project and all the stakeholders involved. To tackle this, PTCRIS – a national integrated research information management ecosystem - developed a new infrastructure to support the management of attributed funding to the scientific triad in the Portuguese scientific ecosystem: organizations, people and projects. The SciPROJ database is the new national database that aggregates funding records (national and international) that support science and technology activities carried out in Portugal.

A presentation on the scidecode study on "Risks and Trust in pursuit of a well functioning Persistent Identifier infrastructure", commissioned by Knowledge Exchange (KE). The presentation outlines the methodological approach, some selective findings, and reports some of the recommendations made. These address especially funding organisations, research performing organisations (RPOs) and publishers (with an emphasis on diamond Open Access publishers). The presentation was given on occasion of NISO Plus conference 2023., Presentation delivered within the session "Risks and Trust in Pursuit of a Well-functioning Persistent Identifier Infrastructure for Research" within the virtual NISO Plus 2023 Conference.

Der Vortrag beschreibt eine vonscidecode science consulting im Auftrag von Knowledge Exchange (KE) durchgeführte Studie über Risiken und Vertrauen als (Miss-)Erfolgsfaktoren für die Ausgestaltung einer funktionalen Persistent Identifier (PID) Infrastruktur. Er beleuchtet primär Risiken für die PID Landschaft und präsentiert eine Selektion am Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung des PID Systems, die sich dezidiert an Forschungsförderer und Forschungsorganisationen richten. Der Vortrag wurde gehalten anlässlich desTAPIR-Workshop "TeilAutomatisiertes Persistent-Identifier-basiertes Reporting" vom6. Februar 2023. Der Bericht zur Studie "Building the plane as we fly it: the promise of Persistent Identifiers" ist verfügbar unter https://zenodo.org/record/7258286 The presentation describes a study conducted by scidecode science consulting on behalf of Knowledge Exchange (KE) on risks and trust as factors of success or failure for the design of a functional Persistent Identifier (PID) infrastructure. It primarily highlights risks for the PID landscape and presents a selection of recommendations for the development of the PID system, which are aimed specifically at research funders and research organisations. The presentation was given at the TAPIR workshop "Partially Automated Persistent Identifier-based Reporting" on 6 February 2023.The report on the study ""Building the plane as we fly it: the promise of Persistent Identifiers" is available at https://zenodo.org/record/7258286 &nbsp

22 slides.-- Presentation delivered within Session 2 "Recent research information developments in the Netherlands (II)" The presentation introduces the NWO Persistent Identifier Strategy issued in Apr 2021 by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). The goal of a funder-led PID strategy is to improve data quality for funders and the broader community and increase funders’ capacity to monitor the outcomes of funded projects. The NWO PID strategy relies on three main PIDs: ORCID for researcher identification, CrossRef Grant IDs for funded grants and ROR for identifying research organisations. The need for funders to engage with other stakeholders at a national level and internationally with other funders is also highlighted.

This case study is part of a series that has been produced within the study on “Risks and Trust in pursuit of a well-functioning PID infrastructure for research” commissioned by the Knowledge Exchange in July 2021. The main outcome of this work will be a report examining the current PID landscape with an emphasis on its risks and trust-related issues. This initial case study aims to explore the key role research funders are expected to play in the gradual adoption of an ever wider range of PIDs across European countries. The study examines matters such as the endorsement of PIDs by research funders and opportunities for cross-funder collaboration. In addition it looks at the potential differences in the technical workflows for PID adoption among others. The report, Building the Plane as We Fly It: the promise of Persistent Identifiers, and remaining complementary case studies have now been published.

This diagram shows requirements for Plan S compliance in one page.

The objective of this study is to assess to what extent the policies and monitoring systems of the 19 largest public and philanthropic medical research funders (excluding multilateral funders) in Europe meet global best practice benchmarks as stipulated by the 2017 WHO Joint Statement, and to document changes in their performance over the past year.

This is a pre-print of a letter to the Editor published in Nature. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03418-1 The letter was written on invitation by the Editor at the occasion of the announcement (on the 27th of October, 2021) by the Dutch Research Council of the results of the first round of the NWO Open Science Fund. In the letter we argue that research funders can do more to foster open science practices. Traditionally funding councils have used mandates (funding requirements) to stimulate open science. And research shows that this is indeed is a very effective way to stimulate open science.The authors believe that in addition to that funders should also recognize and reward open science practices of their applicants. To this end the Dutch Research Council NWO has introduced a dedicated Open Science Fund which aims to recognize and reward researchers who lead in open science by funding projects of up to 50k covering the whole range of open science. The European Commission is even going a step further by including open science practices in the assessment of projects under the new Horizone Europe program. A more elaborate argument found in this letter, can be read in this blog post:M. Cruz, H.L. de Jonge, Beyond mandates, LSE Impact Blog (2020).&nbsp

Background Public research funding agencies and research organisations are increasingly accountable for the wider impacts of the research they support. While research impact assessment (RIA) frameworks and tools exist, little is known and shared of how these organisations implement RIA activities in practice. Methods We conducted a review of academic literature to search for research organisations’ published experiences of RIAs. We followed this with semi-structured interviews from a convenience sample (n = 7) of representatives of four research organisations deploying strategies to support and assess research impact. Results We found only five studies reporting empirical evidence on how research organisations put RIA principles into practice. From our interviews, we observed a disconnect between published RIA frameworks and tools, and the realities of organisational practices, which tended not to be reported. We observed varying maturity and readiness with respect to organisations’ structural set ups for conducting RIAs, particularly relating to leadership, skills for evaluation and automating RIA data collection. Key processes for RIA included efforts to engage researcher communities to articulate and plan for impact, using a diversity of methods, frameworks and indicators, and supporting a learning approach. We observed outcomes of RIAs as having supported a dialogue to orient research to impact, underpinned shared learning from analyses of research, and provided evidence of the value of research in different domains and to different audiences. Conclusions Putting RIA principles and frameworks into practice is still in early stages for research organisations. We recommend that organisations (1) get set up by considering upfront the resources, time and leadership required to embed impact strategies throughout the organisation and wider research ‘ecosystem’, and develop methodical approaches to assessing impact; (2) work together by engaging researcher communities and wider stakeholders as a core part of impact pathway planning and subsequent assessment; and (3) recognise the benefits that RIA can bring about as a means to improve mutual understanding of the research process between different actors with an interest in research.

Research funders can play an important role in supporting the integration of marine science into policy and practice to enable evidence-informed decision-making. However, to date, there is a paucity of guidance available to help research funders understand the specific actions they can take to support knowledge exchange among the researchers that they fund and relevant stakeholders, particularly within marine contexts. This Brief Research Report aims to begin to fill this gap through an in-depth case study of the Lenfest Ocean Program (LOP). Specifically, through qualitative interviews with 32 participants across eight LOP funded research projects (i.e., case studies) we sought to: (i) understand the types of impacts that have resulted from the LOP funded research, (ii) determine which activities undertaken by the LOP enabled funded research projects to achieve these impacts, and (iii) synthesize findings to articulate the core lessons that have emerged from our examination of these research projects. Results show that the concept of “research impact” is complex and can be interpreted in a number of ways including: (i) raising awareness of research among end-users, (ii) development and expansion of social networks, (iii) the provision of information to decision-makers, (iv) the development of decision-support tools, and (v) a direct contribution to policy change. We highlight the ways by which the LOP has supported the attainment of these impacts, as well as 10 general considerations that research funders should consider when seeking to enhance the impact of the research that they fund on marine policy and practice.

Monographs and academic books are increasingly becoming a focus point in the open access debate and policy developments. This article gives a personal account of the rationale behind open access book publishing and open infrastructures for books. It elaborates on the need for collaboration between the actors in the community in order to sustain open access book publishing to the benefit of the scholarly community and the public at large.

The report analyses the state of FAIR practices within diverse research communities and FAIR-related policies in different countries, and offers six practical recommendations on how FAIR can be turned into practice. These recommendations are aimed primarily at decision making entities of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), as well as research funders: Fund awareness-raising, training, education and community-specific support. Fund development, adoption and maintenance of community standards, tools and infrastructure. Incentivise development of community governance. Translate FAIR guidelines for other digital objects. Reward and recognise improvements of FAIR practice. Develop and monitor adequate policies for FAIR data and research objects. In order to ensure widespread benefits of the EOSC, improvements in FAIR practices are necessary. We believe that the timing of this report, which coincides with the fully-fledged launch of the EOSC, could help the EOSC, research funders and policymakers make crucial strategic decisions about the investment needed to put FAIR principles into practice. This report has been written by the FAIR Practice Task Force of the European Open Science Cloud Executive Board FAIR Working Group. This report can be seen as a follow-up on the 2018 report “Turning FAIR into reality” from the European Commission Expert Group on FAIR Data. Our primary aim was to translate our findings into actionable recommendations to the decision making entities of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), as well as research funders and policymakers on how to turn FAIR into practice. In addition, this work should be seen as complementary to “Recommendations on practice to support FAIR data principles” by the FAIRsFAIR project, which makes specific recommendations aimed primarily at research communities and research support personnel (including data stewards and research software engineers). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The final version of this report, in official European Commission template, is available at:https://doi.org/10.2777/986252 &nbsp

The FAIR Practice Task Force was set up as one of the four task forces of the European Open Science Cloud FAIR Working Group. Its goal was to support the Working Group with oversight of FAIR practices: learning about the possibilities of future FAIR implementation from current experience. This report can be seen as a followup on the 2018 report “Turning FAIR into reality” from the European Commission Expert Group on FAIR Data. Our primary aim was to translate our findings into actionable recommendations to the decision making entities of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), as well as research funders and policymakers on how to turn FAIR into practice. After a section describing our methodology and the limitations of our study, this report contains a disciplinary and a regional perspective on FAIR implementation. The disciplinary perspective summarises what we have been reading on fair practices split into 2x2 parts: technical and social impediments on one side, and technical solutions and social enablers on the other. The regional perspective shows trends in regional policies and how they have so far driven the development of FAIR practices, highlighting the differences and commonalities. A separate section details FAIR practices for digital objects other than research data. We close the report with two sections with insights. The first one describes differences between disciplinary and regional implementations, what implications these differences have for policymakers turning FAIR into reality and how these differences can and should be addressed. Finally, we close off with our recommendations for the EOSC, research funders and policymakers. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEEDBACK This report is open for public comments and feedback between 9 July 2020 to 31 August 2020. The consultation will be launched during a dedicated webinar on 9 July at 14.00 CEST. Those who wish to provide feedback are kindly asked to add their comments directly on a commentable version of this document. &nbsp

Presentation slides from an open seminar at Stockholm University on Jan. 28, 2020. PROGRAMME 9.00-9.15Welcome and Introduction to Data Management Plans Anders Moberg, Department of Physical Geography 9.15-10.15Funding Agency Requirements on Data Management Plans Riksbankens Jubileumsfond - The Swedish foundation for Humanities and Social Science –Eva Stensköld Vetenskapsrådet - The Swedish Research Council –Sanja Halling 10.15-10.30Coffee 10.30-12.00Data Management Plans in context and practice Open Data Pilot – ERC/Horizon 2020 –Mikko Roos,Research Data Management Team Data Management as a part of good research practice –Sara Belfrage,Research Data Management Team How to write a Data Management plan - Data Management Resources –Joakim Philipson, Research Data Management Team Archiving Research Data –Margareta Ödmark, Research Data Management Team Data Management Services and Support – Karin Stenbeck,Research Data Management Team &nbsp

In addition to a code of conduct for researchers, it is desirable to implement a code of conduct for funders of research. This is because researchers often behave unethically as a result of direct and/or indirect pressure from funders. The paper provides an expansion of the first proposal for such a code of conduct and includes several elements such as “policy relevant research should not be contracted and supervised by a client with an interest in the outcomes”, and “policy relevant research should always be examined by an independent institute”.

In the applied sciences and in engineering there is often a significant overlap between work at universities and in industry. For the individual scholar, this may lead to serious conflicts when working on joint university–industry projects. Differences in goals, such as the university’s aim to disseminate knowledge while industry aims to appropriate knowledge, might lead to complicated situations and conflicts of interest. The detailed cases of two electrical engineers and two architects working at two different universities of technology illustrate the kinds of problems individual scholars face in university–business collaborations. These cases are based on qualitative interviews and additional data and demonstrate that, while value conflicts emerge on the organizational level, it is primarily the individual researcher who must deal with such conflicts. This analysis adds to existing studies in two ways: first, it explicitly addresses normative issues framed in terms of ethical and social values, thereby going beyond the common social-science perspective of university–business collaboration. Secondly, it provides qualitative insights, thereby identifying details and issues not apparent in quantitative studies. In particular, it is evident that university–industry collaborations are prone to value conflicts not only in research but also in education and job training.

Research funders and research organisations both require feedback on the progress, productivity and quality of the research they support. This information originates with researchers, but may be captured in a variety of systems including University CRIS/IR and funder systems. In 2014 all 7 national Research Councils (collectively referred to as RCUK) implemented a harmonised approach to the collection of research output data, currently supported by Researchfish Ltd (referred to as the Researchfish® system). In 2016 this process is gathering feedback from over 60,000 researchers in all UK Universities, and for funders in the USA, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands, tracking more than £40billion of public and charity research investment and is adding to a dataset of more than 1.5 million outputs. Researchers, research managers and funders want to find ways to capture this data once and achieve wide re-use of the information. Working together University and Research Council officers, Researchfish Ltd. and Jisc have highlighted that it is important for the “interoperability” between research information systems to be improved. These organisations have started a programme of work to improve the bi-directional flow of information between University and funder systems.

Heft 1 des 69. Jahrgangs (2016) der Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare