Next steps for the Catalog of Open Infrastructure Services (COIs) | 2022-05-09 | Invest in Open Infrastructure

“We invite open infrastructure service providers to express interest in being added to the next release of the COIs….

We are releasing the COIs documentation. This documentation is the primary resource for understanding the background, content, and key frameworks for COIs. We define key terms, describe key inputs, and articulate our internal decision-making on what content we included and how we chose to display it in order to inform and engage users of COIs, as well as support those interested in submitting information on services not already included in COIs.

We are launching an interest survey for open infrastructure service providers who are interested in being added to the next release of COIs. In this short survey, we ask service providers to assess their information on the key areas covered in COIs, and how they would like to submit that information to and maintain it on COIs. We would like to invite a broad range of open infrastructure service providers, e.g. of different sizes, governance models, and geographical areas, to take part in this survey. This would help build a more comprehensive understanding of the diversity of data types and practices, and increase the resilience of COIs, its infrastructure and processes.

Contribute to developing COIs — We can only move COIs and this work forward with the support of open infrastructure services providers. You can help by expressing your interest in being added to the next release of COIs by filling in the Interest survey, by June 20.

We also invite everyone interested to read and comment on the COIs documentation to help improve the value, usability, scalability and overall user experience of COIs.

We are organizing two Q&A sessions on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 to further discuss these plans with the community and answer any questions you may have: Session 1: 10 am EDT (see this in your time zone) – register here. / Session 2: 7 pm EDT (see this in your time zone) – register here. The sessions will be recorded, and the recordings and a short recap will be shared here on our blog. We look forward to meeting you at one of the sessions!…”

BAD Project – COKI

“The Book Analytics Dashboard Project (2022-2025) is focused on creating a sustainable OA Book focused analytics service. This service is needed to safeguard and support diversity in the voices, perspectives, geographies, topics and languages made visible through OA Books. Funded by the Mellon Foundation, the Book Analytics Dashboard project is building on an earlier Mellon-funded initiative: Developing a Pilot Data Trust for OA eBook Usage (2020 – 2022). In addition to scaling workflows, infrastructure and customer support, the Demonstration Project is developing a long-term plan for housing, maintenance and funding of the analytics service as a sustainable community infrastructure….”

pubassistant.ch: consolidating publication profiles of researchers – PubMed

“Online accounts to keep track of scientific publications, such as Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) or Google Scholar, can be time consuming to maintain and synchronize. Furthermore, the open access status of publications is often not easily accessible, hindering potential opening of closed publications. To lessen the burden of managing personal profiles, we developed a R shiny app that allows publication lists from multiple platforms to be retrieved and consolidated, as well as interactive exploration and comparison of publication profiles. A live version can be found at pubassistant.ch.

The Open Access Tracking Project – OATP – TIB-Blog

“In a recent meta-study for the German Federal Ministry of Education and Science (abbreviated BMBF), TIB investigated the current state of research on the effects of Open Access. The report resulting from this study has also recently been published (“Wirkungen von Open Access”; https://doi.org/10.34657/7666), here in the blog I have summarised the results of the study. The study relied on the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) as a control instrument: Using the collection of Open Access references on OATP, we were able to systematically expand the literature on all of the impacts we examined and make sure that we did not overlook any significant studies. After completing the study, we supplemented OATP with the small amount of literature that had not been already recorded there. We use this opportunity to introduce this important resource for information on Open Access to the audience of the TIB blog.

The OATP is dedicated to collecting and making available all news and commentary on OA topics in one place. The platform was founded in 2009 by Peter Suber. Different from existing channels such as blogs, OATP was designed to provide a comprehensive collection of the growing number of contributions on OA topics via crowdsourcing. For this purpose, OATP relies on the open source software TagTeam, which was specially developed for OATP by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Using TagTeam, users can link items on OATP and tag them in order to categorize their contents: For example, oa.benefit refers to entries on the benefits of Open Access; the tag oa.germany identifies entries on Open Access in Germany….”

Extending the open monitoring of open science – Archive ouverte HAL

Abstract:  Abstract : We present a new Open Science Monitor framework at the country level for the case of France. We propose a fine-grained monitoring of the dynamics of the open access to publications, based on historical data from Unpaywall, and thus limited to Crossref-DOI documents. The economic models of journals publishing French publications are analyéed as well as the open access dynamics by discipline and open access route (publishers and repositories). The French Open Science Monitor (BSO) website: https://frenchopensciencemonitor.esr.gouv.fr presents the results to date (last observation date December 2021). 62% of the 170,000 French 2020 publications are available in December 2021. This rate has increased by 10 points in one year. The level of open access varies significantly from one discipline to another. Some disciplines, such as the physical sciences and mathematics, have long been committed to opening up their publications, while others, such as chemistry, are rapidly catching up. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and the urgent need to open up scholarly outputs in the health field, a specific version of the French Open Science Monitor has been built: https://frenchopensciencemonitor.esr.gouv.fr/health. It monitors the open access dynamics of French publications in the biomedical field. It also analyses the transparency of the results of clinical trials and observational studies conducted in France. Only 57% of clinical trials completed in the last 10 years have shared their results publicly. In contrast to other Open Science Monitoring initiatives, the source code and the data of the French Open Science Monitor are shared with an open licence. The source code used for the French Open Science Monitor is available on GitHub, and shared with an open licence. The code is split in modules, in particular for indicators computations https://github.com/dataesr/bso-publications and https://github.com/dataesr/bso-clinical-trials and the web user interface https://github.com/dataesr/bso-ui. The data resulting of this work is shared on the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation open data portal: https://data.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/explore/dataset/open-access-monitor-france/information/ and https://data.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/explore/dataset/barometre-sante-de-la-science-ouverte/information/. The originality of the French Open Science Monitor also lies in the fact that it can easily be adapted to the level of an higher education and research institution. To date, some twenty higher education and research institutions have already used it to obtain reliable and open indicators on the progress of open science in their scientific production.

 

The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science

Abstract:  With the growing number of open access (OA) mandates, the accurate measurement of OA publishing is an important policy issue. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two major bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assesses how the choice of database affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that a higher proportion of publications indexed in Dimensions are OA than those indexed by WoS, and that this is particularly true for publications originating from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications originating beyond North America and Europe.

 

Measures of Impact for Journals, Articles, and Authors | SpringerLink

“Journals and authors hope the work they do is important and influential. Over time, a number of measures have been developed to measure author and journal impact. These impact factor instruments are expanding and can be difficult to understand. The varying measures provide different perspectives and have varying strengths and weaknesses. A complete picture of impact for individual researchers and journals requires using multiple measures and does not fully capture all aspects of influence. There are only a few players in the scholarly publishing world that collect data on article citations: Clarivate Analytics, Elsevier, and Google Scholar (Table 1). Measures of influence for authors and journals based on article citations use one of these sources and may vary slightly because of differing journal coverage….”

GOA7: Three-quarters progress report « Walt at Random

“I’ve scanned 13,000 journals so far–just over three-quarters of them all. (There are 4,302 left to do. Stopping at 12,900 would have left 4,402, just over one-quarter.)

At a similar point in last year’s scan (arranged by publisher and journal), there were 11,386 journals. I show 1,790 newly-added journals so far, so that suggests about 176 removed or missing. [Journals change publishers and thus locations in the spreadsheet, so removed/added figures can change either way.]

The 2021 article count to date is 1,069,316. The last quarter of journals tends to have many fewer articles: there were just under 157,000 2020 articles in the remaining group. So it’s fair to assume that there will be more than 1.2 million 2021 articles, but maybe not a lot more–I’ll stick with 1.3 to 1.4 million as a vague guesstimate….”

Tracking and Mitigating Climate Change – COKI

“On Monday 28 February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the Working Group 2 contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. Coming in at 3,675 pages it shows the serious challenges ahead for preventing and mitigating the effects of the Climate Crisis.

So what can we tell about the underlying science behind the report? We extracted 17,420 unique DOIs (of which 16,325 could be matched to Crossref) that were cited in the report and linked them to the dataset we’ve built at the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative to analyse. The resulting dashboard provides a snapshot of research and analysis that is relevant to the issues tackled in the WG2 analysis, which looks at “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. …”

Updating the UCI IPAT Fair Use Jurisprudence Project for Fair Use Week 2022

“Last year, in celebration of Fair Use Week, the IPAT clinic took a deep dive into fair use. We looked at every written judicial opinion that discussed fair use from the beginning of 2019 through February 2021, and made them available in a searchable, sortable database with abstracts and commentary and links to copies of every single case. We learned a lot, and the resources we made available were used by many scholars, students, and attorneys across the country….

For Fair Use Week 2022, we’ve returned to the Fair Use Jurisprudence Project to analyze and present another year’s worth of fair use cases. Our first observation is that the rate of fair use activity has continued to increase. We logged 64 opinions discussing fair use in 2021, increasing from 45 in 2020 and 22 in 2019. Go here for the abstracts.  Photographs continue to be the most common type of work at issue in these disputes, with 67 of the 132 total cases from 2019 to 2022 relating to their use. Of course, not all photograph cases come out the same way. Online news sites, web storefronts, bloggers and artists have all claimed fair use as a defense against photograph infringement claims, with varying results….”

 

Sounding the Alarm: Scholarly Information and Global Information Companies in 2021 | Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research

Abstract:  Vendors and publishers collaborate and work to protect their bottom line — which is threatened by open access (OA) — by expanding into research lifecycle and data analytics, and by continuing to merge and acquire each other, reducing choice in the library market. The implementation of Seamless Access and other systems force library staff into the position of gatekeeper for systems and platforms that we have no control or input over. Vendors and publishers control the online content that librariescan access: they add and remove content at will, and classify titles according to their greatest possible sales margins, making valuable resources unavailable to libraries to license for campus-wide access. These vendor actions—which impact the research lifecycle as a whole, disrupt traditional publishing, and seek to monetize user data—are extremely concerning. Collective action is the only way to make significant inroads against these developments. We suggestsome proactive ways that we can initiate these collective actions and resist these industry-wide developments imposed by vendors and publishers.

Wikidata as a Tool for Mapping Investment in Open Infrastructure

“This working paper shares the results of research conducted to explore Wikidata’s current coverage of the domain of open infrastructure and investment therein. The research question investigates whether Wikidata, a collaboratively edited and multilingual knowledge graph hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, is a viable prospect for hosting investment flow data for open infrastructure. 

 
At present, Wikidata partially describes the domain. Coordinated efforts to collectively define relevant data categories, relationships, and values, and to align distributed editing will help to improve coverage.

 
This study was conducted as part of a Research Fellowship with Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI), and is generously supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. 

We invite feedback and comments directly in this document. Please feel free to add your thoughts via the commenting function. Have questions? Contact us. …”

Espace Presse – Le CEA publie son baromètre science ouverte 2021

For the first time, in 2022, the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MESRI) is offering institutions the version of the French open science barometer adapted to their scholarly publications. The French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) publishes the most significant results of its 2021 open science barometer
According to the CEA’s 2021 open science barometer, 80% of the CEA’s 5,375 scientific publications in 2020 are available in open access.

Monitoring EOSC readiness: FAIR data policies | FAIRsFAIR

“The ambition of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) is to provide a  ‘multi-disciplinary environment where researchers can publish, find and re-use data, tools and services, enabling them to better conduct their work’. The realisation of the EOSC vision depends upon the availability of FAIR data (i.e., those data that are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable). The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) defines the general framework for future research, development and innovation activities in relation to the EOSC and identified the availability of standardised national Open Science and FAIR data strategies, including the description of these policies, as a key priority to enable the continuous monitoring of the landscape with regards to EOSC readiness. 

This workshop will share recent work undertaken by the EOSC Association to monitor additional activities and define key performance indicators relating to FAIR data policies; share the key aims of a survey on policy monitoring currently being carried out with Member States; and introduce solutions being developed by EOSC Future and FAIRsFAIR to support comparable policy monitoring moving forward. The workshop will allow ample time for questions and discussion. This event will be useful for a broad range of stakeholders who are interested in – or may need to contribute to – the ongoing monitoring of the policy landscape at different levels. ”
https://openscience.cmb.med.rug.nl/?cat=4755
openscience.cmb.med.rug.nl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
127992
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SPLNIBRIODCF5OJN333HUBR4M44ODPC6
<urn:uuid:40edad7a-5488-4657-a7fd-9fa3d1d101e1>
2022-05-19T11:05:14Z
129.125.2.210
text/html
sha1:YZNZP3UH242MYHZ42QPLLV6YSRRJNSPA
<urn:uuid:90f53810-6811-4029-a6e2-f91956245788>
https://openscience.cmb.med.rug.nl/?cat=4755
response
<urn:uuid:efca22a1-f5f5-41f5-a701-00b104bbf6e2>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-6
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/