Support Us

You are browsing the archive for Open Access.

The White House Seeks Champions of Open Science

May 8, 2013 in Open Access, Open Science, WG Open Data in Science

Here at the Open Knowledge Foundation, we know Open Science is tough, but ultimately rewarding. It requires courage & leadership to take the open path in science.

Nearly a week ago on the open-science mailing list we started putting together a list of established scientists who have in some way or another made significant contributions to open science or lent their esteemed reputation to calls for increased openness in science. Our open list now has over 130 notable scientists, among whom 88 are Nobel prize winners.

In an interesting parallel development, the White House has just put out a call to help identify “Open Science” Champions of Change — outstanding individuals, organizations, or research projects promoting and using open scientific data for the benefit of society.

whitehouseOPENSCIENCE

Anyone can nominate an Open Science candidate for consideration by May 14, 2013.

What more proof do we need that open science is both good, and valued in society? This marks a tremendous validation of the open science movement. The US government is not seeking to reward any scientist; only open scientists actively working to change the world for the better will win this recognition.

We’re still a long way from Open Science being the norm in science. But perhaps now, we’re a crucial step closer to important widespread recognition that Open Science is good, and could be the norm in the future. We eagerly await the unveiling of the winning Open Science champions at the White House on the 20th June later this year.

Science Europe denounces ‘hybrid’ Open Access

May 2, 2013 in Open Access, Open Science, WG Open Data in Science

Recently Science Europe published a clear and concise position statement titled: Principles on the Transition to Open Access to Research Publications

This is an extremely timely & important document that clarifies what governments and research funders should expect during the transition to open access. Unlike the recent US OSTP public access policy which allows publishers to apply up to a 12 month access embargo (to the disgust of some scientists like Michael Eisen) on publicly-funded research, this new Science Europe statement makes clear that only up to a 6 month embargo at maximum should be accepted for publicly funded STEM research. The recent RCUK (UK research councils) open access policy also requires 6 months embargo at most, with some caveats.

But among the many excellent principles is a particularly bold and welcome proclamation:

the hybrid model, as currently defined and implemented by publishers, is not a working and viable pathway to Open Access. Any model for transition to Open Access supported by Science Europe Member Organisations must prevent ‘double dipping’ and increase cost transparency

Hybrid options are typically far more expensive than ‘pure’ open access journal costs, and they don’t typically aid transparency or the wider transition to open access.

The Open Knowledge Foundation heartily endorses these principles as together with the above they respect, and reinforce the need for free access AND full re-use rights to scientific research.

About Science Europe:

Science Europe is an association of European Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, based in Brussels. At present Science Europe comprises 51 Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations from 26 countries, representing around €30 billion per annum.

Open Research Data Handbook – Call for case Studies

April 9, 2013 in Featured, OKF Projects, Open Access, Open Science

The OKF Open Research Data Handbook – a collaborative and volunteer-led guide to Open Research Data practices – is beginning to take shape and we need you! We’re looking for case studies showing benefits from open research data: either researchers who have personal stories to share or people with relevant expertise willing to write short sections.

Designed to provide an introduction to open research data, we’re looking to develop a resource that will explain what open research data actually is, the benefits of opening up research data, as well as the processes and tools which researchers need to do so, giving examples from different academic disciplines.

Leading on from a couple of sprints, a few of us are in the process of collating the first few chapters, and we’ll be asking for comment on these soon.

In the meantime, please provide us with case studies to include, or let us know if you are willing to contribute areas of expertise to this handbook.

i want you

We now need your help to gather concrete case studies which detail your experiences of working with Open Research Data. Specifically, we are looking for:

  • Stories of the benefits you have seen as a result of open research data practices
  • Challenges you have faced in open research, and how you overcame them
  • Case studies of tools you have used to share research data or to make it openly available
  • Examples of how failing to follow open research practices has hindered the progress of science, economics, social science, etc.
  • … More ideas from you!

Case studies should be around 200-500 words long. They should be concrete, based on real experiences, and should focus on one specific angle of open research data (you can submit more than one study!).

Please fill out the following form in order to submit a case study:

Link to form

If you have any questions, please contact us on researchhandbook [at] okfn.org

Will Obama’s new $100m brain mapping project be open access?

April 4, 2013 in Open Access, Open Science, Policy

On Tuesday President Obama unveiled a new $100 million research initiative to map the human brain.

The BRAIN (Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) initiative will “accelerate the development and application of new technologies that will enable researchers to produce dynamic pictures of the brain that show how individual brain cells and complex neural circuits interact at the speed of thought”.

As well as trying to vastly improve scientific understanding of “the three pounds of matter that sits between our ears”, it is hoped that this research will enable new forms of prevention and treatment for conditions like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism and epilepsy.

In his speech, Obama made several comparisons between the BRAIN initiative and the Human Genome Project, an initiative which saw unprecedented international collaboration and data sharing between research centres around the world to map the tens of thousands of genes of the human genome. Dr Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project and is the current Director of the National Institutes of Health, spoke alongside Obama at the announcement.

While there has been no explicit announcement about whether or not the BRAIN initiative will be open access (and while there are obviously difficult ethical and privacy issues in this field), we hope that it will follow in the footsteps of the Human Genome Project’s pioneering approach to data sharing – which saw data being placed into the public domain by default, without restrictions on its use and redistribution. This helped to minimise duplication, maximise synergy and ultimately to accelerate the pace of research in this area.

There was a rival initiative to the Human Genome Project from a private company called Celera, which aimed to create its own subscription database of the human genome, and to patent over 300 genes. Martin Bobrow, a representative for the Human Genome Project, later said: “Celera’s requirements seemed to amount to them establishing an effective monopoly over the human genome.” If they had succeeded the consequences to scientific research and innovation in this area could have been devastating.

With its mixture of public and private investment and public and private research organisations, all with different interests and different approaches to sharing, there is a danger that Obama’s new brain mapping initiative could fracture into silos of separate researchers and groups, duplicating work, competing against each other and claiming exclusive control and commercialisation over the fruits of their research.

Given the strong focus on US innovation in President Obama’s speech, it is also not clear how the initiative will collaborate with other initiatives such as the European Commission’s recently announced €1 billion Human Brain Project, which looks to have at least some overlapping aims and goals to Obama’s new initiative.

While the EC will be requiring open access to research funded by their Horizon 2020 programme, it is not yet clear whether the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)’s recent announcement in support of open access will apply to the BRAIN initiative.

We hope that President Obama’s new brain mapping initiatives will adopt a strong and principled commitment to open access and international collaboration, so that the world can benefit from accelerated and more impactful research around mapping the human brain in the same way that it has with the human genome.

If you’re interested in following our work in this area, you can join our open-science discussion list by filling in your details in the form below:

Landmark ruling will enable more lifesaving generic drugs in developing countries

April 3, 2013 in Open Access, Open Science

Earlier this week the Guardian and the BBC reported on a landmark ruling in India which will hopefully pave the way for greater access to lifesaving generic drugs in developing countries.

The Indian supreme court has rejected a new patent on a “slightly altered” version of Glivec, a cancer treatment drug developed by the pharmaceutical company Novartis. They concluded that the Novartis’s changes were an attempt at ‘evergreening’, making small changes in order to gain a new patent.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said that the ruling will “save a lot of lives across the developing world”, and the Cancer Patients Aid Association in India (CPAA) said it is “a huge victory for human rights”.

The ruling highlights the importance of addressing the profound imbalance in the way that potentially life-saving knowledge is shared. We need laws, policies and practises that recognise the value of sharing and collaboration around critical information, rather than focusing exclusively on protection and compensation.

Dr Unni Karunakara, the International President of Médecins Sans Frontières said:

At the moment medical innovation is financed through high drug prices backed up by patent monopolies, at the expense of patients and governments in developing countries who cannot afford those prices. Instead of seeking to abuse the patent system by bending the rules and claiming ever longer patent protection on older medicines, the pharmaceutical industry should focus on real innovation, and governments should develop a framework that allows for medicines to be developed in a way that also allows for affordable access.

As the Open Knowledge Foundation’s Advisory Board Member Glyn Moody wrote in TechDirt:

The fact that many key drugs have only been possible thanks to [..] “vital investments made by the public sector” is nearly always overlooked by defenders of the pharma patent system. It’s another reason why the Indian Supreme Court’s decision is not only right, but just.

As well as fairer, more balanced laws and policies supporting the development of life-saving generic drugs in developing countries, we want to see more open access to the results of medical research – especially that which is publicly funded.

As we wrote about a few weeks ago, we think a major part of this will be an open database of clinical trials to give doctors, patients and researchers access to information about the results and methods of trials related to the drugs that they research, prescribe and take.

If you’re interested in following our work in this area, you can join our open-science discussion list by filling in your details in the form below:

“We are entering an era of open science” says EU Vice President Neelie Kroes at launch of new global Research Data Alliance

March 21, 2013 in Open Access, Open Data, Open Science, Policy, WG Open Data in Science

Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, gave a talk earlier this week renewing the EU’s strong, principled support for open science.

Speaking at the launch of a new global Research Data Alliance, she said that we are entering a new “era of open science”, which will be “good for citizens, good for scientists and good for society”.

She explicitly highlighted the transformative potential of open access, open data, open software and open educational resources – mentioning the EU’s policy requiring open access to all publications and data resulting from EU funded research.

She also alluded to the EU’s work encouraging national funding bodies to adopt similar approach to publicly funded research, and recent policy developments in the US and Australia.

The Research Data Alliance says it “aims to accelerate and facilitate research data sharing and exchange” and currently lists a number of working areas such as metadata harmonisation and legal interoperability.

While there does not yet appear to be an explicit focus on open data per se, we hope that the new organisation will take a principled, ‘open by default’ approach to data sharing, in line with the Panton Principles, and commensurate with Commissioner Kroes’s speech.

As always, our Open Science Working Group will continue to monitor and engage with relevant initiatives and policy developments in this area as they unfold. If you’d like to help us you can join our open-science discussion list, by signing up below:



Cultural Anthropology journal to go Open Access by 2014

March 13, 2013 in Open Access, WG Archaeology

We’re really pleased by this week’s announcement from the Society of Cultural Anthropology that their influential journal, Cultural Anthropology will become open access by next year. The plan is that from the first issue of 2014, the journal will be available online globally under an open access license, along with 10 years’ worth of the back catalogue.

From their press release:

This is a boon to our authors, whose work we can guarantee the widest possible readership —and to a new generation of readers inside of anthropology and out. Cultural Anthropology will be the first major, established, high-impact journal in anthropology to offer open access to all of its research, and we hope that our experience with open access will provide the AAA as a whole, as well as other journals in the social and human sciences, valuable guidance as we explore alternative publishing models together.

As far as we can see, the specifics of licensing are yet to be figured out, as are other logistical questions like where the journal will be hosted and what it’s financial model is going to look like. Still a lot of work to be done, then, in making this a sustainable and truly open reality, but we’re really happy their taking the plunge!

Look out for opportunities to discuss these transitionary issues on their website.

Expanded Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research

February 25, 2013 in Open Access, Open Science, WG Open Data in Science

On Friday 22nd February, 2013 the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a statement to say that the “Obama Administration is committed to the proposition that citizens deserve easy access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for”.  This was accompanied by a new policy memorandum and a long-awaited response by OSTP Director John Holdren to the ‘We The People’ petition that was signed by over 65,000 people calling for expanded public access to research.

OSTP_logo

 

Advocates of green open access were pleased to see this new directive and Peter Suber in particular gives a nice clear summary of it in a Google+ post. With up to 12-month embargoes allowed before research can be self-archived even the Association of American Publishers wrote a statement of support for this new policy.

This policy certainly represents a step in the right direction, but it’s not as strong as some would have liked — prominent OA advocate & scientist Michael Eisen writes on his blog: No celebrations here: why the White House public access policy sucks.

A comparison with the United Kingdom’s RCUK policy, clearly shows the OSTP to be the weaker of the two:

Breadth: OSTP applies only to scientific research, whereas RCUK’s applies to Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences research too.

Immediacy: OSTP allows 12 month embargoes, whilst RCUK accepts a maximum embargo of only 6 months for STM research

Coverage: OSTP policy applies only to Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D expenditures, whilst RCUK’s applies to all RCUK funded research – no exceptions.

Some would say this is no bad thing. The OSTP policy is certainly more lenient on publishers and thus is likely to be uncontroversially implemented. Hopes for stronger OA policy in the USA are emboldened by the recent Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act which proposes to shorten the maximum embargo time allowed to just 6-months, in-line with RCUK policy.

Finally, the pleasant surprise for everyone with this new OSTP policy is the specific and explicit inclusion of access to data not just publications, in section 4 titled Objectives for Public Access to Scientific Data in Digital Formats aiming to:

“Maximize access, by the general public and without charge, to digitally formatted scientific data created with Federal funds”

The United States of America has now clearly joined the global movement towards open access to taxpayer-funded research. We think the world will certainly benefit from this new policy.

Open Research Data Handbook Sprint

February 15, 2013 in Open Access, Open Content, Open Data, Open Economics, Open Science, Open Standards, Our Work, WG Economics

On February 15-16 we are updating the Open Research Data Handbook to include more detail on sharing research data from scientific work, and to remix the book for different disciplines and settings. We’re doing this through an open book sprint. The sprint will happen at the Open Data Institute, 65 Clifton Street, London EC2A 4JE.

The Friday lunch seminar will be streamed through the Open Economics Bambuser channel. If you would like to participate, please see the Online Participation Hub for links to documents and programme updates. You can follow this event at the IRC channel #okfn-rbook and follow on twitter with hashtags #openresearch and #okfnrbook.

The Open Research Data Handbook aims to provide an introduction to the processes, tools and other areas that researchers need to consider to make their research data openly available.

Join us for a book sprint to develop the current draft, and explore ways to remix it for different disciplines and contexts.

Who it is for:

  • Researchers interested in carrying out their work in more open ways
  • Experts on sharing research and research data
  • Writers and copy editors
  • Web developers and designers to help present the handbook online
  • Anyone else interested in taking part in an intense and collaborative weekend of action

What will happen:

The main sprint will take place on Friday and Saturday. After initial discussions we’ll divide into open space groups to focus on research, writing and editing for different chapters of the handbook, developing a range of content including How To guidance, stories of impact, collections of links and decision tools.

A group will also look at digital tools for presenting the handbook online, including ways to easily tag content for different audiences and remix the guide for different contexts.

Agenda:

Where: 65 Clifton Street, EC2A 4JE (3rd floor – the Open Data Institute)

Friday, February 15th

  • 13:00 – 13:30: Arrival and sushi lunch
  • 13:30 – 14:30: Open research data seminar with Steven Hill, Head of Open Data Dialogue at RCUK.
  • 14:30 – 17:30: Working in teams

Friday, February 16th

  • 10:00 – 10:30: Arrival and coffee
  • 10:30 – 11:30: Introducing open research lightning talks (your space to present your project on research data)
  • 11:30 – 13:30: Working in teams
  • 13:30 – 14:30: Lunch
  • 14:30 – 17:30: Working in teams
  • 17:30 – 18:30: Reporting back

As many already registered for online participation we will broadcast the lunch seminar through the Open Economics Bambuser channel. Please drop by in the IRC channel #okfn-rbook

Partners:

OKF Open Science Working Group – creators of the current Open Research Data Handbook
OKF Open Economic Working Group – exploring economics aspects of open research
Open Data Research Network - exploring a remix of the handbook to support open social science
research in a new global research network, focussed on research in the Global South.
Open Data Institute – hosting the event

Yet Another Open Access Inquiry

February 1, 2013 in Open Access, Open Science

Hot on the heels of the recent House of Lords inquiry, there is also a separate Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee inquiry into the new Research Councils UK open access mandate focusing on economic aspects. There were only 70 or so written evidence submissions to the House of Lords inquiry and few were from active researchers. Other countries around the world are closely following developments with UK policy so it is globally important that the UK mandate remains strong.
For this new BIS inquiry we think you might want to submit written evidence. You need not be a UK resident or national. In fact, since the UK contributes 6% of the world’s academic research output (and 14% of the highly cited output) we’re all stakeholders in this. Open access benefits the world, academics and non-academics alike.
   
The Committee will consider a range of topics including:
  • The Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications’, including its preference for the ‘gold’ over the ‘green’ open access model;
  • Rights of use and re-use in relation to open access research publications, including the implications of Creative Commons ‘CC-BY’ licences;
  • The costs of article processing charges (APCs) and the implications for research funding and for the taxpayer; and
  • The level of ‘gold’ open access uptake in the rest of the world versus the UK, and the ability of UK higher education institutions to remain competitive.
They are not particularly looking for general endorsements of Open Access. That is thankfully a given, unchangeable policy direction. As I understand it they are looking for relevant evidence to the points above, only.    
Written evidence should be sent to the Committee, as an MS Word document, by e-mail to biscommem@parliament.uk.  The deadline for BIS submissions is 7 February 2013, further details here.
 
The Open Knowledge Foundation is particularly concerned about the confusion in many recent blog posts in certain quarters over what Creative Commons licences actually do. Some have been attempting to portray the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY)  as against ‘author rights’ or against ‘academic freedom‘. It would be good to make clear the benefits of CC BY, perhaps even specifically in terms of economics and economic benefits.

 

This is a rare opportunity for for our voices to be heard in a policy-guiding process. We should not waste this opportunity. Commercial academic publishers will almost certainly be submitting their viewpoints and interests, so we should equally ensure that our interests in intelligent openness are represented here too.

   

Please create an account to get started.

Sign up to the Open Knowledge Newsletter

Get Updates