Support Us

The Role of Open Data in Choosing Neighborhood

Lorenzo Leva - November 14, 2014 in Featured Project

To what extent is it important to get familiar with our environment?

If we think about how the world surrounding us has changed throughout the years, it is not so unreasonable that, while walking to work, we might encounter some new little shops, restaurants, or gas stations we had never noticed before. Likewise, how many times did we wander about for hours just to find green spaces for a run? And the only one we noticed was even more polluted than other urban areas!

Citizens are not always properly informed about the evolution of the places they live in. And that is why it would be crucial for people to be constantly up-to-date with accurate information of the neighborhood they have chosen or are going to choose.

the_role_of_opendata.doc

(Image source: London Evening Standard)

London is a neat evidence of how transparency in providing data is basic in order to succeed as a Smart City. The GLA’s London Datastore, for instance, is a public platform of datasets revealing updated figures on the main services offered by the town, in addition to population’s lifestyle and environmental risks. These data are then made more easily accessible to the community through the London Dashboard.

The importance of dispensing free information can be also proved by the integration of maps, which constitute an efficient means of geolocation. Consulting a map where it’s easy to find all the services you need as close as possible can be significant in the search for a location.

Skærmbillede 2014-11-03 kl. 14.02.12

(Image source: Smart London Plan)

The Global Open Data Index, published by Open Knowledge in 2013, is another useful tool for data retrieval: it showcases a rank of different countries in the world with scores based on openness and availability of data attributes such as transport timetables and national statistics.

Here it is possible to check UK Open Data Census and US City Open Data Census.

As it was stated, making open data available and easily findable online not only represented a success for US cities but favoured apps makers and civic hackers too. Lauren Reid, a spokesperson at Code for America, reported according to Government Technology: “The more data we have, the better picture we have of the open data landscape.”

That is, on the whole, what Place I Live puts the biggest effort into: fostering a new awareness of the environment by providing free information, in order to support citizens willing to choose the best place they can live.

The outcome is soon explained. The website’s homepage offers visitors the chance to type address of their interest, displaying an overview of neighborhood parameters’ evaluation and a Life Quality Index calculated for every point on the map.

The research of the nearest medical institutions, schools or ATMs thus gets immediate and clear, as well as the survey about community’s generic information. Moreover, data’s reliability and accessibility are constantly examined by a strong team of professionals with high competence in data analysis, mapping, IT architecture and global markets.

For the moment the company’s work is focused on London, Berlin, Chicago, San Francisco and New York, while higher goals to reach include more than 200 cities.

US Open Data Census finally saw San Francisco’s highest score achievement as a proof of the city’s labour in putting technological expertise at everyone’s disposal, along with the task of fulfilling users’ needs through meticulous selections of datasets. This challenge seems to be successfully overcome by San Francisco’s new investment, partnering with the University of Chicago, in a data analytics dashboard on sustainability performance statistics named Sustainable Systems Framework, which is expected to be released in beta version by the the end of 2015’s first quarter.

the_role_of_opendata.doc2

(Image source: Code for America)

Another remarkable collaboration in Open Data’s spread comes from the Bartlett Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA) of the University College London (UCL); Oliver O’Brien, researcher at UCL Department of Geography and software developer at the CASA, is indeed one of the contributors to this cause. Among his products, an interesting accomplishment is London’s CityDashboard, a real-time reports’ control panel in terms of spatial data. The web page also allows to visualize the whole data translated into a simplified map and to look at other UK cities’ dashboards.

Plus, his Bike Share Map is a live global view to bicycle sharing systems in over a hundred towns around the world, since bike sharing has recently drawn a greater public attention as an original form of transportation, in Europe and China above all.

O’Brien’s collaboration with James Cheshire, Lecturer at UCL CASA, furthermore gave life to a groundbreaking project called DataShine, aimed to develop the use of large and open datasets within the social science community through new means of data’s visualisation, starting from a mapping platform with 2011 Census data, followed by maps of individual census tables and the new Travel to Work Flows table.

Skærmbillede 2014-11-03 kl. 14.01.59

(Image source: Suprageography)

Global Witness and Open Knowledge – Working together to investigate and campaign against corruption related to the extractives industries

Sam Leon - November 14, 2014 in Data Journalism, Featured, Visualization

Sam Leon, one of Open Knowledge’s data experts, talks about his experiences working as an School of Data Embedded Fellow at Global Witness.

Global Witness are a Nobel Peace Prize nominated not-for-profit organisation devoted to investigating and campaigning against corruption related to the extractives industries. Earlier this year they received the TED Prize and were awarded $1 million to help fight corporate secrecy and on the back of which they launched their End Anonymous Companies campaign.


In February 2014 I began a six month ‘Embedded Fellowship’ at Global Witness, one of the world’s leading anti-corruption NGOs. Global Witness are no strangers to data. They’re been publishing pioneering investigative research for over two decades now, piecing together the complex webs of financial transactions, shell companies and middlemen that so often lie at the heart of corruption in the extractives industries.

Like many campaigning organisations, Global Witness are seeking new and compelling ways to visualise their research, as well as use more effectively the large amounts of public data that have become available in the last few years.

“Sam Leon has unleashed a wave of innovation at Global Witness”
-Gavin Hayman, Executive Director of Global Witness

As part of my work, I’ve delivered data trainings at all levels of the organisation – from senior management to the front line staff. I’ve also been working with a variety of staff to use data collected by Global Witness to create compelling infographics. It’s amazing how powerful these can be to draw attention to stories and thus support Global Witness’s advocacy work.

The first interactive we published on the sharp rise of deaths of environmental defenders demonstrated this. The way we were able to pack some of the core insights of a much more detailed report into a series of images that people could dig into proved a hit on social media and let the story travel further.

GW Info

See here for the full infographic on Global Witness’s website.

But powerful visualisation isn’t just about shareability. It’s also about making a point that would otherwise be hard to grasp without visual aids. Global Witness regularly publish mind-boggling statistics on the scale of corruption in the oil and gas sector.

“The interactive infographics we worked on with Open Knowledge made a big difference to the report’s online impact. The product allowed us to bring out the key themes of the report in a simple, compelling way. This allowed more people to absorb and share the key messages without having to read the full report, but also drew more people into reading it.”
-Oliver Courtney, Senior Campaigner at Global Witness

Take for instance, the $1.1 billion that the Nigerian people were deprived of due to the corruption around the sale of Africa’s largest oil block, OPL 245.

$1.1 billion doesn’t mean much to me, it’s too big of a number. What we sought to do visually was represent the loss to Nigerian citizens in terms of things we could understand like basic health care provision and education.

See here for the full infographic on Shell, ENI and Nigeria’s Missing Millions.


In October 2014, to accompany Global Witness’s campaign against anonymous company ownership, we worked with developers from data journalism startup J++ on The Great Rip Off map.

The aim was to bring together and visualise the vast number of corruption case studies involving shell companies that Global Witness and its partners have unearthed in recent years.

The Great Rip Off!

It was a challenging project that required input from designers, campaigners, developers, journalists and researchers, but we’re proud of what we produced.

Open data principles were followed throughout as Global Witness were committed to creating a resource that its partners could draw on in their advocacy efforts. The underlying data was made available in bulk under a Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license and open source libraries like Leaflet.js were used. There was also an invite for other parties to submit case studies into the database.

“It’s transformed the way we work, it’s made us think differently how we communicate information: how we make it more accessible, visual and exciting. It’s really changed the way we do things.”
-Brendan O’Donnell, Campaign Leader at Global Witness

For more information on the School of Data Embedded Fellowship Scheme, and to see further details on the work we produced with Global Witness, including interactive infographics, please see the full report here.

2 1 3

France Prefers to Pay (twice) for Papers by Its Researchers

Guest - November 11, 2014 in Open Access

France may not have any money left for its universities but it does have money for academic publishers.

While university presidents learn that their funding is to be reduced by EUR 400 million, the Ministry of Research has decided, under great secrecy, to pay EUR 172 million to the world leader in scientific publishing Elsevier .

In an exclusive piece published by the French news outlet Rue89 (Le Monde press group), Open Knowledge France members and open science evangelists Pierre-Carl Langlais and Rayna Stamboliyska released the agreement between the French Ministry and Elsevier. The post originally appeared here, in French.

Des fioles (Erlenmeyer), dans une classe de science (Lokesh Dhakar/Flickr/CC)

The Work of Volunteers

The scientific publishing market is an unusual sector, those who create value are never remunerated. Instead, they often pay to see their work published. Authors do not receive any direct financial gain from their articles, and the peer review is conducted voluntarily.

This enormous amount of work is indirectly funded by public money. Writing articles and participating in peer review are part of the expected activities of researchers, expected activities that lead to further research funding from the taxpayer.

Scientific publishing is centred around several privately-held publishing houses who own the journals where scientific research is published. Every journal has an editorial review board who receive potential contributions which are then sent to volunteer scientists for peer review. It is on the basis of comments and feedback from the peer review process that a decision is made whether an article is to be published or rejected and returned to the author(s).

When the article is accepted, the authors usually sign their copyright over to the publishers to sell access to the work, or can choose to make their work available to everyone, which oftentimes involves paying a given sum. In some cases journals only receive income for the service of publishing an article which is henceforth free to the consumer, but some journals have a mixed ‘hybrid’ selection so authors pay to publish some articles and their library still pays to purchase the rest of the journal. This is called ‘double dipping’ and while publishers claim they take it into account in their journal pricing, the secrecy around publisher contracts and lack of data means it is impossible to tell where money is flowing.

Huge Profit Margins

This is important because access to these journals is rarely cheap and publishers sell access primarily to academic libraries and research laboratories. In other words, financial resources for the publication of scientific papers come from credits granted to research laboratories; access to the journals these papers are published in is purchased by these same institutions. In both cases, these purchases are subsidies by the public.

The main actors in scientific publishing generate considerable income. In fact, the sector is dominated by an oligopoly with “the big four” sharing most of the global pie:

  • The Dutch Elsevier
  • The German Springer
  • The American Wiley
  • The English Informa

They draw huge profits: from 30% to 40% annual net profit in the case of Elsevier and Springer.

In other words, these four major publishers resell to universities content that the institutions themselves have produced.

In this completely closed market, competition does not exist, and pre-existing agreement is the rule: subscription prices have continued to soar for thirty years, while the cost of publishing, in the era of electronic publishing, has never been lower. For example, the annual subscription to Elsevier’s journal ‘Brain Research’ costs a whopping 15,000 EUR.

The Ministry Shoulders This Policy

The agreement between France and Elsevier amounted to ca. EUR 172 million for 476 universities and hospitals.

The first payment (approximately EUR 34 million of public money) was paid in full in September 2014. In return, 476 public institutions will have access to a body of about 2,000 academic journals.

This published research was mainly financed by public funds. Therefore in the end, we will have paid to Elsevier twice: once to publish, a second time to read.

This is not a blip. The agreement between Elsevier and the government is established policy. In March 2014, Geneviève Fioraso, Minister of Higher Education and Research, elaborated upon the main foci of her political agenda to the Academy of Sciences;two of which involve privileged interactions with Elsevier. This would be the first time that negotiating the right to read for hundreds of public research institutions and universities was managed at national level.

Pre-determined Negotiations

One could argue in favour of the Ministry’s benevolence vis-à-vis public institutions to the extent it supports this vital commitment to research. Such an argument would, however, fail to highlight multiple issues. Among these, we would pinpoint the total opacity in the choice of supplier (why Elsevier in particular?) and the lack of competitive pitch between several actors (for such an amount, open public tendering is required). The major problem which prevents competition is the monopolistic hold of publishers over knowledge – no-one else has the right to sell that particular article on cancer research that a researcher in Paris requires for their work – so there is little choice but to continue paying the individual publishers under the current system. Their hold on only expires with copyright, which is 70 years from the death of the last author and therefore entirely incompatible with the timeline of scientific discovery.

Prisoners of a game with pre-set rules, the negotiators (the Couperin consortium and the Bibliographic Agency for Higher Education, abbreviated as ABES) have not had much breathing space for negotiation. As aforementioned, a competitive pitch did not happen. Article 4 of the Agreement is explicit:

“Market for service provision without publication and without prior competition, negotiated with a particular tenderer for reasons connected with the protection of exclusive distribution rights.”

Therefore, a strange setup materialises for Elsevier to keep its former customers in its back pocket. The research organisations already having a contract with the publisher can only join the national license providing they accept a rise of the costs (that goes from 2.5 to 3.5%). Those without previous contract are not concerned.

How Many Agreements of the Sort?

To inflate the bill even more, Elsevier sells bundles of journals (its ‘flagship journals’): “No title considered as a ‘flagship journal’ (as listed in Annex 5) can be withdrawn from the collection the subscribers can access” (art. 6.2). These ‘flaghip journals’ cannot all claim outstanding impact factors. Moreover, they are not equally relevant acrossdisciplines and scientific institutions.

The final price has been reduced from the estimation initially planned in February: “only” EUR 172 million instead of EUR 188 million. Yet, this discount does not seem to be a gratuitous gift from Elsevier. Numerous institutions have withdrawn from the national license: from 642 partners in February, only 476 remain in the final deal.

Needless to say, the sitation is outrageous. Yet, it is just one agreement with one among several vendors. A recent report by the French Academy of Science [http://www.academie-sciences.fr/presse/communique/rads_241014.pdf] alluded to a total of EUR 105 million annually, dedicated to acquiring access to scientific publications. This figure, however, comes out as far below the reality. Indeed, the French agreement with Elsevier grants access to publications only to some of the research institutions and universities in France; and yet in this case, the publisher already preempts EUR 33-35 million per year. The actual costs plausibly reach a total of EUR 200-300 million.

An alternative exists.

Elsewhere in Europe…

An important international movement has emerged and developed promoting and defending a free and open access to scientific publications. The overall goal is to make this content accessible and reusable to anyone.

As a matter of fact, researchers have no interest whatsoever in maintaining the current system. Copyright in scholarly publication does not requite authors and thus constitutes a fiction whose main goal is to perpetrate the publisher’s rights. Not only does this enclosure limit access to scientific publications — it also prevents the researcher from reusing their own work, as they oftenconcede their copyright when opting in to publication agreements.

The main barrier to opening up access to publications appears to stem from the government. No action is taken for research to be released from the grip of oligopolistic publishers. Assessment of publicly funded research focuses on journals referred to as “qualifying” (that is, journals mainly published by big editors). Some university departments even consider that open access publications are, by default, “not scientific”.

Several European Countries lead the way:

  • Germany has passed a law limiting the publishers’ exclusive rights to one year. Once the embargo has expired, the researcher is free to republish his work and allow open access to it. More details here.
  • Negotiations have been halted in Elsevier’s base, the Netherlands. Even though Elsevier pays most of its taxes there, the Dutch governement fully supports the demands of researchers and librarians, aiming to open up the whole corpus of Dutch scientific publications by 2020. More details here.

The most chilling potential effect of the Elsevier deal is removing, for five years, any possible collective incentive to an ambitious French open access policy. French citizens will continue to pay twice for research they cannot read. And the government will sustain a closed and archaic editorial system whose defining feature is to single-handedly limit the right to read.

Seeking new Executive Director at Open Knowledge

Rufus Pollock - November 11, 2014 in Featured, News, Open Knowledge Foundation

Today we are delighted to put out our formal announcement for a new Executive Director. In our announcement about changes in leadership in September we had already indicated we would be looking to recruit a new senior executive and we are now ready to begin the formal process.

We are very excited to have this opportunity to bring someone new on board. Please do share this with your networks and especially anyone in particular you think would be interested. We emphasize that we are conducting a world-wide search for the very best candidates, although the successful candidate would ideally be able commute to London or Berlin as needed.

Full role details are below – to apply or to download further information on the required qualifications, skills and experience for the role, please visit http://www.perrettlaver.com/candidates quoting reference 1841. The closing date for applications is 9am (GMT) on Friday, 2nd January 2015. [Note: this deadline has been revised from the original deadline of the 8th December 2014.]

Role Details

Open Knowledge is a multi-award winning international not-for-profit organisation. We are a network of people passionate about openness, using advocacy, technology and training to unlock information and enable people to work with it to create and share knowledge. We believe that by creating an open knowledge commons and developing tools and communities around this we can make a significant contribution to improving governance, research and the economy. We’re changing the world by promoting a global shift towards more open ways of working in government, arts, sciences and much more. We don’t just talk about ideas, we deliver extraordinary software, events and publications.

We are currently looking for a new Executive Director to lead the organisation through the next exciting phase of its development. Reporting into the Board of Directors, the Executive Director will be responsible for setting the vision and strategic direction for the organisation, developing new business and funding opportunities and directing and managing a highly motivated team. S/he will play a key role as an ambassador for Open Knowledge locally and internationally and will be responsible for developing relationships with key stakeholders and partners.

The ideal candidate will have strong visionary and strategic skills, exceptional personal credibility, a strong track record of operational management of organisations of a similar size to Open Knowledge, and the ability to influence at all levels both internally and externally. S/he will be an inspiring, charismatic and engaging individual, who can demonstrate a sound understanding of open data and content. In addition, s/he must demonstrate excellent communication and stakeholder management skills as well as a genuine passion for, and commitment to, the aims and values of the Open Knowledge.

**To apply or to download further information on the required qualifications, skills and experience for the role, please visit http://www.perrettlaver.com/candidates quoting reference 1841. The closing date for applications is 9am (GMT) on Friday, 2nd January 2015. [Note: this deadline has been revised from the original deadline of the 8th December 2014.]

The role is flexible in terms of location but ideally will be within commutable distance of London or Berlin (relocation is possible) and the salary will be competitive with market rate.

Call for action: Help improve the open knowledge directory

Guest - November 10, 2014 in Featured Project

opensteps This is a guest blog post from Open Steps, an independent blog aggregating worldwide information around Open Cultures in form of articles, videos and other resources. Its aim is to document open knowledge (OK) related projects and keep track on the status of such initiatives worldwide. From organisations using Open Data, promoting Open Source technologies, launching Open Government initiatives, following the principles behind Open Science, supporting the release of information to newsrooms practicing Data Journalism.

In this way, their site seeks to continue, this time virtually, the globetrotter project realised between July 2013 to July 2014 and discover further OK projects all around the world.

If you followed the journey across Europe, India, Asia and South-America that Margo and Alex from Open Steps undertook last year, you probably already know their open knowledge directory. During those 12 months, in every of the 24 visited countries they had the chance to met numerous enthusiastic activists sharing the same ideas and approaches. In order to keep record of all those amazing projects they created what began as a simple contact list but soon evolved in a web application that has been growing since then.

okdirectory1

After some iterations a new version has been recently released which not only features a new user interface with better usability but also sets a base for a continuous development that aims to encourage collaboration among people across borders while monitoring the status of open knowledge initiatives worldwide and raising awareness about relevant projects worth to discover. If you haven’t done it yet, head to http://directory.open-steps.org and join it!

New version implementing PLP Profiles

One of the main features of this new version is the implementation of the Portable Linked Profiles, short PLP. In a nutshell, PLP allows you to create a profile with your basic contact information that you can use, re-use and share. Basic contact information refers to the kind of information you are used to type in dozens of online forms, from registering on social networks, accessing web services or leaving your feedback in forums, it is always the same information: Name, Email, Address, Website, Facebook, Twitter, etc…PLP addresses this issue but also, and most important, allows you to decide where you want your data to be stored.

okdirectory2

By implementing PLP, this directory does not make use anymore of the old Google Form and now allow users to edit their data and keep it up-to-date easily. For the sake of re-usability and interoperability, it makes listing your profile in another directory so easy as just pasting the URI of your profile on it. If you want to know more about PLP, kindly head to the current home page, read a more extensive article about it on Open Steps or check the github repository with the documentation. PLP is Open Source software and is based on Open Web Standards and Common Vocabularies so collaboration is more than welcome.

Participate on defining the next steps for the open knowledge directory

Speaking about collaboration, on the upcoming Wednesday 12th of November, a discussion will take place on how the worldwide open knowledge community can benefit from such a directory, how the current Open Steps’ implementation can be improved and what would be the next steps to follow. No matter what background you have, if you are a member of the worldwide open knowledge community and want to participate on the improvement of the open knowledge directory, please join us.
When? Wednesday, 12th November 2014. 3pm GMT

Event on Google+: https://plus.google.com/events/c46ni4h7mc9ao6b48d9sflnetvo

References

This blog post is also available on the Open Education Working Group blog.

Global Open Data Index 2014: Reviewing in progress

Mor Rubinstein - November 6, 2014 in Open Data Index

October was a very exciting month for us in the Index team. We spoke to so many of you about the Index, face to face or in the virtual world, and we got so much back from you. It was amazing for us to see how the community is pulling together not only with submissions, but also giving advice in the mailing list, translating tweets and tutorials and spreading the word of the Index around. Thank you so much for your contributions.

Mor and Neal at AbreLATAM

This is the first time that we have done regional sprints, starting from the Americas in early October in AbreLATAM/ConDatos, through to our community hangout with Europe and MENA, and finishing off with Asia, Africa and Pacific. On Thursday last week, we hosted a Hangout with Rufus, who spoke about the the Index, how it can be used and where it is headed. We were also very lucky to have Oscar Montiel from Mexico, who spoke with us how they use the Index to demand datasets from the government and how they are now implementing the local data index in cities around Mexico so they can promote data openness at the municipal level. We were also excited to host Oludotun Babayemi from Nigeria, who explained how Index that involves Nigeria can help them to promote awareness in government and civilians to open data issues.

Skærmbillede 2014-10-30 kl. 15.10.04

Now that the sprints are over, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. We are now reviewing all of the submissions. This year, we divided the editor role from 2014 into two roles known as ‘contributor’ and ‘reviewer’. This has been done so we can have a second pair of eyes to to ensure information is reliable and of excellent quality. Around the world people a team of reviewers are working on the submissions from the sprints. We are still looking for reviewers for South Africa, Bangladesh, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Philippines and Norway. You can apply to become one here.

We are finalising the Index 2014 over the next few weeks. Stay tuned for more updates. In the meantime, we are also collecting your stories about participating in the Index for 2014. If you would like to contribute to these regional blogs, please email emma.beer@okfn.org. We would love to hear from you and make sure your country is represented.

Open Knowledge Festival 2014 report: out now!

Beatrice Martini - November 6, 2014 in Community, Featured, Join us, News, OKFestival

Today we are delighted to publish our report on OKFestival 2014!

Open Knowledge Foundation-Festival 2014 at Kulturbrauerei in Berlin.

This is packed with stories, statistics and outcomes from the event, highlighting the amazing facilitators, sessions, speakers and participants who made it an event to inspire. Explore the pictures, podcasts, etherpads and videos which reflect the different aspects of the event, and uncover some of its impact as related by people striving for change – those with Open Minds to Open Action.

Want more data? If you are still interested in knowing more about how the OKFestival budget was spent, we have published details about the events income and expenses here.

If you missed OKFestival this year, don’t worry – it will be back! Keep an eye on our blog for news and join the Open Knowledge discussion list to share your ideas for the next OKFestival. Looking forward to seeing you there!

Open Access in Ireland: A case-study

Guest - October 29, 2014 in OKF Ireland, Open Access

Following last week’s Open Access Week blog series, we continue our celebration of community efforts in this field. Today we give the microphone to Dr. Salua Nassabay from Open Knowledge Ireland in a great account from Ireland, originally posted on the Open Knowledge Ireland blog.

In Ireland, awareness of OA has increased within the research community nationally, particularly since institutional repositories have been built in each Irish university. Advocacy programmes and funder mandates (IRCSET, SFI, HEA) have had a positive effect; but there is still some way to go before the majority of Irish researchers will automatically deposit their papers in their local OA repository.

Brief Story

In summer 2004, the Irish Research eLibrary (IReL) was launched, giving online access to a wide range of key research journals. The National Principles on Open Access Policy Statement were launched on Oct 23rd 2012 at the Digital Repository of Ireland Conference by Sean Sherlock, Minister of State, Department of Enterprise, Jobs & Innovation and Department of Education & Skills with responsibility for Research & Innovation. The policy consists of a ‘Green way’ mandate and encouragement to publish in ’Gold’ OA journals. It aligns with the European policy for Horizon 2020. OA on national level is managed by the National Steering Committee on OA Policy, see table 3.

A Committee of Irish research organisations is working in partnership to coordinate activities and to combine expertise at a national level to promote unrestricted, online access to outputs which result from research that is wholly or partially funded by the State:

National Principles on Open Access Policy Statement

Definition of OA

Reaffirm: freedom of researchers; increase visibility and access; support international interoperability, link to teaching and learning, and open innovation.

Defining Research Outputs:

include peer-reviewed publications, research data and other research artefacts which
feed the research process”.

General Principle (1): all researchers to have deposit rights for an AO repository.

Deposit: post-print/publisher version and metadata; peer-reviewed journal articles and
conference publication. Others where possible; at time of acceptance for publication; in
compliance with national metadata standards.

General Principle (2):Release: immediate for meta-data; respect publisher copyright, licensing and embargo (not
normally exceeding 6months/12months).

Green route policy – not exclusive

Suitable repositories

Research data linked to publications.

High-level principles:

Infrastructure and sustainability: depositing once, harvesting, interoperability and long-term preservation.

Advocacy and coordination: mechanisms for and monitoring of implementation, awareness raising and engagement for ALL.

Exploiting OA and implementation: preparing metadata and national value-added metrics.

Table 1. National Principles on Open Access Policy Statement. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/communications/pdfs/PatriciaClarke2014.pdf and http://openaccess.thehealthwell.info/sites/default/files/documents/NationalPrinciplesonOAPolicyStatement.pdf

There are seven universities in Ireland http://www.hea.ie/en/about-hea). These Irish universities received government funding to build institutional repositories in each Irish university and to develop a federated harvesting and discovery service via a national portal. It is intended that this collaboration will be expanded to embrace all Irish research institutions in the future. OA repositories are currently available in all Irish universities and in a number of other higher education institutions and government agencies:

Higher Education

Government Agency

Institutional repositories

Subject repository

Dublin Business School; Dublin City University; Dublin Institute of Technology; Dundalk Institte of Technology; Mary Immaculate College; National University of Ireland Galway; National University of Ireland, Maynooth; Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland; Trinity College Dublin; University College Cork; University College Dublin, University of Limerick; Waterford Intitute of Technology

Irish Virtual Research Library & Archive, UCD

Health Service Executive Lenus; All-Ireland electronic Health Library (AieHL); Marine Institute; Teagasc

Table 2. Currently available repositories in Ireland

AO Ireland’s statistics show more than 58,859 OA publications in 13 repositories, distributed as can be seen in the figures 1 and 2.

oa_figure1Figure 1. Publications in repositories.From rian.ie (date: 16/9/2014). http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Some samples of Irish OA journals are:

- Crossings: Electronic Journal of Art and Technology: http://crossings.tcd.ie;

-Economic and Social Review: http://www.esr.ie;

-Journal of the Society for Musicology in Ireland: http://www.music.ucc.ie/jsmi/index.php/jsmi;

-Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland: http://www.ssisi.ie;

-Minerva: an Internet Journal of Philosophy: http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//;

-The Surgeon: Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland: http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1479-666X_The_surgeon_journal_of_the_Royal_Colleges_of_Surgeons_of_Edinburgh_and_Ireland;

-Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine: http://www.ijpm.ie/1fmul3lci60?a=1&p=24612705&t=21297075.

oa_figure2Figure 2. Publications by document type. From rian.ie (date: 16/9/2014). http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Institutional OA policies:

Name

URL

OA mandatory

OA Infrastructure

Health Research Board (HRB) - Funders

Webside: http://www.hrb.ie

Policy:http://www.hrb.ie/research-strategy-funding/policies-and-guidelines/policies/open-access/

Yes

No

Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) – Funders

Webside: http://www.sfi.ie

Policy: http://www.sfi.ie/funding/grant-policies/open-access-availability-of-published-research-policy.html

Yes

No

Higher Education Authority (HEA) – Funders

Webside: http://www.hea.ie

Policy: http://www.hea.ie/en/policy/research/open-access-scientific-information

No

No

Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM) – Funders

Webside: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie

Policy:http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/research/DAFMOpenAccessPolicy.pdf

Yes effective 2013

No

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Funders

Webside: http://www.epa.ie/

Policy:http://www.epa.ie/footer/accessibility/infopolicy/#.VBlPa8llwjg

Repository: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/#.VBmTVMllwjg

Yes

Yes

Marine Institute (MI) – Funders

Webside: http://www.marine.ie/Home/

Policy: http://oar.marine.ie/help/policy.html

Repository: http://oar.marine.ie

No

Yes

Irish Research Council (IRC) – Funders

Webside: http://www.research.ie

Policy: http://www.research.ie/aboutus/open-access

*Yes

No

Teagasc – Funders

Webside: http://www.teagasc.ie

Policy: http://t-stor.teagasc.ie/help/t-stor-faq.html#faqtopic2

Repository: http://t-stor.teagasc.ie

*No

Yes

Institute of Public Health in Ireland (IPH) – Funders

Webside: http://www.publichealth.ie

Policy: http://www.thehealthwell.info/node/628334?&content=resource&member=749069&catalogue=Policies,%20Strategies%20&%20Action%20plans,Policy&collection=none&tokens_complete=true

Yes

No

Irish Universities Association (IUA) – Researchers

Representative body for Ireland’s seven universities:

http://www.iua.ie

https://www.tcd.ie/research_innovation/assets/TCD%20Open%20Access%20Policy.pdf

http://www.ucd.ie

Yes effective 2010

Yes

Health Service Executive (HSE) – Researchers

Webside: http://www.hse.ie/eng/

Policy:http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/library/Open_Access/statement.pdf

Repository: http://www.lenus.ie/hse/

Yes effective 2013

Yes

Institutes of Technology Ireland (IOTI) – Researchers

Webside: http://www.ioti.ie

-

No

Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) – Researchers

Webside: http://dit.ie

Policy: http://arrow.dit.ie/mandate.html

Repository: http://arrow.dit.ie

*Yes

Yes

Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) – Researchers

Webside: http://www.rcsi.ie

Policy: http://epubs.rcsi.ie/policies.html

Repository: http://epubs.rcsi.ie

*No

Yes

Consortium of National and University Libraries (CONUL) – Library and Repository

Webside: http://www.conul.ie

Repository: http://rian.ie/en

-

Yes

IUA Librarians’ Group (IUALG) - Library and Repository

Webside: http://www.iua.ie

Repository: http://rian.ie/en

-

Yes

Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI) - Library and Repository

Webside and Repository: http://www.dri.ie

DRI Position Statement on Open Access for Data: http://dri.ie/sites/default/files/files/dri-position-statement-on-open-access-for-data-2014.pdf

Yes

effective 2014

Yes

EdepositIreland - Library and Repository

Webside: http://www.tcd.ie/Library/edepositireland/

Policy: https://www.tcd.ie/research_innovation/assets/TCD%20Open%20Access%20Policy.pdf

Repository: http://edepositireland.ie

Yes

Yes

*IRC: Some exceptions like books. See policy.

*Teagasc: Material in the repository is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Share-Alike License

*DIT: Material that is to be commercialised, or which can be regarded as confidential, or the publication of which would infringe a legal commitment of the Institute and/or the author, is exempt from inclusion in the repository.

*RCSI: Material in the repository is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Share-Alike License

Table 3. Institutional OA Policies in Ireland

Funder OA policies:

Major research funders in Ireland

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/research/DAFMOpenAccessPolicy.pdf

IRCHSS (Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences): No Open Access policies as yet.

Enterprise Ireland: No Open Access policies as yet.

IRCSET (Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology): OA Mandate from May 1st 2008:http://roarmap.eprints.org/63/

HEA (Higher Education Authority): OA Mandate from June 30th 2009: http://roarmap.eprints.org/95/

Marine Institute: No Open Access policies as yet

HRB (Health Research Board): OA Recommendations, Policy: http://roarmap.eprints.org/76/

SFI (Science Foundation Ireland): OA Mandate from February 1st 2009: http://roarmap.eprints.org/115/

Table 4. Open Access funders in Ireland.

oa_figure3Figure 3. Public sources of funds for Open Access. From rian.ie (date: 16/9/2014), http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Infrastructural support for OA:

Open Access organisations and groups

Open Access projects and initiatives. The Open Access to Irish Research Project. Associated National Initiatives

RIAN Steering Group. IUA (Irish Universities Association) Librarian’s Group (Coordinating body). RIAN is the outcome of a project to build online open access to institutional repositories in all seven Irish universities and to harvest their content to the national portal.

NDLR (National Digital Learning Repository):http://www.ndlr.ie

National Steering Group on Open Access Policy. See Table 3

RISE Group (Research Information Systems Exchange)

Irish Open Access Repositories Support Project Working Group. ReSupIE: http://www.irel-open.ie/moodle/

Repository Network Ireland is a newly formed group of Repository managers, librarians and information: http://rni.wikispaces.com

Digital Repository Ireland DRI is a trusted national repository for Ireland’s humanities and social sciences data @dri_ireland

Table 5. Open Access infrastructural support.

Challenges and ongoing developments

Ireland already has considerable expertise in developing Open Access to publicly funded research, aligned with international policies and initiatives, and is now seeking to strengthen its approach to support international developments on Open Access led by the European Commission, Science Europe and other international agencies.

The greatest challenge is the increasing pressure faced by publishers in a fast-changing environment.

Conclusions

The launch of Ireland’s national Open Access policy has put Ireland ahead of many European partners. Irish research organisations are particularly successful in the following areas of research: Information and Communication Technologies, Health and Food, Agriculture, and Biotechnology.

Links

- Repository Network Ireland / http://rni.wikispaces.com

-Open Access Scholarly Publishers / http://oaspa.org/blog/

- OpenDoar – Directory of Repositories / http://www.opendoar.org

- OpenAire – Open Access Infrastructure for research in Europe / https://www.openaire.eu

- Repositories Support Ireland / http://www.resupie.ie/moodle/

-UCD Library News / http://ucdoa.blogspot.ie

- Trinity’s Open Access News / http://trinity-openaccess.blogspot.ie

- RIAN / http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Contact person: Dr. Salua Nassabay salua.nassabay@openknowledge.ie

https://www.openknowledge.ie; twitter: @OKFirl

CC-BY-SA-NC

Let’s imagine a creative format for Open Access

Guest - October 26, 2014 in OKF France, Open Access

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Celya Gruson-Daniel from Open Knowledge France and reports from “Open Access Xsprint”, a creative workshop held on October 20 in the biohackerspace La Paillasse in Paris – as announced here.

More and more information is available online about Open Access. However it’s difficult to process all this content when one is a busy PhD Student or researcher. Moreover, people already informed and convinced are often the main spectators. The question thus becomes : How to spread the world about Open Access to a large audience ? (researchers, students but also people who are not directly concerned). With the HackYourPhD community, we have been developing initiatives to invent new creative formats and to raise curiosity and/or interest about Open Access. Open Access Week was a perfect occasion to propose workshops to experiment with those kinds of formats.

An Open Access XSprint at La Paillasse

During the Open Access Week, HackYourPhD with Sharelex design a creative workshop called the Open Access Xsprint (X standing for media). The evening was held on October 20 in the biohackerspace La Paillasse in Paris with the financial support of a Generation Open Grant (Right to Research Coalition)

The main objective was to produce appealing guidelines about the legal aspects and issues of Open Access through innovative formats such as livesketching, or comics. HackYourPhD has been working with Sharelex on this topic for several months. Sharelex aims at providing access to the law to everyone with the use of a collaborative workshop and forum. A first content has been produced in French and was used during the Open Access XSprint.

One evening to invent creative formats about Open Access

These sessions brings together illustrators, graphic designers, students, researchers. After a short introduction to get to know each other, the group discussed about the meaning of Open Access and its definition. First Livesketching and illustration emerged.

B0eU8AFIUAA-cig

In a second time, two groups were composed. One group worked on the different meaning of Open Access with a focus on the Creative Commons licences.

B0aXUjdCMAA8g8u

The other group discussed about the development of the different Open Access models and their evolution (Green Open Access, 100% Gold Open Access, hybrid Journal, Diamond, Platinum). The importance of Evaluation was raised. It appears to be one of the brakes in the Open Access transition.

After an open buffet, each group presented their work. A future project was proposed. It will consist of personalizing a scientific article and inventing its different “”life””. An ingenious way to present the different Open Access Models.

B0eVPZSIIAEH0Sl

Explore also our storify “Open Access XSprint”

Next Step: Improvisation Theatre and Open Access

To conclude the Open Access Week, another event will be organized on October 24 in a science center (Espace Pierre Gilles de Gennes) with HackYourPhD and Sharelex, and the financial support of Couperin/FOSTER.

This event aims at exploring new format to communicate about Open Access. An improvisation theatral company will participate to this event. The presentations of different speakers about Open Access will be interspersed with short improvisation. The main topic of this evening will be the stereotypes or false ideas about Open Access. Bring an entertaining and original view is a way to discuss about Open Access for a large public, and maybe a starter to help them to become curious and to continue exploring this crucial topic for researchers and all citizen.

Licence Creative Commons Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Nature-branded journal goes Open Access-only: Can we celebrate already?

Guest - October 26, 2014 in OKF Brazil, Open Access

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Miguel Said from Open Knowledge Brazil and is a translated version of the original that can be found the Brazilian Open Science Working Group's blog.

Open access 2(1)Nature Publishing Group reported recently that in October, its Nature Communications journal will become open access only: all articles published after this date will be available for reading and re-using, free of charge (by default they will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution license, allowing virtually every type of use). Nature Communications was a hybrid journal, publishing articles with the conventional, proprietary model, or as open access if the author paid a fee; but now it will be exclusively open access. The publishing group that owns Science recently also revealed an open access only journal, Science Advances – but with a default CC-NC license, which prevents commercial usages.

So we made it: the greatest bastions of traditional scientific publishing are clearly signaling support for open access. Can we pop the champagne already?

This announcement obviously has positive aspects: for example, lives can be saved in poor countries where doctors may have access to the most up-to-date scientific information – information that was previously behind a paywall, unaffordable for most of the Global South. Papers published under open access also tend to achieve more visibility, and that can benefit the research in countries like Brazil, where I live.

The overall picture, however, is more complex than it seems at first sight. In both cases, Nature and Science adopt a specific model of open access: the so-called "gold model", where publication in journals is usually subject to a fee paid by authors of approved manuscripts (the article processing charge, or APC). In this model, access to articles is thus open to readers and users, but access to the publication space is closed, in a sense, being only available to the authors who can afford the fee. In the case of Nature Communications, the APC is $5000, certainly among the highest in any journal (in 2010, the largest recorded APC was US $ 3900 – according to the abstract of this article… which I cannot read, as it is behind a paywall).

This amounts to two months of the net salary of a professor in state universities in Brazil (those in private universities would have to work even longer, as their pay is generally lower). Who is up for spending 15%+ of their annual income to publish a single article? Nature reported that it will waive the fee for researchers from a list of countries (which does not include Brazil, China, India, Pakistan and Libya, among others), and for researchers from elsewhere on a "case by case" basis – but they did not provide any further objective information about this policy. (I suspect it is better not to count on the generosity of a publisher that charges us $32 to read a single article, or $18 for a single piece of correspondence [!] from its journals.)

On the other hand, the global trend seems to be that the institutions with which researchers are affiliated (the universities where they work, or the scientific foundations that fund their research) bear part of these charges, partly because of the value these institutions attach to publishing in high-impact journals. In Brazil, for example, FAPESP (one of the largest research foundations in Latin America) provides a specific line of funding to cover these fees, and also considers them as eligible expenses for project grants and scholarships. As it happens, however, the funds available for this kind of support are limited, and in general they are not awarded automatically; in the example of FAPESP, researchers compete heavily for funding, and one of the main evaluation criteria is – as in so many situations in academic bureaucracy today – the researcher's past publication record:

Analysis criteria [...] a) Applicant's Academic Record a.1) Quality and regularity of scientific and / or technological production. Important elements for this analysis are: list of publications in journals with selective editorial policy; books or book chapters [...]

Because of this reason, the payment of APCs by institutions has a good chance of feeding the so called "cumulative advantage" feedback loop in which researchers that are already publishing in major journals get more money and more chances to publish, while the underfunded remain that way.

The advancement of open access via the gold model also involves another risk: the proliferation of predatory publishers. They are the ones that make open access publishing (with payment by authors or institutions) a business where profit is maximized through the drastic reduction of quality standards in peer review – or even the virtual elimination of any review: if you pay, you are published. The risk is that on the one hand, predatory publishing can thrive because it satisfies the productivist demands imposed on researchers (whose careers are continually judged under the light of the publish or perish motto); and on the other hand, that with the gold model the act of publishing is turned into a commodity (to be sold to researchers), marketable under high profit rates - even without the intellectual property-based monopoly that was key to the economic power mustered by traditional scientific publishing houses. In this case, the use of a logic that treats scientific articles strictly as commodities results in pollution and degradation of humankind's body of scientific knowledge, as predatory publishers are fundamentally interested in maximizing profits: the quality of articles is irrelevant, or only a secondary factor.

Naturally, I do not mean to imply that Nature has become a predatory publisher; but one should not ignore that there is a risk of a slow corruption of the review process (in order to make publishing more profitable), particularly among those publishing houses that are "serious" but do not have as much market power as Nature. And, as we mentioned, on top of that is the risk of proliferation of bogus journals, in which peer review is a mere facade. In the latter case, unfortunately this is not a hypothetical risk: the shady "business model" of predatory publishing has already been put in place in hundreds of journals.

Are there no alternatives to this commodified, market-oriented logic currently in play in scientific publishing? Will this logic (and its serious disadvantages) be always dominant, regardless if the journal is "proprietary" or open access? Well, not necessarily: even within the gold model, there are promising initiatives that do not adhere strictly to this logic – that is the case of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), an open access publishing house that charges for publication, but works as a nonprofit organization; because of that, it has no reason to eliminate quality criteria in the selection of articles in order to obtain more profits from APCs. Perhaps this helps explain the fact that PLOS has a broader and more transparent fee waiver policy for poor researchers (or poor countries) than the one offered by Nature. And finally, it is worth noting that the gold model is not the only open access model: the main alternative is the "green model", based on institutional repositories. This model involves a number of challenges regarding coordination and funding, but it also tends not to follow a strictly market-oriented logic, and to be more responsive to the interests of the academic community. The green model is hardly a substitute for the gold one (even because it is not designed to cover the costs of peer review), but it is important that we join efforts to strengthen it and avoid a situation where the gold model becomes the only way for scientists and scholars in general to release their work under open access.

(My comments here are directly related to my PhD thesis on commons and commodification, where these issues are explored in a bit more detail – especially in the Introduction and in Chapter 4, pp. 17-20 and 272-88; unfortunately, it's only available in Portuguese as of now. This post was born out of discussions in the Brazilian Open Science Working Group's mailing list; thanks to Ewout ter Haar for his help with the text.)

Get Updates