Research

Friday 28th of June, 12.00-13.00 pm CET on Zoom

The prevalence of mental health symptoms within the academic community has become a growing concern. Both early career researchers and senior academics face significant challenges, with notable incidences of depression, anxiety, and burnout. This trend raises alarms for both the research community and policymakers, highlighting the urgent need for effective strategies to address mental health issues within academia.

One potential solution lies in fostering support through the academic community itself. By leveraging the power of peer networks and mentorship, academics can find valuable support systems to navigate the mental health challenges associated with their demanding careers.

To explore this approach, the fourth webinar in a series on mental health will be held on June 28, from 12:00 to 13:00 CET. This webinar will feature a panel of three distinguished members of the Young Academy of Europe (YAE) who will delve into the critical role of mentorship in academia. Both mentors and mentees can benefit from these relationships, as they provide a platform to voice and work through mental health issues.

The panelists for this event include Mar Rus-Calafell, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, and Scott Bremer, who will share their diverse experiences with mentoring. The discussion will be moderated by Viktorija Vaštakaitė-Kairienė, the YAE Activities Chair. Attendees are encouraged to contribute their questions and experiences to enrich the conversation.

This mental health webinar series will conclude with a workshop focused on scientific leadership, with a particular emphasis on mental health. This workshop will take place at the YAE Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Strasbourg on August 26th and 27th. Interested individuals are encouraged to register and participate in this culminating event.

Through initiatives like these, the academic community can come together to address mental health challenges, creating a supportive environment that fosters well-being and resilience.

Register here.

Photo via Alivio

In 2020, Dutch universities, university medical centres, research institutes, and research funders initiated the Recognition & Rewards programme. This initiative seeks to create a balanced approach to recognizing and rewarding academic work, ensuring that diverse talents and contributions across research, teaching, impact, leadership, and patient care are valued. The programme aims to address the one-sided focus on quantitative individual research performance, which has often led to the neglect of other critical academic activities.

Key Developments and Objectives

To promote this broader perspective, the Universities of the Netherlands (UNL), the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU), the Network of Ideologically-based Universities (NLU), the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Dutch Research Council (NWO), and ZonMw collaborated on a position paper titled Room for Everyone’s Talent: Towards a New Balance in the Recognition and Reward of Academics. This paper laid out ambitious goals for a significant shift in how academic achievements are recognized and rewarded, emphasizing the need for a profound cultural change.

To monitor the progress towards these goals, the ‘Recognition & Rewards Plan 2022–2026’ introduced a culture barometer. This tool aims to:

1. Assess the extent to which academics recognize, experience, and share the ambitions of the Recognition & Rewards programme within their institutions.
2. Provide insights into the progress of the envisaged cultural change throughout the programme’s duration.

First Culture Barometer Survey

The first culture barometer was conducted in early 2024 by Berenschot, with a follow-up planned for 2026. The survey was meticulously prepared with input from project leaders, HR directors, and questionnaire experts. It was administered in both Dutch and English to ensure accessibility for all academic staff across 26 participating institutions.

Survey Participation and Response

The survey targeted all academic staff, totaling 65,142 individuals. The response rate varied by institution, ranging from 4% to 52%, with an overall response rate of 12.1%. This participation level provided sufficient data to analyze variations across different job categories and subject areas, though it highlighted some disparities in representation, such as the underrepresentation of PhD candidates and younger academics.

Findings and Interpretation

The survey results offer valuable insights into the current state of the Recognition & Rewards programme. Key findings include:

• Familiarity with the Programme: Respondents who were already familiar with the programme were more likely to complete the questionnaire.
• Perceived Recognition and Rewards: Respondents who completed the survey generally felt less recognized and rewarded in their work.
• Demographic Representation: The gender distribution in responses was balanced. However, younger academics and PhD candidates were underrepresented, while professors and associate professors were overrepresented.
• Subject Area Representation: Academics in Healthcare were the largest group but were underrepresented in responses, while Natural and Life Sciences, and Behavioural and Social Sciences had slightly higher representation.

Challenges and Biases

The survey faced potential selection biases. Institutions that heavily promoted the survey and sent reminders saw higher response rates. Additionally, respondents who felt less recognized and rewarded were more likely to participate, which might skew perceptions of the programme’s effectiveness.

Conclusion and Future Directions

This report provides a snapshot of the Recognition & Rewards programme’s current state, based on the opinions of academic staff. While it highlights significant areas for improvement and adjustment, it also underscores the importance of continued monitoring and adaptation. The follow-up survey in 2026 will further illuminate the programme’s impact and guide future efforts to create a more inclusive and balanced academic recognition and rewards system.

More information and insights: RECOGNITION & REWARDS

June 27, 2024, 12:00 PM CEST

The Science for Africa Foundation (SFA) has officially launched Open Research Africa (ORA), a pioneering peer-reviewed publishing platform aimed at facilitating transparent and rapid communication of diverse research outputs. This innovative platform is powered by F1000, a leading open science publisher, and embodies the joint mission of both organizations: to disseminate high-quality research from Africa to the global community, fostering rapid sharing, discovery, and reuse of African research for the benefit of all.

Enhancing Scientific Discoveries Through Open Access

In the contemporary academic landscape, there is a growing trend among publishers and funding agencies to encourage researchers to openly share the data underpinning their findings. Research shows that openly available datasets can lead to further research and greater impact, as other researchers can reuse this data, thereby advancing scientific knowledge and breaking new ground. This open sharing benefits not only the authors but also the wider scientific community and the public.

Key Aspects of Open Research Africa

The launch event highlighted several critical elements of the ORA publishing model and its potential benefits for the research community. The session included:

• Introduction to the ORA Publishing Model: An overview of how ORA operates, emphasizing its commitment to open access and rapid dissemination of research.
• Variety of Research Outputs: ORA offers a wide array of research outputs, accommodating various types of scholarly work beyond traditional articles.
• Benefits of Open Data Sharing: Understanding the significance of openly sharing data, which can lead to increased visibility, collaboration, and impact of research.
• Eligibility, Policies, and Guidelines: Detailed information on the policies and guidelines governing open data sharing, ensuring researchers understand the requirements and benefits.

Key Figures in the Initiative

Two prominent figures are driving the ORA initiative forward:

• Diksha Awasthi: As a Business Liaison Manager, Open Research, at the Taylor and Francis Group, Diksha focuses on nurturing partnerships and providing author support and capacity-building training within India, South Asia, and Africa.
• Elizabeth Marincola: Serving as Senior Advisor for Communications and Advocacy at the Science for Africa Foundation, Elizabeth is responsible for overseeing ORA. Her role involves collaboration with F1000 to ensure the platform meets its goals of enhancing the visibility and impact of African research.

Conclusion

The launch of Open Research Africa marks a significant step towards making African research more accessible and impactful on a global scale. By promoting open access and data sharing, SFA and F1000 are enabling a new era of scientific collaboration and discovery. Researchers and stakeholders in the academic community are encouraged to engage with ORA, leveraging its resources to advance their work and contribute to the global pool of knowledge.

More info and registration

22 October, Maastricht — Registration for the highly anticipated National Open Science Festival is officially open! Since its inaugural edition in 2021, the festival has been a significant event fostering creativity and innovation within the Open Science community. This year’s festival promises to be a vibrant gathering filled with engaging sessions and ample opportunities for attendees to reconnect with old colleagues and forge new professional relationships.

Festival Highlights

Set against the academic backdrop of Maastricht University, the festival on 22 October is a must-attend event for anyone passionate about Open Science. It will feature a diverse range of sessions designed to inspire and inform, providing a platform for participants to share knowledge, collaborate on new ideas, and celebrate the progress and potential of Open Science.

Open Science Barcamp: A Pre-Festival Event

Adding to the excitement, a satellite event, the Open Science Barcamp, will take place on 21 October, the day before the main festival. Held at the same location, this Barcamp follows an open ‘unconference’ format, inviting both newcomers and seasoned experts in Open Science to join. Organized by the grassroots network Open Science Communities (OSC-NL), this event is an excellent opportunity for participants to (re)connect, share insights, and expand their professional networks in an informal setting.

Final Program and Registration Details

The final program for the festival will be available in August and will be published on the event’s official website. Registrants will be notified once the program is released, allowing them to subscribe to their preferred sessions. This ensures that all attendees can tailor their festival experience to their interests and make the most of the event.

Join Us in Maastricht

We warmly invite you to submit your participation and visit the festival at Maastricht University. Whether you are a veteran of the Open Science community or new to the field, this festival offers a unique opportunity to engage with like-minded individuals and contribute to the growing momentum of Open Science.

Don’t miss out on this inspiring event—register now and be part of the future of Open Science!

Find more information here.

Photo via NIST

The debates surrounding open access (OA) policies often appear to be repetitive and cyclical. However, upon closer examination, these discussions are slowly progressing towards a conclusive end. Despite the circuitous route, OA policies are steadily advancing towards full implementation. The journey has been far from straightforward due to the myriad technical, commercial, and cultural challenges that needed to be addressed and overcome.

The Current State of OA Policy Implementation

The timeline for the full realization of OA policies remains uncertain. There are still several hurdles to clear before reaching the final goal. Recently, representatives from Oxford University have raised concerns about linking OA to the Research Excellence Framework (REF), particularly with the proposed extension to include long-form publications such as monographs and book chapters. While their concerns highlight some legitimate issues regarding implementation, their overall arguments lack persuasiveness.

Patrick Grant, Oxford’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Tanita Casci, Director of the Research Strategy & Policy Unit, and Stephen Conway, Executive Director of Research Services, argue that the proposed policy is both “unaffordable and excessively bureaucratic.” They estimate that the OA compliance costs for the new requirements could reach £20 million over a REF cycle for Oxford University alone, excluding the costs of engaging with the complex policy. They further suggest that the expanded OA requirements could hinder institutions from submitting their best outputs for the 2029 assessment exercise.

The Broader Implications of OA Policies

However, the Oxford representatives’ argument overlooks a fundamental aspect: why would scholars not want their best work to reach the widest possible audience? Ensuring that research has the maximum impact within and beyond academia is crucial. They also claim that the policy promotes a compliance culture, detracting from opportunities to foster open research practices. While this is a potential risk, it is disheartening that senior figures at a leading university do not recognize the responsibilities and opportunities that come with a more inclusive OA policy.

One of the most disheartening points raised by Grant and colleagues is the question of why the REF should have an OA policy at all. This echoes objections from a decade ago when OA for the REF was first proposed, disregarding the fact that the REF allocates public funds. Denying public access to the outputs of publicly funded research lacks accountability and transparency.

The Benefits of Open Access

The significant public benefits of the REF OA mandate, first implemented in 2016, should not be overlooked. This mandate dramatically increased the accessibility of UK research, showcasing the numerous advantages of OA. Open access allows research to reach a broader audience, especially those without university journal subscriptions or library access. It aids in detecting fraudulent research practices, ensures global participation in research, and supports people with disabilities who find it challenging to access physical academic libraries. By removing barriers to access, we create a fairer and more equitable society.

The proposed expansion of the REF mandate to include long-form humanities work (such as books) will extend these benefits. Despite suggestions for equitable funding, resistance to this requirement persists. It is paradoxical that humanities scholars, who often lament the lack of public funding for their disciplines, resist efforts to make their research accessible to the public that provides this funding. This resistance is particularly concerning when humanities departments face existential threats. If outputs from disciplines like English, history, and classics remain invisible to the wider world, they risk being dismissed as irrelevant. The REF OA policy supports these disciplines, embodying a “transparent and participative” social contract between academics and society as envisioned by Gibbons in 1999.

Addressing Bureaucracy and Cost Concerns

Researchers are justified in resisting unnecessary bureaucracy, and Research England should consider reasonable suggestions for streamlining the process. The numerous exemptions and caveats in the policy indicate a willingness to address these concerns.

However, it is also fair to question what proactive measures institutions like Oxford have taken to prepare for a policy trailed back in 2016. Oxford’s estimate of £20 million in costs should be viewed in the context of the approximately £1.2 billion it is likely to receive over a seven-year REF cycle. Is it unreasonable to expect that a mere 1.7% of this funding be allocated to ensure public access to the research results? Furthermore, to contain costs, institutions could implement robust and responsible research assessment exercises, freeing scholars from the demands of ‘prestige publishing’ and the associated price hikes. Investing in scholar-led publishing operations, such as the Open Library of the Humanities or university-led open access presses, is another viable solution.

Moving Forward

The technical, commercial, and cultural arguments surrounding the REF and OA will continue to evolve. It is crucial to engage in these discussions with a comprehensive understanding of all the issues at stake. By doing so, we can work towards a more inclusive and accessible future for academic research.

Original article By Stephen Curry, Dorothy Bishop and Martin Paul Eve via HEPI.

Photo via samakarov

The call for proposals for Open Science Infrastructure is now open, marking a significant milestone for Open Science NL with a substantial budget of 12.5 million euros. This initiative is designed to fund the improvement or development of digital infrastructures that support open science, making it the organization’s largest funding programme to date.

“We are happy to launch this ambitious call. It is a broad programme that can meet many different needs of the community,” says Open Science NL director Hans de Jonge. He emphasizes the inclusive and expansive nature of the programme, which aims to address diverse requirements within the research community. A notable aspect of this call is its emphasis on collaborative improvement of existing solutions. “This not only helps make the current infrastructures more connected and sustainable but also creates an opportunity for people to collaborate, exchange ideas, and share expertise. This leads to improved solutions that we hope will significantly advance the open science movement in the Netherlands and benefit the entire community,” de Jonge adds.

Goals and Focus Areas

The programme aims to support the research community in the Netherlands by addressing various needs in the field of digital infrastructure. It encompasses the full breadth of the open science agenda, allowing for both generic applications that are not specific to any particular domain or scientific discipline, as well as applications targeting the needs of specific research domains.

Applications can focus on specific research outputs, such as:

• Open access publications
• Research software
• Data
• Hardware
• Creative products
• Replication studies

Additionally, proposals related to specific open science practices are welcome, including:

• Citizen science
• Societal engagement
• Reproducibility
• Pre-registration
• Open peer review

Project Types and Funding Details

Interested parties can submit applications for two types of projects:

1. Small Projects: These involve improving or expanding existing infrastructure or serving as a pilot for new infrastructure. Applicants can request up to €250,000 for projects that can last up to two years.
2. Large Projects: These aim to significantly improve or expand existing infrastructure and require collaboration between at least two applicants from different institutions. For these projects, applicants can request between €250,000 and €1,500,000, with a maximum project duration of four years.

Q&A and Matching Events

To facilitate understanding of the call, answer questions, and connect potential co-applicants, Open Science NL is organizing two online meetings on the 11th and 16th of July, 2024. These sessions will be conducted in English. Participants can also request a recording of the informational part of the meetings via the registration pages.

This call for proposals represents a significant opportunity for the research community in the Netherlands to enhance the infrastructure supporting open science, fostering collaboration and innovation across various fields and disciplines.

More info at Open Science NL

Rethinking Open Science Monitoring: Beyond Counting Publications

In the wake of numerous policies aimed at fostering open science, a significant focus has emerged on monitoring its progress. One notable initiative is the French Open Science Monitoring Initiative, which compiles data from various countries and institutions and proposes general principles for monitoring open science. This initiative coincides with a recently launched Unesco consultation on the subject.

Current monitoring efforts primarily track the uptake of open-science policies and outputs, such as publications and data. However, this approach is analogous to understanding fungi by counting mushrooms: it overlooks the intricate network of activities and interactions beneath the surface that drive the visible outcomes.

Open science seeks to transform not only the practices of research but also its motivations and values. It extends far beyond publishing, encompassing public engagement and evaluation. Focusing solely on easily quantifiable metrics neglects these critical activities, which promote equity and share the benefits of research with society.

The Pitfalls of Narrow Monitoring

Limiting monitoring to quantifiable outputs can have unintended and detrimental consequences. For instance, an increase in open access publications might appear as progress, making more information freely accessible. However, if this openness relies on pay-to-publish models, it creates inequality. Researchers who cannot afford publication fees become less visible, and unscrupulous publishers may weaken review processes to boost profits.

These issues disproportionately affect researchers in marginalized scholarly communities, undermining the values of open science and weakening less affluent research systems. Moreover, this approach reinforces a publish-or-perish culture that prioritizes quantity over the thoughtful creation of knowledge intended for meaningful purposes. Lay readers should not have to navigate an overwhelming volume of research outputs.

Similar challenges arise in data sharing. There is limited evidence of meaningful reuse of datasets outside of specific disciplines like genomics. Issues of quality control are poorly understood, and long-term storage and curation remain problematic. Thus, counting datasets without considering their utility and impact offers little insight.

A Need for Contextual and Value-Driven Monitoring

Current monitoring efforts, while useful, are too narrow and risk overlooking important engagement activities and the broader benefits of open science. To fully realize the promises of open science, a more comprehensive approach that embraces context and values is essential.

Indicators need to specify their particular pathways to open science. Different forms of open access publishing, such as gold, diamond, and green open access, each have unique normative implications and should not be aggregated into a single measure.

Furthermore, monitoring should extend beyond the point of creation or engagement to consider their effects and outcomes. It is crucial to track who bears the costs and who benefits from open science policies.

Learning from History and Mapping Connections

History offers valuable lessons for monitoring processes. The OECD’s Frascati Manual, developed in 1963, focused on measuring inputs and outputs in science, technology, and innovation. However, this approach failed to capture the processes, drivers, and outcomes of innovation. In response, the OECD launched the Oslo Manual in 1992, which employed surveys to gather more nuanced data.

Similarly, open science monitoring should reveal the connections between researchers and stakeholders, along with behavioral changes and underlying motivations. Surveys are a primary method for capturing this type of information.

A pluralistic approach to monitoring, possibly based on surveys and narratives, can link practices to value-driven outcomes. This shift aligns with the movement in research assessment away from journal impact factors and citations towards narrative accounts of impact.

If open science represents a systemic transformation of the research system, including its values, then its monitoring strategies must match this ambition. Open science is about more than producing accessible and reproducible research; it aims to effect meaningful change in science. Monitoring should, therefore, track contributions towards collective benefits, integrity, and equity in science.

Authors

Ismael Rafols is the Unesco Chair on Diversity and Inclusion in Global Science at Leiden University, and Louise Bezuidenhout is a senior researcher at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.

Photo via WikiData

Original article can be found here

UNESCO has launched a global consultation inviting stakeholders worldwide to contribute to drafting Principles for Open Science Monitoring. This effort builds upon previous sessions of the UNESCO Working Group on Open Science Monitoring and the December 2023 event, ‘Building an Open Science Monitoring Framework with Open Technologies’.

The draft Principles are available for review and input on UNESCO’s official website, marking the beginning of a comprehensive global consultation. The goal is to incorporate diverse perspectives and encourage broader engagement in shaping the future of open science monitoring globally. The initiative draws upon existing national, regional, and global initiatives in open science monitoring to create a unified and inclusive framework.

Stakeholders are invited to share their expertise and insights by submitting commentary and proposed edits to osmi@unesco.org. The consultation period remains open until 30 November 2024, providing ample time for active participation.

For further information, please contact osmi@unesco.org. UNESCO acknowledges and appreciates the ongoing contributions of the global community towards advancing open science principles and practices.

Photo via DW.

In May 2023, EU research ministers strongly criticized the current state of academic publishing, highlighting the unsustainable costs for public research funders and institutions responsible for spending public funds. These rising costs are reducing the funds available for actual research, according to a joint statement released by the Council of the EU.

This statement added political weight to an ongoing movement within the academic community to reclaim control over scholarly publishing from for-profit publishers, advocating for non-profit journals and platforms. Although there has been a shift toward open-access publishing in recent years—allowing taxpayer-funded research to be freely available—this model has often shifted the financial burden from readers to authors.

The prevalent ‘gold’ model of open access, where for-profit publishers charge substantial article-processing fees, has led to growing dissatisfaction among institutions, researchers, and academic groups. This dissatisfaction is fueling a push for the ‘diamond’ open access model, where neither authors nor readers are charged fees.

The diamond model is seen as a more equitable and desirable approach by many in the research community. However, it raises questions about funding and coordination. Who will bear the costs for diamond open access? Will it be cheaper than the gold model, and if not, is it still worth pursuing?

A New Approach

The push for diamond open access is particularly strong in Europe. The Council of the EU has called for national governments and the European Commission to increase support for non-profit open-access publishing. However, for this shift to happen, research funders need to back diamond open access with both financial and political support.

Pierre Mounier, a coordinator at Operas—a European research infrastructure for the social sciences and humanities—emphasizes the need for funding agencies to support diamond open access. He argues that diamond open access promotes equity and scientific integrity by ensuring research is published based on its merit rather than the financial resources of its authors.

Mounier believes there is political will from the European Commission, universities, and the academic community to advance the diamond model. However, it is crucial that funders participate in financing it. Unlike the gold model, which typically funds publication costs directly, diamond open access requires broader financial support for journals and platforms, possibly through grants or multi-year agreements.

Currently, the funding model for diamond open access heavily relies on in-kind contributions and shared public infrastructures. However, many research funders’ programs are structured to support article-processing charges, not the broader financial support diamond open access requires.

Some organizations, like the European Commission, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust, have created their own non-profit platforms to publish funded research, but these represent only a small part of the diamond open-access landscape. Other initiatives, such as the French National Research Agency’s €250,000 allocation to establish a European capacity hub for diamond open access in 2024, are also contributing to this effort.

The Diamas project, a €3 million EU-funded initiative involving 23 organizations, aims to map the landscape of diamond open-access publishing in Europe over three years. This project seeks to coordinate diamond open-access journals, which are often small and independent, to pool resources and gain recognition and funding.

Economies of Scale

The increasing support for diamond open access stems from concerns over the costs of for-profit publishing. However, whether diamond open access will be cheaper is not clear-cut. Rob Johnson, an independent research consultant and open-access expert, suggests that diamond open access might only be cost-effective at very small or very large scales. As journals scale up, their overhead costs, including marketing, increase—an area where traditional publishers benefit from economies of scale.

While major traditional publishers are resistant to change, they could still play a role in non-profit publishing by providing necessary services. However, scaling up diamond open access remains a challenge. Despite its success in Latin America, there are significant institutional and cultural differences between the global north and south that must be addressed.

Sustainability Over Cost

For some, the focus is less on whether diamond open access is cheaper and more on its long-term sustainability. Vinciane Gaillard, deputy director for research and innovation at the European University Association, argues that diamond open access is a more sustainable and community-led approach to publishing. Although the full costs of diamond open access are not yet known, there are plans to investigate this further.

Gaillard points out that taxpayers may ultimately fund diamond open access if public research institutions and funders choose to support non-profit scholarly communication instead of commercial publishers. Both Johnson and the European University Association agree that while diamond open access will not replace commercial publishing in the short term, it needs more funding and prestige to be widely adopted.

The idea behind diamond open access is to place the academic community at the center of scholarly communications, rather than commercial entities. Achieving this goal requires more than strong political statements—it demands a significant cultural shift and financial commitment from all stakeholders.

Prestige Problem

One challenge non-profit open-access journals face is the perception of prestige. Commercial publishers’ big-name journals still hold significant influence in the academic community. Rob Johnson believes that diamond open-access journals need more prestige and a larger marketing budget.

Pierre Mounier, involved in the Diamas project, notes that while diamond journals often lack marketing resources, they maintain rigorous scientific and editorial standards. This quality is not always recognized by funding and administrative bodies.

Federica Garbuglia from the European University Association highlights a common misconception among funders that diamond journals are less trustworthy than traditional pay-to-publish journals. She emphasizes that diamond journals undergo the same rigorous processes and meet high-quality standards, but greater awareness of this is needed within the academic community.

 Image: Grace Gay for Research Professional News

Original article can be found here.