{"id":463,"date":"2021-10-29T14:19:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-29T14:19:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/?p=463"},"modified":"2021-10-29T14:20:39","modified_gmt":"2021-10-29T14:20:39","slug":"463","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/2021\/10\/29\/463\/","title":{"rendered":"“It Matters How We Open Knowledge: Building Structural Equity” (Open Access Week)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"theThis post is part of a series of blogs in celebration of Open Access Week 2021<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today’s blog is posted on behalf of Kim Davis (Information Specialist)<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This year\u2019s Open Access Week theme is\u00a0\u201cIt Matters How We Open Knowledge: Building Structural Equity\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0To celebrate this theme and finish off the\u00a0Library\u2019s\u00a0week\u00a0of Open Access activities, this blog post\u00a0covers our usual topics through a more critical lens:<\/p>\n

The aims of Plan S are noble, but is the implementation shifting the divide between \u2018haves\u2019 and \u2018have-nots\u2019 to the organisational level?<\/b><\/p>\n

Plan S, signed by many funders including UKRI, aims to make \u2018full and immediate Open Access a reality\u2019\u00a0(European Science Foundation, 2020).\u00a0\u00a0Plan S has been explored in a few of our blog posts and the introduction of Transformative\u00a0Agreements\u00a0for Plymouth researchers is a tangible outcome of the Plan S principles\u00a0(i.e.\u00a0agreements which combine the \u2018read\u2019\/subscription fee with a \u2018publish\u2019 fee to gradually flip a publisher towards a more Open business model),\u00a0but are these agreements really changing Open\u00a0Research\u00a0for the better?<\/p>\n

The\u00a0shift\u00a0of\u00a0Article Processing Charges\u00a0[APC]\u00a0from the author to the institution\u00a0(or funder)\u00a0via Transformative Agreements, has\u00a0been met with\u00a0a\u00a0number of\u00a0criticisms\u00a0from the wider sector – a\u00a0few of\u00a0which\u00a0are highlighted\u00a0below.<\/p>\n

Green Open Access\u00a0challenging the traditional subscription model:<\/h4>\n

Publishers, particularly society publishers, are concerned about the combined effects of rights retention for authors and immediate Green Open Access [OA] without embargo on their ability to operate\u00a0(Cambridge University Press, 2021). There is also the concern about the lack of support for\u00a0Diamond\/platinum OA (free to read, free to publish) and the restrictions in publication for researchers resulting from Plan S\u00a0(Kamerlin, 2021).<\/p>\n

Gold Open Access\u00a0affordability:<\/h4>\n

Libraries and institutions want to support their\u00a0authors\u00a0to\u00a0comply\u00a0with new funder OA policies\u00a0but\u00a0may struggle\u00a0to sign up to\u00a0these\u00a0Transformative\u00a0Agreements\u00a0as the agreements rely on the library having a\u00a0prior\u00a0subscription to that journal package.\u00a0 The new deals, although offsetting the publish with the read elements to provide a more sustainable cost commitment\u00a0overall, still require the commitment of\u00a0some level of\u00a0additional funding.\u00a0 Some institutions will be able to fund all deals, others may have to pick and choose.\u00a0\u00a0Library budgets\u00a0would need to expand to\u00a0fund publishing on Open Access\u00a0platforms\u00a0and\u00a0for publishers they\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0already subscribe to, to allow authors to publish in them without additional cost.<\/p>\n

An alternative?<\/h4>\n

Some would rather see a shift away from APCs (and in some cases traditional publishing altogether), towards a more radical commons model owned by the\u00a0scholarly\u00a0community\u00a0(Lawson, 2019).\u00a0\u00a0While this might represent a more utopian concept of OA, the economic links between publishing and research dissemination, at least in the UK,\u00a0are likely to\u00a0prevent this approach from becoming mainstream.<\/p>\n

Barriers to Research Discoverability<\/b><\/h3>\n

Even when research is freely accessible, it relies on that research being discoverable to those who need to access it.\u00a0\u00a0Most UK institutions have access to major databases to help them discover literature with powerful search capability. Institutional repositories, such as PEARL, can push their outputs to discovery tools such as Web of Science and Google Scholar.<\/p>\n

However, good\u00a0quality research from non-western journals and in other languages than English\u00a0tend\u00a0to be under-represented in major proprietary databases\u00a0(Mboa, 2017).\u00a0This also has a\u00a0knock on\u00a0effect\u00a0for\u00a0bibliometric analysis of research, which\u00a0is usually built\u00a0upon the \u2018data universe\u2019 of these tools.\u00a0 In addition, these tools do not have access to indigenous forms of knowledge, which holds solutions to some of our biggest issues yet is not represented in the western knowledge system\u00a0(Ibrahim, 2019).<\/p>\n

There are free tools for literature searching\u00a0that can provide better discoverability for OA material, broader output types and non-English language research.\u00a0\u00a0However, these may lack the quality control and search capability of subscription\/proprietary databases.<\/p>\n

Free tools are also quite fragile, as demonstrated when Microsoft Academic Search shut down, impacting upon the research tools that had been created around its free-to-access, AI generated Microsoft Academic Graph dataset\u00a0(Tay et al., 2021).<\/p>\n

Open bibliometric data is also an issue for developing new tools, where only those with access to certain platforms,\u00a0such as\u00a0SciVal,\u00a0have the ability to\u00a0analyse\u00a0citation\u00a0behaviour in that field.\u00a0\u00a0Campaigns such as \u2018Initiative for Open Citations\u2019\u00a0are\u00a0attempting\u00a0to change this by asking publishers to make \u201cstructured and separable\u201d (not reliant on access to the work) citation data open\u00a0(I4OC, 2021).<\/p>\n

Open Data and Open Review<\/b><\/h3>\n

The pandemic facilitated the implementing of\u00a0fast track\u00a0peer-review systems that have been successful in many cases but disastrous in others.\u00a0\u00a0Open peer-review systems might help to ensuring integrity of research in similar systems where the quality of reviews\u00a0are\u00a0in doubt, and open review systems might also speed up the discovery of errors in research\u00a0(Besan\u00e7on et al., 2021).<\/p>\n

Open Data is another way to increase the transparency and reproducibility of such fast-tracked research, allowing others to interrogate and attempt to reproduce the dataset\u00a0(Besan\u00e7on et al., 2021)\u00a0as well as\u00a0increase the applicability of research. Open air quality data for example, has been used\u00a0to enable improvements in air quality data, monitoring of SDG goals and creation of\u00a0open source\u00a0tools such as air quality chat bots\u00a0(Hasenkopf, 2018).<\/p>\n

Yet Open Data is slow to spread as a research culture, presumably due to the amount of time and effort required to plan for Open Data, fears around making research data open and increased workloads\u00a0combined with\u00a0lack of incentive to make data open.<\/p>\n

Thanks to\u00a0the funding councils of the UK (RCUK now UKRI)\u00a0mandating OA\u00a0for its grant holders\u00a0and also\u00a0Research England\u00a0requiring\u00a0publications\u00a0to\u00a0be Open Access for\u00a0the REF,\u00a0the UK is leading\u00a0the world\u00a0in OA\u00a0publishing\u00a0with at least 71% of articles, conference papers and review articles from the last 3 years being made open*.\u00a0 Would similar mandates for data be feasible or sustainable?<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/h3>\n

This\u00a0year\u2019s\u00a0Open Access Week theme throws up all sorts of discussions regarding the state of Open Research, a few of which\u00a0we\u2019ve\u00a0covered very briefly above.\u00a0\u00a0The theme aligns with UNESCO\u2019s latest draft recommendations on Open Science\u00a0(Azoulay, 2021)\u00a0which covers Open Science Knowledge, including data, code, hardware\u00a0among other types; Open Science Infrastructure, such as labs and repositories; Open engagement of societal actors, such as participatory science and Open dialogue with other knowledge systems.\u00a0\u00a0Although\u00a0arts and humanities\u00a0receive scant\u00a0coverage\u00a0in the recommendations, there is\u00a0little\u00a0doubt about the benefits of openness for solving global issues.\u00a0\u00a0However, greater engagement from the research community in how research\u00a0is\u00a0made\u00a0open\u00a0could help\u00a0ensure that the future of the research ecosystem is effective, sustainable and inclusive for all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*according\u00a0to\u00a0SciVal\u00a0figures of UK articles, review, conference papers from 2018-2020 (inclusive) of 565,916 items with 402,160 made open via gold, bronze or green routes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Azoulay, A. (2021).\u00a0Draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science<\/i>. (CL\/4363).\u00a0 Retrieved from https:\/\/unesdoc.unesco.org\/ark:\/48223\/pf0000378381.locale=en<\/a><\/p>\n

Besan\u00e7on, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., . . . Leyrat, C. (2021). Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.\u00a0BMC medical research methodology<\/i>,\u00a021<\/i>(1), 117-117. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-021-01304-y<\/a><\/p>\n

Cambridge University Press. (2021).\u00a0Cambridge University Press and Plan S<\/i>. Retrieved 22 October from https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/open-research\/plan-s<\/a><\/p>\n

European Science Foundation. (2020).\u00a0Plan S: Making Full and Immediate Open Access a Reality<\/i>. Retrieved 22\/10\/2021 from https:\/\/www.coalition-s.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Hasenkopf, C. (2018, 23rd October 2018).\u00a0Open as a Key Enabling Strategy for Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Connecting Open Data for Action: a Case Study on Air Quality and the OpenAQ Community<\/i>\u00a0OpenCon 2018: Access for all? Equity of access to information, social inclusion, and the UN 2030 Agenda, UN Headquarters, New York. http:\/\/webtv.un.org\/search\/part-2-%E2%80%94-opencon-2018-access-for-all-equity-of-access-to-information-social-inclusion-and-the-un-2030-agenda\/5852524912001\/?term=opencon&sort=date<\/a><\/p>\n

I4OC. (2021).\u00a0Initiative for Open Citations<\/i>. Retrieved 22 October from https:\/\/i4oc.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Ibrahim, H. O. (2019).\u00a0\u201cWe Know How to Keep the Balance of Nature\u201d. Why Including Indigenous People Is Vital to Solving Climate Change<\/i>. Retrieved 19\/02\/2020 from https:\/\/time.com\/5686184\/indigenous-lesson-climate-change\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Kamerlin, S. C. L. (2021). Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens?\u00a0Development and change.<\/i>,\u00a052<\/i>(3), 627-650. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/dech.12635<\/a><\/p>\n

Lawson, S. (2019).\u00a0Open Access Policy in the UK: From Neoliberalism to the Commons<\/i>\u00a0Birkbeck, University of London].<\/p>\n

Mboa, T. (2017).\u00a0The (Unconscious?) Neocolonial Face of Open Access<\/i>\u00a0OpenCon 2017, Berlin. https:\/\/youtu.be\/-HSOzoSLHL0<\/a><\/p>\n

Tay, A., Mart\u00edn-Mart\u00edn, A., & Hug, S. E. (2021). Goodbye, Microsoft Academic \u2013 Hello, open research infrastructure?\u00a0LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog<\/i>. https:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/impactofsocialsciences\/2021\/05\/27\/goodbye-microsoft-academic-hello-open-research-infrastructure\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post is part of a series of blogs in celebration of Open Access Week 2021. Today’s blog is posted on behalf of Kim Davis (Information Specialist).   This year\u2019s Open Access Week theme is\u00a0\u201cIt Matters How We Open Knowledge: Building Structural Equity\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0To celebrate this theme and finish off the\u00a0Library\u2019s\u00a0week\u00a0of Open Access activities, this blog… Continue reading “It Matters How We Open Knowledge: Building Structural Equity” (Open Access Week)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,16,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rdm","category-oa","category-team","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/463","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=463"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/463\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":479,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/463\/revisions\/479"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.plymouth.ac.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}