Announcing the release of the report “Knowledge Exchange consensus on monitoring Open Access publications and cost data” | Jisc scholarly communications

lterrat's bookmarks 2017-05-16

Summary:

"In summary, the recommendations on monitoring OA publications include:

  • Standards and common definitions are crucial
  • Standards already exist to a large extent, i.e., in Common European Research Information Format (CERIF) and Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)
  • If new standards are needed they should be added to the existing protocols
  • With the standards and definitions in place, policies and agreements can require publishers to deliver data in ways that make the workflows open and transparent
  • Current Research Information Systems (CRIS’s) can be used as sources for monitoring OA publications and ensure that the monitoring data is open through open API’s (application programming interface) so that the results can be validated, thus ensuring transparency and reproducibility
  • Finally, libraries should play an active role in this area

In terms of the recommendations centred around the monitoring of cost data, they include:

  • Accounting systems and CRISes are central to the topic
  • These systems should be interoperable and aligned so that cost data at all levels can be easily retrieved
  • The data should be open and shareable
  • The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is a key tool for data transferal between systems giving Crossref an important role in the workflow
  • Publishers should be required to enter all funder data in the publication metadata as well as in the publications themselves
  • Such requirements should be embedded in offsetting or licensing contracts with the publishers
  • Non-disclosure regulations in these contracts should be avoided at all times

The report has also consolidated some conclusions based on the break-out sessions from the second day.  From the sessions on monitor OA publications, it was generally agreed that standards and common definitions are crucial. Since some do exist already, e.g., in CERIF and OAI-PMH, if new standards are needed then it is recommended that they should be added to the existing protocols. However, it was pointed out that some very basic and important definitions, like the concept of Open Access itself, are not yet in place. These are needed to make monitoring exercises comparable among the various countries who are working to embrace OA. With the standards and definitions in place, policies and agreements can require publishers to deliver data in ways that make the workflows open and transparent. An important tool for monitoring, for example, is the persistent identifier. DOIs have certain limitations mainly due to the fact that they are based on metadata entered by publishers. And finally, and perhaps unsurprisingly, there was agreement that libraries should play a very active role in this field."

Link:

https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/05/16/announcing-the-release-of-the-report-knowledge-exchange-consensus-on-monitoring-open-access-publications-and-cost-data/

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » lterrat's bookmarks

Tags:

Date tagged:

05/16/2017, 21:59

Date published:

05/16/2017, 17:59