Sponsored content
Product Spotlight
Do you know where your e-journals are archived? Keepers Registry helps you find out!
The Keepers Registry aggregates preservation metadata of digital journals with ISSN Portal’s descriptive metadata, thus providing an accurate overview of a serial title’s journey from initial publication to long-term preservation by archiving agencies.
Thirteen archiving agencies from around the world are supporting the Keepers Registry as a tool to monitor the archival status of digital content. These national libraries, non-profit organizations, and academic consortia cooperate with the ISSN International Centre to disseminate up-to-date information about archived serial titles and titles at risk.
institutional consortia wishing to publish their faculties’ peer-reviewed outputs openly make agreements with publishers combining the cost of open access article publication charges with the license fee for subscription-based publications. Such deals enable researchers from these institutions to publish their work openly without any direct cost to themselves. IOP Publishing currently has 12 such agreements, but challenges remain that exemplify wider barriers to a global conversion to open publishing. Economically, there is the issue of
winners and losers – meaning research- intensive institutions and countries will likely need to pay more as they take on more of the costs of open publishing models, while institutions and countries producing relatively little research would no longer have to pay for subscriptions to research journals and therefore likely pay less.
Some argue there is enough money in
the system to afford a transition to open access. Whether this is the case or not, there is no current solution or global plan in place to adjust the allocation and flow of funding so it resides at the levels exactly commensurate to where research is produced. These are not intractable challenges. But they require global consensus on the goal of open science, coordinated action to build the infrastructure, and incentives to create lasting change. This will take time.
For more information: (
https://keepers.issn.org)
www.issn.org
Preprints – a short-term solution? While funding models evolve, preprints may offer a shorter-term way to make science more open. Community preprint repositories such as arXiv are recognised by researchers as an increasingly important part of the scholarly communications process. But they are not yet fully embraced by institutions and research funders. In recognition of preprints’ value to open
science, our policy is now as liberal and supportive as possible for this early sharing of results, and we see more publishers also recognising their value and supporting them. Access is perhaps where publishers can and should focus efforts in support of open science. But they should not ignore incorporating greater transparency in research communications to aid reproducibility and foster trust in science. Some publishers are experimenting with more open forms of peer review. We have introduced transparent peer review, where the published article includes the full peer review history, with reviewer reports, editors’ decision letters and authors’ responses, and with reviewers electing
whether to maintain anonymity. Following a successful year-long trial on several of our journals, we are considering how to extend this process to other communities we serve, so a scientific article’s journey through peer review, and the editorial decisions made about it, are clearer for all to see.
A significant route to increasing the
reproducibility of research is open data sharing – making data underpinning a scientific article and any associated code publicly available. Access to research data can enable detailed scrutiny, reuse and replication of research, strengthen trust in the results, and provide the basis for future scientific innovation. In recent years, this has gained increasing traction in the research community, with publishers responding to support it in their policies and processes. Many major research funders now
require research data to be more, if not completely, accessible and re-usable. Such
“Preprints may offer a shorter-term way to make science more open”
mandates are crucial for cultural change, but further consideration is needed into how to incentivise researchers to share data and credit others for data sharing. Scientific publishers are seeking to support researchers in complying with these new requirements for data sharing through evolving standards and systems, and with gaining more acknowledgement for doing so through encouraging and accommodating data citation. We have introduced new data sharing policies, where authors must include a statement in their article on whether data is available and where it can be found. In the months since introducing the new policies the response is encouraging, with more authors (where applicable) stating their research data is accessible than unavailable. Although Covid-19 might have reinforced
the value of open science, its benefits are well understood by many in the physics community, and we are a long-standing proponent. But there is still much work for all involved if we are to transition to a fully and sustainably open landscape in physics and beyond. Ri
Daniel Keirs is an associate director at IOP Publishing
12 Research Information August/September 2020
@researchinfo |
www.researchinformation.info
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38
