Saturday, January 9, 2016       Events

SPARC/ACRL Forum: Complying with Emerging Funder Public Access Policies

3:00pm  ·  Boston Convention & Exhibition Center: Room 253C Open Access   ·   Open Data

Over the past few years, there has been a proliferation of high-profile funders announcing policies requiring greater access to research articles and data. This forum will explore ways in which the library community can be instrumental in supporting the compliance efforts for these policies.

Location

415 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210

Date

Saturday, January 9th, 2016

Time

3:00pm


Complying with Emerging Funder Public Access Policies: How Libraries Can Make It All Work

Over the past few years, there has been a proliferation of high-profile funders announcing policies requiring greater access to research articles and data. From the White House to the Canadian Tri-Agency to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, these policies are now moving into the implementation stage. This brings with it both the excitement of a new era, as well as the daunting challenge of determining how exactly to make things work. This challenge is compounded by differences in the requirements across policies, and the ability of individual researchers and institutions to make sense of these differences and comply effectively.

This forum will explore ways in which the library community can be instrumental in supporting the compliance efforts. Along with identifying some issues and possible strategies, the panelists will discuss services that are being, or have been created or expanded, to help address some of the issues that have been raised. We hope to provide you with some practical ideas that you will be able to take back and implement at your institution.

Speakers include --

  • Jennifer Hansen, Officer, Knowledge & Research, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Barbara Pralle, Manager of Data Management Services, Johns Hopkins University
  • Claire Stewart, Associate University Librarian for Research and Learning, University of Minnesota
  • Neil Thakur, Special Assistant to the Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health
Monday, March 7, 2016 - Tuesday, March 8, 2016       Events

Recap: SPARC Meeting on Openness in Research & Education

March 7-8, 2016  ·  Hyatt Regency San Antonio Riverwalk Open Access   ·   Open Data   ·   Open Education

The 2016 SPARC MORE Conference brought together a diverse array of perspectives to work on every aspect of creating a system that serves scholarship, disseminates knowledge, and feeds the public good. Speakers included representatives from a preeminent private foundation, university presidents, young researchers, new faculty, librarians, and technical staff - all part of a dedicated community working to set the default to open.

Location

Hyatt Regency San Antonio Riverwalk
123 Losoya Street
San Antonio, TX 78205

Date

Monday, March 7th, 2016

Time

March 7-8, 2016


The 2016 SPARC MORE Conference brought together a diverse array of perspectives to work on every aspect of creating a system that serves scholarship, disseminates knowledge, and feeds the public good. Speakers included representatives from a preeminent private foundation, university presidents, young researchers, new faculty, librarians, and technical staff - all part of a dedicated community working to set the default to open.

Those gathered at the March 7-9 conference were both “unabashedly idealistic” and “relentlessly pragmatic” about open access, open data, and open educational resources, said SPARC Executive Director Heather Joseph at the closing session in San Antonio. Participants were encouraged to think about the outcomes that they wanted to achieve through advocating for open access (and open data, and OER), and to consider open as a strategy to help the community solve big problems, and capitalize on new opportunities. Rather than simply advocating “open” as the end game, discussions centered around the importance of effectively finishing the sentence “open in order to….” (i.e., opening up access to textbook in order to make college more affordable; or opening access to data in order to prevent the Zika virus from fueling a pandemic…).

As you work to turn your passion for open into action, here are some highlights and takeaways from the SPARC MORE 2016 Conference:

  1. Video recordings of all SPARC MORE sessions can be found on SPARC's YouTube channel
  2. Gates Foundation embraces Open and raises the bar for others
  3. What university leaders can do to promote Open & how librarians can help
  4. Moving books into Open Access
  5. Early Career Researchers Forge New Paths to Advocate for Open
  6. The Open Agenda and new faculty: Connecting early
  7. Workshop: Improving Campus Open Access Policies
  8. SPARC 2014: A transformative experience
  9. SPARC Africa: Building on a shared culture
  10. Photos from MORE Meeting

2016 SPARC MORE Meeting Sponsors

SPARC is incredibly thankful for the generous support of our MORE Meeting sponsors:

Wi-Fi Sponsor
PLOS logo

Luncheon/Reception Sponsors

bepress logo   Microsoft-logo_rgb_c-gray

Showcase Sponsors

SYMPLECTIC-Red-Black-Light-Small (1)    eprints logo        figshare-logo

Supporting Organizations

Overleaf logo     AtMire logo    ACRL LOGO      duraspace_logo_1in

 

Program Committee

The SPARC MORE Program Committee includes: Heather Joseph (SPARC), Jean-Gabriel Bankier (bepress), Joni Blake (Greater Western Library Association), Amy Buckland (University of Chicago), David Ernst (University of Minnesota), Rupert Gatti (Open Book Publishers), Diane Graves (Trinity University), Debra Kurtz (DuraSpace), Erin McKiernan (Wilfrid Laurier University), Emma Molls (Iowa State University), William Nixon (University of Glasgow), Donna Okubo (PLOS), Kostas Repanas (Agency for Science, Technology & Research), Jeff Spies (Center for Open Science), Jennifer Sturdy (Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in Social Sciences), Shan Sutton (University of Arizona), Greg Tananbaum (SPARC), Lee VanOrsdel (Grand Valley State University), Alex Wade (Microsoft Research), Kelsey Wiens (Creative Commons South Africa).

Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

SPARC Innovator Award

  ·   Open Access   ·   Open Data   ·   Open Education

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

Department of Transportation Releases Comprehensive New Public Access Plan; NSF Announces Arrangement with CHORUS

  ·   Open Access

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


As we near the end of 2015, there has been a flurry of activity coming from U.S. federal agencies in the Public Access policy arena. Late last week, the Department of Transportation (DOT) released its plan for ensuring public access to articles and data resulting from its funded research, laying out a comprehensive framework to ensure access and productive reuse of its funded research outputs. And on Monday, the publisher-based CHORUS initiative issued a press release touting a new agreement with National Science Foundation (NSF), designed to supplement its current Public Access plan for its funded articles.

Let’s take a look at DOT’s plan first – there is a lot that’s new in this one.

DOT’s Comprehensive Research Life-Cycle Approach

The DOT’s plan strikes a slightly different chord than many of the other plans released to date, weaving together existing practices for publication and data sharing, with some new enhancements that should allow the agency to more efficiently track its research at a project level throughout the research life cycle.

DOT’s plan outlines a framework for tracking its funded research from project initiation to the generation of research outputs and products, treating each step as integral to the research process.  The agency will establish new terms and conditions for its funded research that will require new strong licensing requirements for articles, mandatory use of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for articles and data sets, as well as the requirement for researchers to secure and use a unique ORCID ID for all results submitted to DOT and for publication.

DOT Plan for Articles: Local Deposit and Management

The DOT’s plan calls for all DOT-funded researchers to deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts into the National Transportation Library (NTL) digital repository upon acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal, and to make them available to the public with no longer than a 12-month embargo period.

As with the other agencies, DOT will provide stakeholders with a mechanism for petitioning the agency to shorten or extend the allowable embargo period. Unlike other agencies, the DOT will limit any changes to no more than six months in either direction.  The DOT is also unique among agencies in announcing that they are developing an online mechanism that will allow any member of the public to petition for an embargo period change, noting that decisions will be provided within one month of such a request.

The DOT stands out from other agencies in explicitly noting that will take a very proactive stance on copyright. The agency intends to establish new terms and conditions for all DOT funding agreements that require both the grant of a comprehensive, non-exclusive, paid-up, royalty-free copyright license to the DOT, and the submission all publications to the NTL digital repository.  This puts the agency in a very strong position to be able to meet the OSTP Directive’s requirement to enable productive reuse of their research outputs.

Despite this requirement, the DOT still seems to have some hesitation around allowing bulk downloads of articles, and indicates that it will explore taking a tiered approach, distinguishing between “General Users” (allowed limited downloading and restricted crawling, but unlimited text and data mining rights) and “Qualified Users, ” (allowed mass downloads, and unlimited crawling and text and data mining rights).  It will be interesting to see the agency’s calculus on the overhead required to maintain these distinctions versus the potential risks/returns of simply considering all users “Qualified.”

The DOT expresses a strong commitment to requiring the use of DOIs, ORCID IDs and funding tracking numbers for all of its research outputs. This should give the agency an advantage when it comes to compliance monitoring, as these indicators can be tracked in a variety of different indices, including the Transportation Research Board’s TRID database, FundRef, and also potentially by the SHARE database.

DOT’s Plan for Research Data: Building on an Existing Culture of Data Sharing

The DOT has a strong track record of making data generated by its intramural researchers accessible to the public1, and its Public Access plan builds on this foundation. The agency will join all other U.S. federal science agencies that have announced their plans in requiring that all extramural investigators requesting funding submit a Data Management Plan (DMP) outlining plans for managing and providing access to research data, or provide a rationale as to why their research cannot be made available. This continues the trend of effectively setting the default mode for federally-funded research data to “open.”

DOT’s DMP requirements include some fairly standard elements, such as descriptions of the data to be collected, preservation strategies, description of standards and machine-readable formats used for data collection and storage, and descriptions of any applicable protections to be used for purposes of privacy, confidential business information, national security, etc.

However, they also have some fairly unique requirements. DOT will require DMPs to include a section addressing reuse, redistribution, and creation of derivative products from DOT data, and they point to the strong preference given in OMB M-1313 for use of Creative Commons licenses as a guideline. The DOT plan states that they have a strong preference for the use of CC-BY or equivalent license on data generated by extramural researchers, and a public domain dedicated marking for data generated by intramural researchers.

All DOT datasets will be required to carry a DOI or to be deposited into a repository that provides DOIs. They are also exploring dataset identification frameworks, and are evaluating the use of DataCite, Data-Pass and the Data Document Initiative.

The DOT places a strong emphasis on making the data underlying its funded peer-reviewed articles freely available at the time of publication and effectively linked to the articles themselves.  The robust use of identifiers combined with the twin requirements that researchers deposit their articles locally into the NTL and their data into an openly accessible repository will go a long way in achieving this, but the DOT plan takes this one step further.

As noted earlier, the DOT is using the Public Access requirement as an opportunity to improve its tracking of its research portfolio at the project level. They plan to connect several existing internal databases, including the Research-in-Progress (RiP) data base, the Research Hub database and the NTL Digital Library, to provide an environment that seamlessly tracks and links research projects from inception to completion. Ultimately, the agency will be able to point to one publicly-accessible record for each of its funded projects that contains a full description of the funding and project, along with links to any data or publications generated from the research, improving the transparency and accountability of the agency.

NSF Announces New Agreement with CHORUS

Along with the release of the detailed DOT plan, this week saw another notable recent development in the arena of U.S. public access policies. On Monday, the National Science Foundation officially signed an agreement with CHORUS (the publisher-backed Clearinghouse for the Open Research of the United States). CHORUS will support NSF’s existing partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), by providing distributed repository and search services – searching the NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) that will be hosted by the DOE, and following links that point back to articles hosted on publisher websites.

This approach—linking out to the full text of articles residing on individual publisher websites— is in contrast to the DOT’s comprehensive research portfolio enhancement approach.  While the use of CHORUS does facilitate the location of NSF-funded articles, questions persist.

For example, with articles on hundreds of individual, proprietary publisher websites, each with their own unique technologies and legal restrictions, how will productive reuses, such as computation and text and data mining be enabled? Will uniform rights be granted to agencies and to end-users without individual negotiations for specific re-uses? How will data be effectively linked to articles?  How will the agency leverage the full collection of articles reporting on its funded research to further its scientific mission and ensure accountability when they are dependent on a third party for access to the full text of their articles?

As the last of the U.S. federal agencies report back on their plans for complying with the White House OSTP Directive on Public Access, these are important questions to keep in mind. Our community should consider whether the proposed solutions from U.S. agencies actually achieve the admirable aims of the Directive, and what actions we can take to  play a positive role in ensuring that they are successful.

[1] Note: DOT notes that its intramural researchers are already covered by the requirements set out in the White House Executive Order on Open Government Data and OMB M-1313 (Making Open and Machine Readable the Default for Government Data) along with DOT Order 1351.34, (The Department’s Data Release Policy). The agency indicates that they believe these policies together effectively achieve the aims of the OSTP Public Access Memo.

Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

Openness as a Career Asset: Erin McKiernan

  ·   Open Access   ·   Open Data

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

“The Right to Read is the Right to Mine…”

  ·   Open Access   ·   Open Data

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


“The Right to Read is the Right to Mine…”

Those words are not only the tagline for an innovative text and data mining project called ContentMine, but are also a crucial component of the definition of Open Access.

The facts contained in scholarly articles are what make them so useful and so valuable. Researchers recognize that the digital environment gives them the opportunity to use these articles, and to make sense of these facts in entirely new ways. They want, and need, the ability to fully use these articles – to freely download and search, text mine, data mine, compute on and crawl them as data – in order to advance their work, to discover, to innovate.

Digital articles are, after all, simply small-scale aggregations of digital data. So it makes sense to empower users to employ the tools that are most appropriate to solving the problem at hand. Yet increasingly, we are seeing troubling signs that many commercial publishers are unwilling to support users who want to actually use the content in scholarly articles and not simply read the content in an analog fashion.

In an article in today’s TechDirt, Glyn Moody reports on a recent incident where a statistician attempted to use content mining techniques to advance his work, which involves improving detecting data fabrication – a legitimate and valuable academic pursuit.

The researcher, who works at an institution with a subscription to Elsevier’s ScienceDirect database, notes that he took care to conduct the necessary bulk downloading of articles from Elsevier’s database in a manner that would not disrupt other users.

Nevertheless, Moody reports that Elsevier contacted the researcher and instructed him to stop. The research notes that:

“Approximately two weeks after I started downloading psychology research papers, Elsevier notified my university that this was a violation of the access contract, that this could be considered stealing of content, and that they wanted it to stop. My librarian explicitly instructed me to stop downloading (which I did immediately), otherwise Elsevier would cut all access to Sciencedirect for my university.”

To be fair, Elsevier does appear to have indicated to the researcher that he could use an Elsevier-provided API to continue to content mine articles.  However, the researcher notes that the Elsevier API often returns only metadata to the user – rather than the full text that is so valuable, and that can be easily accessed by the user via the Web, making it a far less desirable option.

Elsevier’s response is troubling for a number of reasons. Using the threat of cutting off institution-wide paid access to ScienceDirect in response to a researcher’s legitimate use of content is extreme. Requiring researchers to use only Elsevier-approved tools to work on articles in an Elsevier-controlled environment is behavior that runs directly counter to promoting an open scholarly environment. And, perhaps the most troubling of all, is referring to the downloading of articles from an institution with a legitimate subscription to the content as “stealing”. The tragedy of Aaron Swartz starkly illustrated the folly of this kind of thinking.

In an era when many commercial publishers insist on selling our institutions access to digital articles only in large bundles, touting the benefits of these bundles as “databases,” restricting the rights of users to fully use these databases is unacceptable. As Peter Murray-Rust and his team at Content Mine so eloquently note:

“The Right to Read is the Right to Mine. Anyone who has lawful access to read the literature with their eyes should be able to do so with a machine. We want to make this right a reality and enable everyone to perform research using humanity’s accumulated scientific knowledge.”

Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

Alternative Publishing Models to Support Open Access

  ·   Open Access

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


Some additional content goes here.

Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

Building a Career on an Open Foundation: Meredith Niles

  ·   Open Access

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

Campus Open Access Funds

  ·   Open Access

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


Some content goes here.

Thursday, January 1, 1970       Events

Campus Open Access Policies

  ·   Open Access

Date

Thursday, January 1st, 1970


Learn more about our work