Open Scholarship Press Collections: Policy/Foundational Policies and Policy Frameworks

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 2019. “ACRL Policy Statement on Open Access to Scholarship by Academic Librarians.” ACRL. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/openaccess

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Policy Statement on Open Access outlines recommendations to academic librarians of best practices for publishing their research open access. Noting that research by academic librarians has value in influencing policy development and professional practices, as well as in advancing the field of library and information science, the Association advises librarians to make all research outputs openly accessible and to license them for reuse while retaining author rights. In addition, the statement advises researchers to follow all standards for citation and attribution and calls upon publishers of library and information science scholarship to implement open scholarship practices and upon librarians to advocate for them.

Australian Research Council (ARC). 2021. “ARC Open Access Policy Version 2021.1.” Australian Research Council. https://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/Open%20Access%20Policy%20Version%202021.1.pdf

The Australian Research Council (ARC) Open Access Policy, the first version of which came into force in 2013, aims to ensure that publicly funded research in Australia is openly accessible to researchers and the community at large. It states that, as of January 2013, all research outputs funded by the Australian Research Council (with the exception of research data, which is subject to a different data management policy) must be open access within 12 months from the date of publication, whether through the publisher or in a repository. In addition, metadata about all research outputs must be published in an institutional repository, and the Council strongly recommends the use of Creative Commons licensing as well. In addition to providing details about modes of publication, the policy outlines reporting requirements as well as the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the research process.

Brown, Patrick O., Diane Cabell, Aravinda Chakravarti, Barbara Cohen, Tony Delamothe, Michael Eisen, Les Grivell, et al. 2003. “Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing.” https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4725199

The Bethesda Statement was developed for advancing open access to biomedical research. It provides a definition of open access and statements of principle from three participating working groups. The statement defines an open access publication as one that is freely accessible online to be read, distributed, and used, with attribution and is deposited in an open repository. Statements from the Institutions and Funding Agencies Working Group, the Libraries and Publishers Working Group, and the Scientists and Scientific Societies Working Group pledge financial, infrastructural, institutional, and other support for open access publication.

¤ Bullinger, Hans-Jörg, Karl Max Einhäupl, Peter Gaehtgens, Peter Gruss, Hans-Olaf Henkel, Walter Kröll, Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, et al. 2003. “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.” https://openaccess.mpg.de/67605/berlin_declaration_engl.pdf

The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (Berlin Declaration) is a coordinated effort to support, legitimize, and commit to open access to scholarly research. The document’s compilers argue that a pledge toward the wide and comprehensive dissemination of knowledge via the Internet is critical to gain the most benefit for both science and broader society. By drawing together a national and international group of signatories under a commitment to open access knowledge production and sharing, the document recognizes and gives weight to the Open Access movement, specifically within the context of networked technologies. Beyond the impressive list of signatories, the Berlin Declaration also includes specific goals, definitions, and conditions (for authors, rights holders, and the work itself), which further legitimize its message.

¤ Chan, Leslie, Darius Cuplinskas, Michael Eisen, Fred Friend, Yana Genova, Jean-Claude Guédon, Melissa Hagemann, et al. 2002. “Budapest Open Access Initiative.” Budapest, Hungary: Budapest Open Access Initiative. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read

The Budapest Open Access Initiative (Budapest Initiative) takes the line that open access is a public good, and that by implementing this public good, education will be enriched and research will be accelerated and made more useful. Such positive benefits, according to the initiative, will help to unite humanity in a common quest for further knowledge. The Budapest Initiative signatories are clear on what they believe constitutes open access: free availability of research on the Internet for anyone to use lawfully. This document recommends two strategies for realizing broad open access to research output—self-archiving and open access journals—and also nods toward potential funding options.

¤ Government of Canada. 2013. “Capitalizing on Big Data: Toward a Policy Framework for Advancing Digital Scholarship in Canada.” Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/digital_scholarship_consultation_e.pdf

The Government of Canada compilers of this report present a birds-eye view of Canadian digital infrastructure (as of 2013), including its key governmental or government-aligned players and stakeholders. They consider Canada’s digital infrastructure to be nascent and promising, but in need of further resources and coordination. Although they laud Canada for its initiatives and investments to date, the compilers also note that “the potential of data-driven data has outstripped our ability to manage and grow the broader digital infrastructure ecosystem required to meet 21^st century needs” (6). To remedy this issue, the compilers suggest three major recommendations: 1) establish a culture of stewardship; 2) coordinate stakeholder engagement; 3) develop capacity and future funding parameters. The primary goal of this document is to make the case for aligned, harmonized funding policies for digital scholarship and infrastructure. In particular, the document focuses on the importance of data management.

+ Government of Canada. 2015. “Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.” http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=F6765465-1

The Government of Canada lays out its approach and attitude toward research sharing and dissemination, funneled through the Tri-Agency (the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR], the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC], and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC]). The goal of this document is to convince researchers to make their output openly available, as well as to formalize the government’s position on the issue. The stated objective is to improve access to the results of Tri-Agency-funded research, as well as to increase the sharing, circulation, and exchange of research results.

Government of Canada. 2021. “Tri-Agency Statement of Principles on Digital Data Management.” Ottawa: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. https://science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_83F7624E.html

In this statement, Canada’s three federal funding agencies—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)—establish expectations for how research data created through publicly funded projects should be managed. It also outlines responsibilities for researchers, research communities, institutions, and funders. These expectations relate to data management planning, adherence to applicable obligations and standards, and storage and preservation, among other things. As one of a number of relevant policies and statements of principle, these guidelines are intended to ensure that publicly funded Canadian research is as open and accessible possible in order to maximize its value and reach.

Government of Canada. 2018. “Canada’s 2018–2020 National Action Plan on Open Government.” https://open.canada.ca/en/content/canadas-2018-2020-national-action-plan-open-government

Recognizing the importance of open government in citizen-centred governance, this plan builds on previous efforts. It was developed through a Multi-Stakeholder Form on Open Government that included government and community members, through public consultations, and through a gender-based analysis peer review. Some of the issues addressed include making the government more user-friendly, enhancing financial accountability and transparency, increasing transparency around corporations, and developing open and inclusive digital services. Advancing open science is also a key issue, as is strengthening Canada’s democratic processes and citizen participation. The plan also addresses the need for more transparent access to information, greater inclusivity and diversity in public engagement, and a continuing commitment to reconciliation and relationship-building with Canada’s Indigenous Peoples.

¤ Government of Canada and Industry Canada. 2015. “Consultation: Developing a Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy.” Ottawa. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/plans-reports/en/canadas-st-strategy/consultation-developing-digital-research-infrastructure-strategy

Rapidly developing technology has posed challenges for governments, who must adapt quickly in order to maintain a robust and current digital infrastructure. The Government of Canada acknowledges these challenges and suggests that Canada needs to develop an appropriate strategy to tackle them. The report authors argue, implicitly, that new policies are required; they write: “Canada’s current [digital research infrastructure (DRI)] ecosystem needs to be examined against these rapid changes” (n.p.). The goal (and method) of the document is to reiterate that a new strategy is needed, to briefly outline next steps, and to put consultation questions out to the wider community.

Government of Canada. 2021. “Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy.” Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. https://science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_97610.html

This policy from Canada’s Tri-Agency—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)—is intended to promote research data management (RDM) and stewardship practices for publicly funded research. It includes requirements for institutions and researchers. Institutions must develop institutional research data management strategies and support researchers in their efforts, including by providing necessary infrastructure. Researchers must consider research data management in their funding applications, some of which require formal data management plans, and data must be deposited in a digital repository. Although making this data openly accessible is not required, the policy calls upon researchers to do so in adherence with the FAIR (Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable) principles and disciplinary standards. The policy also recognizes that data from research by and with Indigenous peoples must be managed in accordance with those communities’ wishes and approval, guided by principles of Indigenous self-determination and data sovereignty. The need for a distinctions-based approach for managing data with, by, and for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities is emphasized.

Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, and Ismael Rafols. 2015. “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature 520 (7548): 429–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Hicks, Wouters, Waltman, deRijcke, and Rafols offer a brief history of the use of data for research evaluation and present 10 principles for research evaluation developed at the 19^th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators in Leiden, The Netherlands, in 2014. Bringing together new ideas and ones familiar among scientometricians, the Leiden Principles argue for a system of evaluation in which metrics support, rather than substitute for, robust, open, and transparent qualitative evaluation practices. They also call for the recognition of the diverse goals, methods, conventions, languages, and localities of the global research community.

Jussieu Call Group. 2017. “Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity.” https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/

Drafted in Paris in 2017, the Jussieu Call aims at advancing open access by furthering the development and implementations of alternative open access business models that are not reliant on article processing charges (APCs). The Call includes eight statements that speak broadly to the idea of bibliodiversity: a diversity of practices of writing, peer-review, editing, and publishing that are community-led and researcher-focused, supported by legal, financial, and digital infrastructures at national and international levels.

Lin, Dawei, Jonathan Crabtree, Ingrid Dillo, Robert R. Downs, Rorie Edmunds, David Giaretta, Marisa De Giusti, et al. 2020. “The TRUST Principles for Digital Repositories.” Scientific Data 7 (1): 144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7

The TRUST principles are intended to foster research communities’ trust and confidence in repositories and their role in digital stewardship and preservation. The principles are Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability, and Technology. The FAIR Data Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) have gained traction as best practices for data development and management; the TRUST Principles complement them as standards guiding the stewardship and preservation of that FAIR data over time. Enacting the principle of transparency could include stating the repository’s mission statement and terms of use clearly, and enacting responsibility could involve managing intellectual property rights responsibly. Repositories can enact a user focus by following community standards and monitoring its changing needs; and having stable funding and plans for risk management and disaster recovery are forms of sustainability. Keeping up to date with changing technologies and protecting data from cyber or physical threats is another way of building confidence among repository users. By providing a set of principles in accessible language, the TRUST principles are a valuable tool for communication among the community of repository stakeholders.

Murray-Rust, Peter, Cameron Neylon, Rufus Pollock, and John Wilbanks. 2010. “Panton Principles: Principles for Open Data in Science.” Panton Principles. https://pantonprinciples.org/

The Panton Principles recommend practices for making scientific data open, recognizing that science is founded upon the ability to reuse, build upon, and respond to existing bodies of knowledge. The four principles state that data should be explicitly licensed with licenses designed specifically for data, that these licenses should not limit re-use for commercial or any other purposes, and that, ideally, publicly funded data should be placed in the public domain. In essence, the authors state that data should be freely available online with no barriers to access other than those inherent in accessing the Internet.

Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network. 2017. “Open Science Manifesto.” OCSDNet. https://ocsdnet.org/manifesto/open-science-manifesto/

Recognizing that the Open Science movement in many ways replicates the exclusionary practices of traditional science, the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network’s (OCSDNet) Open Science Manifesto calls for open science to be inclusive, representative, and collaborative. The Manifesto was developed in consultation with researchers in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and includes seven principles for open and collaborative science that address the creation of a knowledge commons, cognitive justice, situated openness, a recognition of every individual’s right to research, equitable collaboration, inclusive infrastructures, and sustainable development. The Manifesto is envisioned not as a movement away from the science’s core values, but a return to them.

+ RECODE Project Consortium. 2014. “Policy Recommendations for Open Access to Research Data.” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.50863

The Policy RECommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe (RECODE) Project Consortium provides an overview of the RECODE project and introduces the five interdisciplinary case studies in open access research data that helped in the examination of important challenges. The report includes a summary of the project findings and general recommendations. In addition, it studies targeted policies for funders, research institutions, data managers, and publishers, and provides practical guides for developing policies. The report also includes resources to further the policy development processes and their implementations. The authors conclude with a list of grouped resources and project partners.

DORA Group. 2012. “San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.” Accessed July 20, 2021. https://sfdora.org/read/

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) offers five recommendations for improving how the quality of research outputs is assessed, focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles but acknowledging the importance of datasets and other types of outputs. It was developed at the 2016 Annual Meeting of The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in San Francisco, in large part as a response to concerns about the journal impact factor (JIF) being used as a proxy metric for scholarly merit. It offers recommendations for funding agencies, institutions, researchers, publishers, researchers, and organizations that supply metrics as well as a general recommendation against using journal-level metrics such as the journal impact factor to assess individual articles.

UNESCO. 2021. “Towards a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science: Building a Global Consensus on Open Science.” https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/open_science_brochure_en.pdf

In February 2021, UNESCO announced that it would lead efforts to create consensus about open science on a global scale in the form of developing a UNESCO Recommendation, including a shared definition and a set of common values and initiatives for moving open science forward. Explaining that such recommendations aim at guiding national policy development and legal frameworks, this announcement notes that the Recommendation will build upon existing relevant recommendations and other UNESCO initiatives. It states that the Recommendation will be developed through two years of community and stakeholder consultation, and provides a roadmap for its development.

UNESCO. 2021. “UNESCO’s Open Access (OA) Curriculum Is Now Online.” UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/news/unescos-open-access-oa-curriculum-now-online

As part of UNESCO’s open access strategy, which focuses on publicly funded scholarly outputs, the organization developed two sets of open access curricula: one for library schools and one for researchers. Both are self-directed and freely available online through the UNESCO digital library, under a Creative Commons license. The modules for library schools include Introduction to Open Access, Open Access Infrastructure, Resource Optimization, and Interoperability and Retrieval. The modules for researchers include Scholarly Communications, Concepts of Openness and Open Access, Intellectual Property Rights, Research Evaluation Metrics, and Sharing your Work in Open Access.

¤ Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3 (1): 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Wilkinson et al. provide context and history for the development of the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles for data management. According to the authors, the now well-known FAIR principles were originally developed at a 2014 workshop in the Netherlands called “Jointly Designing a Data Fairport.” Building on this workshop members of the Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship (FORCE 11) community established a dedicated FAIR working group that nuanced and improved the principles. The authors argue that FAIR principles will improve the quality and usability of research, especially research that includes large data sets.