Division/Committee: [CINF] Division of Chemical Information
Open Access (OA) and Open Science have been embraced by individuals in all areas of science as a means of making scientific advances more transparent and readily accessible by a diverse body of researchers and members of the general public, alike. In its broadest sense, OA is a model of publishing in which consumers access information free-of-charge and the cost of publishing and dissemination is borne by others. Open Access publishing and data sharing mandates issued by governments, institutions, and funding agencies have encouraged scientists to “go open” with their research, but, at the same time, sharing scientifically sound information is not free and must be funded in some way. This symposium will examine the ethical implications of Open Access and open data, and we invite contributions dealing with any topic related to ethics and equity of openly available information, including (but not limited to): Accessibility of the journal literature Equitably funding scientific publication and data sharing Equity in dissemination of books, textbooks, and course materials Social justice and open data sharing Sustainability of chemical information Presentations may include original studies, reviews of industry trends and their effects, descriptions of industry innovations, and even well-researched and well-documented opinion pieces. Basic introduction of a single program, explicit advertisements or demonstrations of a specific product or brand are out of scope for this symposium.
The peer-review system is, at present, deeply engraved in scientific minds as the golden standard for research quality. However, it has shown to be notorious for reviewer bias, lack of agreement between reviewers, harsh criticism concealed by anonymity, multiple cycles of reviews and rejections by different journals, and associated delays and expenses; additionally, the previous studies showed that its positive effect on the overall quality of the final publication is minor. Alternatively, or additionally, authors may choose to deposit their manuscripts to preprint servers, institutionally or privately supported repositories of preprints. A preprint is a complete manuscript shared publicly prior to officially undergoing the peer-review process. Over the last decade, biomedical sciences have been slowly adapting a preprint culture. The coronavirus pandemic introduced many changes to our society, and deeply affected the established in biomedical sciences publication practices. In this talk, we will present a comprehensive study of the changes in scholarly publication landscape for biomedical sciences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with special emphasis on preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers. We will talk about various benefits that made scientific publishers and funders embrace preprints and acknowledge them as works of scholarly communication. We will present various initiatives aimed to address the concerns about the quality of un-refereed preprints. Lastly, we will discuss the overall attitude regarding the Open Access (OA) publication practices among the biomedical researchers as based on a series of interviews we conducted in Summer 2021. This talk will be of interest to editors, publishers, open science enthusiasts, and anyone interested in changes that the coronavirus crisis transpired to publication practices and a culture of preprints in life sciences.
Each year, undergraduate and graduate students complete senior theses and PhD dissertations within the Department of Chemistry at Princeton University. During the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, access to some content became challenging, and students became more aware of open-access and subscription content availability while researching remotely and worldwide. This session will be an analysis of citations for open-access content within theses and dissertations, as well as an analysis of the chemistry theses and dissertations as cited works in other research publications.
Many scholars agree that open-science practices would have a positive impact on scientific progress. However, these practices have only been slowly adopted, and initiatives to encourage these practices often rely on intuitions about incentives, motivations, and social dynamics. In the current studies we turn some of these intuitions into empirical questions. We test the hypothesis that researcher's perceptions about the social dynamics of their field relate to perceptions of open-science and choices to implement open-science practices. To do so we begin by measuring (1) Perceptions of the social dynamics in the participant's field: Do early career researchers see it as competitive and hierarchical or as cooperative and participatory? (2) Perceptions of open-science practices: Do early career researchers see open-science practices as a way to get a competitive edge, or as a way to cooperate and collaborate with other researchers? (3) Open science Behaviors: when do early career researchers engage in open-science practices and to what extent? Our hypothesis is that researchers who perceive their field as cooperative and participatory will be more likely to see open-science practices as a way to collaborate with other researchers and will engage in more open-science. The findings of this study will help inform interventions aimed at increasing open-science practices.
The Pennsylvania State University Libraries Open Publishing program publishes open access journals in partnership with editors and authors across Penn State and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as part of our library publishing services. Making the content that we publish freely available and accessible to all is a core value and part of how we measure success. Historically, making content open has centered around the use of Creative Commons licenses and ensuring content is available through a Diamond OA model, where neither authors nor readers pay for access. The Open Publishing program extends the focus of openness to document and web accessibility, ensuring readers can access the material regardless of their ability.
In 2020, we began providing accessibility training for editors of new journals supported by our program. The pilot program includes training to make journal articles accessible in Word, PDF, InDesign, and HTML formats. The feedback from these trainings and a needs assessment survey we sent to all our editors in early 2020 were used to create and customize an “Accessibility Handout for Editors” document. All the feedback and information are also being collected and organized for use in an accessibility training module we hope to have ready for internal use in the next 1-2 years.
In this presentation, attendees will learn the importance of accessibility in academic publishing, the steps used to create the accessibility handout, how we customized our accessibility trainings for new editors, and the plans for a future accessibility training module for our editors.
Since its founding in 2013, the Public Philosophy Journal (PPJ) has been developing an alternative process of peer review to provide an alternative for the often antagonistic and hierarchical structure of traditional peer review. Developed initially by philosophers Christopher Long and Mark Fischer, this practice has grown into Formative Peer Review: a supportive and sustainable practice dedicated to improving scholarship through collegial feedback. This presentation explores the philosophy behind the process of Formative Peer Review as practiced at PPJ. First, we illustrate how Formative Peer Review embodies and furthers values of thick collegiality; ethical imagination; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and transparency. Second, we demonstrate how these values not only contribute to a more ethical practice of scholarly publishing, but also have the potential to strengthen scholarship and effect positive change within academic cultures. Finally, we introduce a developing project, the Collaborative Community Review tool, which will enable other publications to adopt these more ethical and equitable practices.
Research4Life has enabled free or low-cost access to scholarly publications in over 125 low and middle-income countries for the past 20 years. This collaboration has helped to reduce the knowledge gap for tens of thousands of researchers, but there is evidence that those same researchers experience significant barriers when it comes to publishing their own work, and that the shift to Open Access has created new kinds of obstacles. In July 2020 Research4Life established an Open Access Task Force to investigate ways in which the partnership could support an equitable transition to OA and to inform its future strategic direction. Outputs from the Task Force will be described, including the Best Practice Guidelines for publishers on how to communicate APC waiver policies, an online index to publishers’ inclusion policies and feedback and suggestions from our target community via a webinar presentation of our work and an online survey of Research4Life user institutions. This survey aimed to identify key challenges and ways in which the Research4Life partnership can extend its scope to support lower income country users as producers of research outputs and not just as consumers of the work of others.