The ARC’s new policy will free up a lot of basic research. But far from all of it. There are loopholes, there is wiggle room, and there are ways for researchers and universities to drag their feet.
Hosted by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) of Brasil, the 2nd Summit of the Global Research Council will take place from 27 to 29 May 2013 at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Berlin, Germany. (…) Participants of the summit will establish and endorse a Statement of Principles on Research Integrity and agree on an action plan for implementing Open Access to Publications as the main paradigm of scientific communication in the following years.
Paul Jump on the Research Council’s open access strategies:
Research Councils UK has insisted it will not punish universities that publish a lower proportion of gold open access papers than it envisaged in its allocation of block grants for article fees – provided the block grants are not misused.
See also the discussion on Implementing Finch.
Undertaken on the behalf of the Research Councils UK in partnership with JISC, the Royal Society and Sciencewise-ERC1, this public dialogue explored views on open data, data reuse and data management policies within research.
Key Findings are:
1. The principal arguments for open data – around catalysing innovation and building trust – were contested.
2. Open data was an abstract issue for participants to engage with.
3. Main concerns around open data relate to promoting the public interest and protecting personal data.
4. Current practices around open data seen as mixed and contingent on the interests of researchers.
5. The public identified 8 key principles that could be used to promote more effective open data policies. Defining the public interest was key in this context.
6. There was a series of social and ethical issues associated with rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders around open data. These were sometimes in conflict.
7. Different governance structures emerged around open data, which are contingent on how public interest is defined and protected.
8. There were two broad views on what constitutes the public interest around data reuse that emerged from the dialogue, which have distinct and potentially conflicting implications for data governance.
9. Opening data in the public interest can involve direct trade offs for the public – in terms of individual rights around consent and confidentiality and the greater good.
10. There are a number of implications emerging from the dialogue about who gets to define public interest.
11. There is an opportunity to directly build public principles around openness directly into the policies of research funders.
12. Different open data governance structures could be considered by the research councils.
13. Open data, though not unimportant, is unlikely to be a highly significant public issue around the governance of research.