1. Birgit Schmidt Activating Open Science Communities in Göttingen: From policies to real meet-ups
1.1. What does Open Science mean to you?
1.2. UGOE Open Access Policy
1.3. GOEScholar DSpace repository
1.4. Funder OA Policies
1.4.1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
1.4.1.1. Not signed Plan_S yet
1.4.2. Ministry for education & research (BMBF)
1.5. Project DEAL
1.5.1. Scientists urging negotiators to strike a deal
1.6. OA Publication fund at UGOE
1.6.1. Up to 2000 EUR APC fund
1.6.2. fund since 2012, and several agreements with publishers since 2017
1.6.3. ~230 papers per year, about ~€400k annual spend in the fund.
1.7. Göttingen Open Source & Science Initiative of Psychology
1.8. Replication Wiki
1.9. Goettingen chapter of the chaos computer club
1.10. Stepping up data literacy
1.10.1. eRA Data management workshops
1.10.2. "Data Lesen Lernen" project
1.10.3. Carpentries
1.11. Conclusions & Next steps
1.11.1. Be patient and persistent
1.11.2. Alliances with ERCs
1.11.3. ...
1.12. Question why did Germany not endorse Plan S?
2. Mark Leon de Vries Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Dutch Road(map) to full open access in 2020 Harnessing the power of Green Open Access: implementing the ‘Taverne’ law in the Dutch Academy
2.1. Political agenda
2.1.1. 2013 Netherlands to switch entirely to Gold OA within 10 years
2.1.2. 2016 EC agrees to further promote mainstreaming of OA, to make OA the default by 2020
2.1.3. VSNU national negotations for licensing
2.1.4. Taverne amendment Article 25fa Copyright act
2.1.4.1. Researcher can make work available online after an embargo period, regardless of what publishing contract was signed.
2.1.4.2. Trying to do everything for the researcher, assuming the researcher signs an agreement that the library acts on their behalf.
2.2. Taverne Project goals
2.2.1. Explore technical possibilities and pitfalls
2.2.2. Gauge publisher response
2.2.3. Gauge researcher response
2.3. Taverne remains important
2.3.1. Only 30% of all NL research funded by coalition S
2.3.2. Taverne also applies to publications where Dutch researcher is not the corresponding author
2.4. Implementing in practice
2.4.1. Identifying and involving enthusiastic researchers across discipline and career stages
2.4.2. Developing workflows to identify harvest and publications within the scope of the project
2.4.3. Work on researcher concern
2.4.3.1. Relationship with publishers/editors
2.4.3.2. Relationship with co-authors
3. Andrew Smeall Hindawi Open Source platforms as a foundation for Open Science
3.1. Authors don't care about the technology of publishing software
3.2. Publishers benefit from network effects
3.3. Geoff Bilder, Jennifer Lin, Cameron Neylon
3.3.1. Everything we have gained by opening content and data will be under threat if we allow the enclosure of scholarly infrastructures
3.3.2. A healthy marketplace benefits from competition
3.4. Hindawi committed to Open Infrastructure Principles
3.4.1. Open Source
3.4.2. Open Data
3.4.3. Open Integrations
3.5. Working with the Coko Foundation
3.5.1. People coming from PLOS
3.6. PubSweet is the toolbox
3.6.1. eLIFE builds a multistage, collaborative peer review
3.6.2. EuropePMC builds a metadata review for ingest into repositories
3.6.3. ...
3.7. Coko is in charge of the governance of this community
3.8. How does the collaboration work?
3.8.1. We don't compete on technology
3.8.2. Create a network of service providers to help organizations implement the technology
4. Cheryl E. Ball, Wayne State University and Oslo School of Architecture and Design. Vega Academic Publishing System
4.1. It's very hard to sustain truly digitally born publications
4.2. Features
4.2.1. Authoring platform
4.2.2. Multimedia integration
4.2.3. Collaborative editing
4.2.4. open peer-review
4.2.5. production workflows
4.2.6. flexible schema
4.2.7. structured text
4.2.8. easy UX templates
4.3. Authoring as structured data
4.4. Editorial workflows
4.5. Sample issue template
4.5.1. Grid view for articles
4.6. Vega doesn't want to assume that all the journals on the platform look alike. So users should be able to customize the front end.
5. Rachael Lammey (head of community outreach) and Vanessa Fairhurst, Crossref. Transparency and collaboration at the heart of new developments at Crossref
5.1. Mission
5.1.1. Making research outputs easy to find, cite, link, access and reuse
5.1.2. Not for profit membership organisation
5.2. Not all members are publishers, also funders and other organisations who want to assign identifiers to content.
5.3. Preprints, peer reviews and data citation
5.3.1. +80k preprints registered
5.3.2. +13k peer reviews cited persistently
5.3.3. Working with DataCite to promote data citation to provide transparency and aid reuse of content
5.4. How to love (your) metadata
5.4.1. Participation reports
5.4.1.1. Launched in June 2018
5.4.1.2. Open and free report - anyone can check
5.4.1.3. ALL metadata coverage of any Crossref member
5.4.1.4. Includes 10 metadata checks
5.4.1.5. In beta & will contain more features later
5.4.2. Metadata Manager
5.5. Crossref plugin will be improved in OJS 3.0
5.6. Question: SCHOLIX?
5.6.1. Track and expose use of research data.
5.6.2. Crossref members need to deposit data citations in a specific way in order to make the Scholix objectives possible.
5.6.3. OR members can put the links to the data in the reference list of a crossref record
6. Helena Francke, University of Borås and UiT The Arctic University of Norway. Researcher attitudes to offset agreements for OA publishing
6.1. Rather than making the choice of making their articles OA, it happened automatically due to Swedish offset agreements.
6.2. Background
6.2.1. Targets
6.2.1.1. Swedish government aims for OA at the time of publishing
6.2.2. Current state
6.2.2.1. 30-40% of journals and conference articles made OA, c 10-20% through 100% oa or hybrid OA
6.2.2.2. OA included in Swedish negotiations for licenses
6.3. Swedish Springer compact agreement 2016-2018
6.3.1. Read & Publish agreement between Bibsam consortium and Springer nature
6.3.2. Organizations pay a publishing cost for affiliated authors' work to become OA, and a reading cost to get access to the subscription material
6.4. Evaluation of the SC agreement
6.4.1. Author attitudes and practices
6.4.2. Survey with 375 responses
6.4.2.1. 17% of the possible responses
6.5. Motivations for OA publishing
6.5.1. Visibility 21% & accessibility 17%
6.6. 73% of the authors did not know about the SC agreement
6.7. People are very appreciative that they don't have to cover the OA fees themselves
6.8. Authors generally wanted to see more agreements like this, covering extra publishers.
6.9. Nexus of practices
6.9.1. Publishing traditions
6.9.2. Disciplinary practices
6.9.3. economical/business practices
7. Jon Tennant Who should own public science? Preprints, Power, and Publishers
7.1. Four major crises
7.1.1. Access
7.1.2. Reproducibility
7.1.3. Serials
7.1.4. Evaluation
7.2. Why Open Research
7.2.1. Slow and wasteful
7.2.2. Ruled by commercial interests
7.2.3. Copyright is broken
7.2.4. The four crises
7.2.5. Illusion of academic freedom
7.2.6. Questionable research practices
7.2.7. Closed science mean people suffer
7.3. Sustainable Development Goals
7.4. You are the provider, the product and the consumer
7.4.1. Waiter & restaurant analogy
7.5. Why NOW?
7.5.1. co-option of open science
7.5.2. Private interests are strengthening
7.5.3. Ownership of scholarly infrastructure
7.6. I don't think Open Science is a well understood and generally accepted concept.
7.6.1. poorly defined process based concept
7.6.2. Divorced from any human, value-based element
7.6.3. Treated as distinct from principles of 'good' science
7.6.4. This makes it very easy AGAIN for commercial interests to co-opt
7.6.5. ...
7.7. Tony Ross Hellauer Principles of open scholarship
7.8. Is Open Science a 'movement'?
7.8.1. 3 elements
7.8.1.1. Direction
7.8.1.2. Shared goals
7.8.1.3. commonality
7.8.2. Who is defining?
7.8.3. Who is leading?
7.9. Tony Benn POWER questions
7.10. Mega-publishers are corrupting Open Science
7.10.1. The resistance to these businesses is one of the reasons that sparked Open Science
7.11. Springer Nature abusing power for profits
7.12. Guardian article on Elsevier
7.13. New Science Monitor oversight committee chaired by Cameron Neylon
7.14. Scholarly publishing: EUA asks European Commission to investigate lack of competition
7.15. EI-IE Elsevier: putting a price on knowledge
7.16. Martin Grötschel APE 2018 Opening Address
7.17. Crowd mentality
7.17.1. People behaving in the same way
7.17.2. We haven't aligned the incentive system with principles of open science
7.17.3. The barriers that we face are mainly based on FEAR
7.18. Why Open Research - Impact factor
7.19. An open science education crisis
7.19.1. Even though they are fully able to, publisher policy wise, 60,8% of global health researchers are not self-archiving their work.
7.19.2. 7000 journals in DOAJ do not charge APCs for open access
7.20. Point of View: How open science helps researchers succeed
7.21. Tim Berners-Lee tells us his radical new plan to upend the World Wide Web
7.21.1. Solid, re-decentralising the web
7.22. A challenge to publishers to justify embargo periods
7.23. What do we need to change Culture?
7.23.1. Education
7.23.2. Open Science MOOC
7.23.2.1. All CC0 licensed
7.23.3. Good tools
7.23.4. Good teachers who can act as role models
7.24. Question: you can't divorce peer review from the journal in Humanities. Specifically targeting a piece of content to a particular audience
7.24.1. Overlays of preprints have failed until now. Because the culture of journals is still so strong.
7.24.2. Some disciplinary norms are very hard to shake.
7.24.3. It has to be clear for a particular community or context that the decoupling has value in that specific situation.
7.25. Breaking down the journal article
7.25.1. We're creating discrete pieces of something that's inherently a continuous process.
8. Stephanie Dawson ScienceOpen Preprints in context
8.1. Promises of preprints
8.1.1. early
8.1.2. open
8.1.3. digital
8.1.4. community feedback
8.2. Advantages of a preprint over an institutional repository
8.2.1. Discipline specific
8.2.1.1. better peer discoverability
8.2.1.2. more community feedback
8.2.2. Early view
8.2.2.1. access to research before official publication
8.2.2.2. clear statement about the fact that peer review hasn't happened yet
8.2.3. Metadata standards
8.2.3.1. crossref preprint DOI. Already started years ago
8.3. On the ScienceOpen platform, you can select preprint as a filter
8.3.1. Preprint vs version of record
8.4. Discipline specific community curation and open review
8.5. Researcher-led collections on ScienceOpen
8.6. UCL Launching open access megajournal
9. Stefan Ekman, Swedish National Data Service and Helena Francke, University of Borås and UiT The Arctic University of Norway. Using Active Learning Classrooms in Building an Infrastructure for Access to Research Data
9.1. Data Access Units (DAU)
9.2. Course
9.2.1. Research Data: accessibility, management, collaboration
9.2.2. Objectives
9.3. Active Learning
9.3.1. Blended learning
9.3.1.1. lots of studying at home
9.3.2. Four meetings of an entire day each
9.3.3. ONLY active group work in those meetings, with a facilitator
9.3.4. Extensive participant collaboration between those meetings
10. Elena Giglia, University of Turin. OPERAS: bringing the long tail of Social Sciences and Humanities into Open Science
10.1. Operas leverages
10.1.1. Directory of open access books
10.1.2. Hypotheses - academic blogs
10.1.3. isidore
10.1.3.1. Discover research
10.2. Goal
10.2.1. Bring social sciences and humanities into the european open science cloud
10.2.2. and supporting SSH FAIRification
10.2.2.1. Findable
10.2.2.2. Accessible
10.2.2.3. Interoperable
10.2.2.4. Reusable
10.3. Research infrastructure to rethink publishing, discovery and dissemination in the SSH of the future.
11. Graham Stone, JiSC Collections. Open access Monographs in the library supply chain
11.1. Report from last year
11.1.1. changing publishing ecologies - integration with library supply chain
11.2. Timeline to achieve OA for monographs and books may be longer than January 1st 2020
11.2.1. UK already has a mandate for this, to be come effective Jan 1st 2021
11.3. cOAlition S will, at a later stage, issue guidance on OA monographs and books
11.4. Library supply chain
11.4.1. OA for monographs does not mean the demise of print
11.4.2. Evidence shows that print is still hugely important to AHSS scholars
11.4.3. New University Presses and Scholar-Led publishers (and OA presses in general) have difficulty accessing the library supply chain
11.4.4. free ebook supply chain report
11.4.4.1. workflows designed to lock down
11.4.4.2. OA content amount very small
11.4.4.3. ...
11.5. Workshop Hypothesis: OA publishers have difficulty accessing the library supply chain
11.5.1. Not just an OA problem, an issue that all small presses face
11.5.2. metadata requirements can be intimidating (ONIX, MARC, KBART, multiple ISBNs)
11.5.3. Suppliers don't always see benefit of free NUPs (new university presses) have paid and unpaid channels
11.5.4. NUPs priority is readers, not sales
11.5.5. practical workflows and durable solutions with duplicate avoidance etc
11.6. UK has a framework agreement for library acquisistions
11.7. Resulting themes
11.7.1. Practical areas
11.7.2. ...
11.8. Cultural change in the acquisition process
11.8.1. major issue to recognise zero costs for OA while the print version is available.
11.9. New forms of content
11.9.1. experimental content often doesn't fit
11.9.2. Could OA and fixing the library supply chain help as a trigger?
12. Paul Peters, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. CEO of Hindawi Ensuring a healthy and competitive market for Open Access publishing
12.1. Reducing publication costs has been a key motivation since the very early days of OA
12.1.1. We have not made a lot of progress in solving this.
12.2. Problems of the subscription market for scholarly journals
12.2.1. Lack of price transparency
12.2.1.1. Even if you know what the price is that you need to pay, you don't know how many subscribers it has. No way to know how much the academic community is paying for a single article in Nature or Cell
12.2.1.2. Researchers themselves don't need to pick up the bill themselves.
12.2.1.3. Authors drive the success of journals. So if they are not responsible for the costs, you don't get efficient market dynamics
12.2.2. Journals are not substitutable
12.2.3. Sales teams are expensive
12.2.3.1. Hindawi originally 40 people based in Cairo, subscription based
12.2.3.2. Hard battle to win without a sales team
12.2.4. Big deals made these other problems much worse
12.2.4.1. Good: increased access levels for universities
12.2.4.2. Universities were less concerned with the skewing of the market as a consequence. Even less price transparency !
12.2.4.3. Researchers care even less about the economics of the publishing industry as a result
12.3. How would OA (/APCs) makes things better
12.3.1. Prices are fully transparent
12.3.2. Authors care about the costs
12.3.3. OA journals ARE substitutable
12.3.3.1. you don't have to subscribe to access the content
12.3.4. No need for sales team
12.3.4.1. the cost of entry to become a publisher is much lower
12.3.5. Authors are happy to publish in journals from smaller publishers
12.3.5.1. Authors don't care how big the publisher is
12.3.5.2. But libraries often do!
12.3.5.2.1. Focusing their efforts on top 10 publishers more time efficient than spending time on purchases from a whole range of small publishers.
12.4. Redefining Scholarly Publishing as a Service Industry
12.5. 2007 Welcome Trust making funding available for APC
12.5.1. Problem of researchers not caring about costs RE-EMERGES again, since they no longer have to pay themselves anymore.
12.5.1.1. Does NOT give an incentive to publishers to reduce costs
12.5.1.2. Peters 2007: this is going to destroy the market and Hybrids will take off
12.6. Full OA and Hybrid
12.6.1. There is basically no Hybrid output for years and years. In 2013-2014 the lines start coming apart
12.7. 2013-2014 The "OA Big Deal"
12.7.1. Funders care about the access they are producing, MORE than they care on creating a sustainable market
12.7.2. List of early offsetting deals
12.7.3. Visualisation of funds spent
12.7.3.1. The increase in hybrid took some of the growth of full OA journals.
12.7.3.2. They made it easier to stay in the old practices, rather than bring people to full OA journals
12.8. Plan S
12.8.1. Funds available + Hybrids not compliant
12.8.2. If you have +100 publishers, how can you have money flow into all these publishers?
12.8.3. Transformative agreements
12.8.3.1. scenario to convert to full OA requirement DOES not mean that there is also a contractual agreement to EFFECTIVELY convert the journals to full OA.
12.8.4. What about funding for fully OA journals?
12.8.4.1. Not specific, funders will have to figure something out
12.8.4.2. Problematic for smaller publishers.
12.8.4.3. It looks like almost zero thought went into solving this problem
12.8.5. Due to all negotiations and the step by step basis, you are not going to end up in an ideal outcome.
12.8.5.1. We're going to negotiate better offsetting deals ???
12.8.6. How did we end up right back where we started?
12.8.6.1. Maybe mandates are not the right way to solve it?
12.9. Plea to funders
12.9.1. Focus on your allies rather than your opponents
12.9.2. Mandates should not come in the way of supporting business models of the good willing actors you need in the eco system.
12.10. Mandates can work
12.10.1. But they have to be really strong and straightforward