‘we should be able to improve research if we reward scientists specifically for adopting behaviours that are known to improve research’.

We interpreted that several of the documents pointed to a disconnect between the production of research and the needs of society (i.e., productivity may lack translational impact and societal added value).

A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record.

For example, funding agencies may be more interested in performance measures related to the translation of team research findings to practical applications, whereas team researchers may use the number of publications produced and amount grant funding obtained to gauge the success of a team science endeavor. In addition, the method of evaluation and metrics of success may vary at different points during the team research project. Short-term measures may include indicators of synergistic output, whereas long-term measures may be related to the impact of the research on the evolution of a discipline or the development of public policy.

open by default

5. INNOVATION AND COMMERCIAL RESEARCH BASED ON THE USE OF FACTS, DATA, AND IDEAS SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

3. LICENSES AND CONTRACT TERMS SHOULD NOT RESTRICT INDIVIDUALS FROM USING FACTS, DATA AND IDEAS Generally, licences and contract terms that regulate and restrict how individuals may analyse and use facts, data and ideas are unacceptable and inhibit innovation and the creation of new knowledge and, therefore, should not be adopted. Similarly, it is unacceptable that technical measures in digital rights management systems should inhibit the lawful right to perform content mining.

Similarly, references can be initially tagged as mixed citations, but at a later stage, Texture can connect to third party APIs (e.g. DataCite, CrossRef) and convert them into fully structured element citations.

Another reason APCs would rise is that the money flowing into the current system from outside the academic research community – i.e., journal subscriptions from industry – is estimated to be about 25 percent of the total. In a “pay-to-publish model,” systemic costs would need to be borne by the academic research community rather than shared with industry. This is because the costs of publishing in a gold OA system are covered entirely by those who publish articles – the academic research community – and not spread among consumers including the commercial sector, which accesses large amounts of research but publishes comparatively little. These two points have not been addressed in discussions to date but need to be worked through if gold open access is to be a viable, long-term solution globally.

A way of conceptualizing our way out of a single provider solution by a powerful first-mover is to think about datasets as public resources, with attendant public ownership interests.

The commons is a collectively evolving protocol language for sharing scholarly information, and anyone can build on that protocol to the extent they wish.

Both groups have committed themselves to “fair” open access principles, which, among other things, “strongly recommend” that journal owners be “fully” non-profit. “A for-profit company accountable only to shareholders”, the statement pointedly stresses, “is not compatible” with these principles.

The first set of challenges, around sustainable funding for a non-profit infrastructure, has a viable answer: the key is to redirect the billions – even a fraction of those billions – that libraries currently spend on subscriptions to the new, scholar-run platforms. These dollars are crucial, too, to underwrite an OA future for the university presses and scholarly societies.

Perhaps the steepest obstruction is our own well-earned cynicism. The university, with its audit culture and industry “partnerships”, is already so entangled with corporate values that its “non-profit” status strikes many of us as hollow. What difference does it make, by extension, to bring scholarly publishing back into the fold, when the “fold” itself is shot through with market thinking?

A strong version of moral rights even gives the author the right to retract a work from publication and to enjoin any further publication or duplication.

Authors also have the right to not be attributed if they no longer wish to be associated with the work.

Box 1. Layers of Copyrights in Databases

Academic researchers and their offices of sponsored projects should carefully review drafts of sponsored research agreements and clinical trial agreements to ensure they do not inappropriately restrict a researcher’s right to disseminate the results of the scientific research they have conducted. A researcher should ensure that the agreements do not permit commercial sponsors to revise, delete, or suppress information generated by the researcher. The terms and timing of disclosing research results that are trade secrets should be incorporated into the sponsored research agreements, not negotiated at the time of publication

For example, if a researcher collaborates with a pharmaceutical company, the researcher may be contractually bound to suppress the release of research data until the sponsor has developed a patentable product.

so long as the information has been subject to reasonable measures to keep it secret.

First, the source of all intellectual property rights is national law. Certain international treaties harmonize intellectual property owners’ rights but leave the users’ rights to vary by country. Second, certain countries have added protection beyond what the treaties require. Specifically, the members of the European Union, candidate countries in Eastern Europe, Mexico [2], and South Korea have created a specialized database right that applies to certain databases created or maintained within their borders. These laws regulate uses of these databases only within their borders.

legal uncertainty interferes with the productive reuse of research data.

Researchersareusuallyexpectedtoobtaininformedconsentforpeopletoparticipateinresearchandforuseoftheinformationcollected.Wherepossible,consentshouldalsotakeintoaccountanyfutureusesofdata,suchasthesharing,preservationandlong-termuseofresearchdata.Ataminimum,consentformsshouldnotprecludedatasharing,suchasbypromisingtodestroydataunnecessarily

Researchdata—evensensitiveandconfidentialdata—canbesharedethicallyandlegallyifresearcherspayattention,fromthebeginningofresearch,tothreeimportantaspects:•whengaininginformedconsent,includeprovisionfordatasharing•whereneeded,protectpeople’sidentitiesbyanonymisingdata•considercontrollingaccesstodata

At the core, we have a fundamental issue of what “counts”, and what counts will clearly depend on the community doing the counting. This is the central social and political issue on which disagreements on the status of preprints are based. We will never agree on a universal definition because communities naturally value different things

But they all illustrate the same central point. There exists no universal standard of when an output is considered as part of the formal scholarly record. Rather, it is determined by particular groups in particular contexts

On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Four aspects to make science open “by design” and not as an after-thought

We propose to consider the following 'levels' for FAIRports, or actually Data Objects contained in them (in other words, one FAIRport could contain Data Objects with Different 'levels of FAIRness) (see figure). Level 1: Each Data Object has a PID and intrinsic FAIR metadata (in essence 'static') Level 2: Each Data Object has 'user defined' (and updated) metadata to give rich provenance in FAIR format of the data, what happened to it, what it has been used for, can be used for etc., which could also be seen as rich FAIR annotations Level 3. The Data Elements themselves in the Data Objects are 'technically' also FAIR, but not fully Open Access and not Reusable without restrictions (for instance Patient data or Proprietary data). Level 4: The metadata as well as the data elements themselves are fully FAIR and completely public, under well defined license. (Non-licensed data considered 'public' by their owner will still be excluded from integration projects by for instance Pharmaceutical companies).

If you publish, you’re a publisher We are a global community of members, large and small, who publish scholarly content in all disciplines and in many formats. We define publishing broadly; your business model is your business.

That said, the default for maximal FAIRness should be that the data themselves are made available under well-defined conditions for reuse by others (panel E).

The FAIR principles, although inspired by Open Science, explicitly and deliberately do not address moral and ethical issues pertaining to the openness of data

D. Legal conformity

Is there any existing infrastructure organisation that satisfies our principles? ORCID probably comes the closest, which is not a surprise as our conversation and these principles had their genesis in the community concerns and discussions that led to its creation. The ORCID principles represented the first attempt to address the issue of community trust which have developed in our conversations since to include additional issues. Other instructive examples that provide direction include Wikimedia Foundation and CERN.

Even with the best possible governance structures, critical infrastructure can still be co-opted by a subset of stakeholders or simply drift away from the needs of the community. Long term trust requires the community to believe it retains control. Here we can learn from Open Source practices. To ensure that the community can take control if necessary, the infrastructure must be “forkable.” The community could replicate the entire system if the organisation loses the support of stakeholders, despite all established checks and balances. Each crucial part then must be legally and technically capable of replication, including software systems and data.

An organisation that is both well meaning and has the right expertise will still not be trusted if it does not have sustainable resources to execute its mission.

If an infrastructure is successful and becomes critical to the community, we need to ensure it is not co-opted by particular interest groups. Similarly, we need to ensure that any organisation does not confuse serving itself with serving its stakeholders.

Transparent operations – achieving trust in the selection of representatives to governance groups will be best achieved through transparent processes and operations in general (within the constraints of privacy laws).

Stakeholder Governed – a board-governed organisation drawn from the stakeholder community builds more confidence that the organisation will take decisions driven by community consensus and consideration of different interests.

Open access advocates might be concerned about some of these directions, but my sense is that many of these scientists and librarians remain largely focused on trying to compete with, or at least influence, scientific publishing.

To enable this magic, an app that people can use to annotate regions in web pages is necessary but not sufficient. You also need an API-accessible service that enables computers to create and retrieve annotations. Even more fundamentally, you need an open web standard that defines how apps and services work not only with atomic resources named and located by URLs, but also segments of interest within them.

UC San Diego will transform California and a diverse global society by educating, generatingand disseminating knowledge and creative works, and engaging in public service

The founders of UC San Diego aspired to establish an experimental campus, one that would define the future of education and research at a public university. The success of this vision is unparalleled: UC San Diego is recognized as one of the top public research universities in the country and one of the top twenty universities in the world.

The simplest way to deposit a manuscript on bioRxiv is to upload a single PDF including the text and any figures/tables.

describe experimental work that is not performed in accordance with the relevant ethical standards for research using animals or human subjects.

Authors retain copyright and choose from several distribution/reuse options under which to make the article available (CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND, CC-BY-NC-ND, or no reuse). By posting on bioRxiv, authors explicitly consent to text mining of their work (e.g., by search engines or researchers).

nor grant arXiv the right to grant any specific rights to others.

arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines.

The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.

2. A fundamentally new approach towards optimal reuse of research data. Data sharing and stewardship is the default approach for all publicly funded research. This requires definitions, standards and infrastructures.

2.2 Acceptable Conditions

No one can read everything.  We rely on filters to make sense of the scholarly literature, but the narrow, traditional filters are being swamped. However, the growth of new, online scholarly tools allows us to make new filters; these altmetrics reflect the broad, rapid impact of scholarship in this burgeoning ecosystem. We call for more tools and research based on altmetrics.

We reaffirm the principle that only the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which a candidate’s work is published, will be considered in appointments, promotions, merit awards or grants.

Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.

Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).

The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in an appropriate standard electronic format is deposited (and thus published) in at least one online repository using suitable technical standards (such as the Open Archive definitions) that is supported and maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, inter operability, and long-term archiving.

Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society.

Important questions are (i) whether preprint submissions should be screened for adherence to scientific and ethical standards and (ii) how to handle data that raise ethical concerns or that contravene national policy or guidance.

Posting preprints has the added benefit of democratizing the flow of information and making it available to all investigators across the globe, while allowing journals to make their own judgments of appropriateness and interest after peer review. Publicly available preprints provide an opportunity for authors to obtain feedback beyond the few scientists who see the manuscript during peer review.

In the future, the most valuable science institutions will be closely linked to the people and places whose urgent problems need to be solved; they will cultivate strong lines of accountability to those for whom solutions are important; they will incentivize scientists to care about the problems more than the production of knowledge. They will link research agendas to the quest for improved solutions — often technological ones — rather than to understanding for its own sake. The science they produce will be of higher quality, because it will have to be. The current dominant paradigm will meanwhile continue to crumble under the weight of its own contradictions, but it will also continue to hog most of the resources and insist on its elevated social and political status.

The Artemis Project is different from science-as-usual in many ways. It is small, collaborative, and focused not on producing good science for its own sake, nor on making a profit, but on solving a problem. It takes its research agenda from patient advocates, not from scientists.

The beautiful lie insists that scientists ought to be accountable only to themselves. Marqusee’s advice to his staff was precisely the contrary: “Have no constituency in the research community, have it only in the end-user community.”

But in fact, there were plenty of other researchers going into West Africa to do genetic sequencing. A lot of those scientists were simply waiting on prestigious journals to publish their findings.

They don't coordinate with people fighting the epidemic on the ground — don't even share their discoveries for months, if ever.

Notably, too, many did their landmark work in places that some might regard as off the beaten path of science (Alicante, Spain; France’s Ministry of Defense; Danisco’s corporate labs; and Vilnius, Lithuania). And, their seminal papers were often rejected by leading journals—appearing only after considerable delay and in less prominent venues. These observations may not be a coincidence: the settings may have afforded greater freedom to pursue less trendy topics but less support about how to overcome skepticism by journals and reviewers.

PLoS ONE supporters have a ready answer: start by making any core text that passes peer review for scientific validity alone open to everyone; if scientists do miss the guidance of selective peer review, then they can use recommendation tools and filters (perhaps even commercial ones) to organize the literature — but at least the costs will not be baked into pre-publication charges.

This is often summarized more pithily as “when a measure becomesa target, it ceases to be a good measure.”