{"id":3433,"date":"2019-08-01T12:05:57","date_gmt":"2019-08-01T15:05:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/?p=3433"},"modified":"2019-08-01T12:11:56","modified_gmt":"2019-08-01T15:11:56","slug":"open-science-and-the-new-research-communication-modus-operandi-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/2019\/08\/01\/open-science-and-the-new-research-communication-modus-operandi-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Science and the new research communication modus operandi \u2013 Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Abel L Packer and Solange Santos1<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Open access to articles<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
Image adapted from the original, by Markus Spiske<\/a>.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

One of the familiar Open Science practices\nis Open Access to the texts of articles made publicly available on the web,\neither by journals in the modality known as Golden Open Access or by the\nauthors themselves on their own websites, institutional or thematic\nrepositories, right after publishing the article or after an embargo period of\nsix to twelve months imposed by the journal, known as Green Open Access. The\nmain self-financing or commercialization model used by golden open access\njournals is charging the authors with a publication fee, internationally known as\nArticle Processing Charge (APC). Most subscription journals also publish part\nof the articles in open access through an APC, a mode called hybrid. APC’s most\nfrequent values range from US$ 1500 to US$ 5000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pioneered for more than 20 years in Brazil by SciELO and in subsequent years by 13 other countries (Figure 1), and consolidated globally as a scholarly communication mode, Open Access signals the viability of other Open Science practices, but not without challenges. Its widespread adoption still faces strong resistance from commercial publishers seeking a business model that has a financial return equal to or greater than that of subscription-restricted journals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Source: SciELO\/PACKER, A.L., August\/2018<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. SciELO Network \u2013 evolution of the number of indexed and active journals by 14 certified national collections between 1997 and 2018. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the challenges facing Open Access universalization include the entire scientific system. The validation of articles describing the research is carried out by journals with the collaboration of expert (peer) researchers. However, this qualification of the evaluation in different areas is associated with the prestige or impact of the journals, almost always measured by annual bibliometric citation indicators per article. Thus, despite widespread criticism, journals and their rankings act as a proxy for the quality of the research they publish, and their prestige or impact is extended to the research authors, their graduate programs, departments, universities, countries, and regions of the world. As most of journals best ranked by bibliometric indicators are marketed by publishers, those endure a great power among research communities to resist the advancement of open access and, thus, Open Science. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celerity and transparency in research communication \u2013 heading toward preprints<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Incorporated as a flag of the Open Science\nmovement, journals are increasingly challenged by the delay and lack of\ntransparency of the manuscript evaluation process, often referred to as the\n“black box”, without explicit bias safeguards pro or against authors\nfor attitudes and decisions influenced by their geographical origin,\nnationality, ethnicity, gender, age, schools of thought, etc. The main pathway\nis openness that includes continuous publication, adoption of preprints, and\nopen peer review as the most advanced stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In classic online publishing, many journals minimize the processing time by publishing manuscripts shortly after approval in a provisional version, without editing, or use the so-called continuous publication of individual articles, soon after being approved and edited, with an identification number which replaces pagination. Continuous publication has been around for about 20 years, but has become popular with mega journals that operate as an article platform, as in the case of PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports. SciELO strongly recommends that all journals adopt continuous publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the delay in publishing research\nresults articles is completely resolved by initiating the communication flow with\nmanuscripts made available as preprints in open access, before or in parallel\nwith journal submission. Besides speeding up the communication of research\nresults, preprints, as formally preserved documents provided with a Digital Object\nIdentifier (DOI), ensure authors precedence over discoveries, new ideas and\nprocesses, and allow manuscripts to be improved before or during the assessment\nprocess by a journal by allowing the generation of successive enhanced versions\nfrom comments and suggestions received on the preprint server. They may also be\ncited and registered in the researchers’ curriculum to inform grant applications\nand reports. Once accepted by a journal, the preprint is updated with an\napproval note and a link to the published article. There is also a growing\nexposure of articles already published to public comment, which is\ncharacterized as a post-publication assessment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SciELO and the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), responsible for Open Journal Systems (OJS), established in 2018 a partnership for the development of a system which foresees the implementation of a preprint server. The goal is to include all thematic areas, with the perspective of strengthening the article flow of journals it indexes with better quality manuscripts, without delays in research communication. Internationally, there are several well-established preprint servers such as arXiv, which was created in 1991 and currently covers physics, math, computer science, and six other areas; bioRxiv and PeerJ, created in 2013 for the life sciences areas; SSRN, created in 1994 for Social Sciences, Humanities and other disciplines; and OSF Preprints, which operates a collection of more than 20 preprint servers,  etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the transparency of peer review,\na still small but growing number of journals offer options of progressive\nopenness to editors, authors and reviewers. SciELO recommends the following\noptions for gradual transparency and openness advancement: including of the\nname of the editor responsible for assessment and approval in the published\narticle; publication of the reviews of articles approved as scholarly\ncommunication texts with a DOI; and disclosing the identities of the authors\nand reviewers during the evaluation process. However, Brazil\u2019s journals are\nstill reluctant in adopting full openness of manuscript evaluation as the F1000\nResearch publishing platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lines of Action for the forthcoming years<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

All research actors and instances are\ncalled to position themselves politically and operationally in the face of the\nchallenges and, especially, the advantages and gains that the adoption of Open\nScience mean for their respective areas, as well as their interdependencies, in\nwhich participation and cooperation play a decisive role. The refusal to stand\nup to the complexities and wait for what’s to come may be comfortable at first,\nbut it can also reduce gains, move away from the state of the art, and slow\ndown the Open Science practices learning curve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most internationalized thematic areas\nare conditioned by the pace of adoption of Open Science, dictated by the\nscience and technology organizations, scientific societies and commercial publishers\nfrom developed countries. The less internationalized ones should dictate their\nown pace, which opens a field of adjustments and innovations of research\nstructures. However, for both contexts, the proactive positioning of\nauthorities, research and institutional public policies is essential to advancing\non learning and to advocate national interest agendas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers, while responsible for the\nformulation and execution of research projects, are at the same time the most\nimportant actors and those that most depend on other actors and instances in\nthe process of adopting Open Science, especially the journals leadership, which\nincreasingly lead researchers to meet Open Science practice requirements in\ntheir editorial policies and procedures. Researchers’ proactivity will also\ndepend on funding policies and research evaluation systems in the event that\nthey start requiring or rewarding compliance with Open Science practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

University and institutional library\nsystems have been playing a leading role in the adoption of Open Science\npractices, especially in their dissemination of the operation of research data\nrepositories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the course of adopting Open Science, it is worth remembering, first of all, that the appropriation of the innovations it brings conforms a politically, socially, financially, and operationally complex process, which will require months of learning and years of experience, with successive adjustments until it becomes the predominant research modus operandi<\/em>. Then, it is worth remembering that this is a global venture that will progressively embrace all countries, disciplines and thematic areas, but whose development embodies countless contexts. In this sense, the greatest challenge for the Brazilian research communities and authorities is to define and implement lines of action to timely position the country in the national and global advancement of Open Science, focusing on strengthening and expanding capacities and infrastructures suitable to the conditions and priorities of each environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the first lines of action stands out, on the one hand, the promotion in different communities of a broader understanding of what is Open Science to its full extent, how it will impact each and every one, and especially how it has enriched the scientific capacity and priorities of each context. On the other hand, promoting dialogues for the formulation of public positions of research communities in alignment with Open Science practices. Understanding and the progressive building of consensus in favor of Open Science best practices in different contexts is a condition and means for overcoming resistance and proactive positioning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Artwork used during the SciELO 20 Years Conference<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

Note<\/h3>\n

1. This post was originally published in Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Ci\u00eancia do Solo<\/a> and split into two parts for publication in the SciELO in Perspective<\/a> blog. See Part I here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

ALBAGLI, S., MACIEL, M.L. and ABDO, A.H. (org.). Ci\u00eancia Aberta, quest\u00f5es abertas. Bras\u00edlia: Ibict; Rio de Janeiro: Unirio, 2015 [viewed 1 August 2019]. Available from: https:\/\/bit.ly\/2o2b6c4<\/a><\/p>\n

BENEDIKT, F. and SASCHA, F. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought<\/em>. In: BENEDIKT, F. and SASCHA, F. (eds) Opening Science. Cham: Springer, 2014 [viewed 1 August 2019]. DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-00026-8_2<\/a><\/p>\n

MONS, B. Data Stewardship for Open Science: Implementing FAIR Principles. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2018. Available from: https:\/\/bit.ly\/2uVb47z<\/a><\/p>\n

PACKER, A.L. and SANTOS, S. Ci\u00eancia Aberta e o novo modus operandi<\/em> de comunicar pesquisa. Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Ci\u00eancia do Solo<\/em>. 2019, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 17-24 [viewed 1 August 2019]. Available from: https:\/\/www.sbcs.org.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Boletim-SBCS-Volume-45-N%C3%BAmero-1.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

SANTOS, P.X., et al<\/em>. Livro Verde \u2013 Ci\u00eancia Aberta e dados abertos: mapeamento e an\u00e1lise de pol\u00edticas, infraestruturas e estrat\u00e9gias em perspectiva nacional e internacional. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2017 [viewed 1 August 2019]. Available from: https:\/\/www.arca.fiocruz.br\/handle\/icict\/24117<\/a><\/p>\n

SciELO \u2013 Linhas priorit\u00e1rias de a\u00e7\u00e3o 2019-2023 [online]. SciELO 20 Anos. 2018 [viewed 1 August 2019]. Available from: https:\/\/www.scielo20.org\/redescielo\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/09\/L\u00edneas-prioritaris-de-acci\u00f3n-2019-2023_pt.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

WILKINSON, M. D., et al<\/em>. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data<\/em> [online]. 2016, vol. 1, no. 3 [viewed 1 August 2019]. DOI: 10.1038\/sdata.2016.18<\/a>. Available from: https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/sdata201618<\/a><\/p>\n

External links<\/h3>\n

O que \u00e9 Ci\u00eancia Aberta? \u2013 Forma\u00e7\u00e3o Modular em Ci\u00eancia Aberta <https:\/\/campusvirtual.fiocruz.br\/gestordecursos\/mod_hotsite\/ciencia-aberta<\/a>><\/p>\n

Open Science MOOC <https:\/\/opensciencemooc.eu\/about\/<\/a>><\/p>\n

Research Data Alliance <https:\/\/rd-alliance.org\/<\/a>><\/p>\n

The FOSTER Portal <https:\/\/www.fosteropenscience.eu\/<\/a>><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Translated from the original in Portuguese<\/a> by Lilian Nassi-Cal\u00f2. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The adopting process of open science modus operandi<\/i> involves all phases, actors, and political and institutional research instances. In research projects, openness is organized and pervasive throughout the entire research cycle. This post provides an overview of the openness process, content, and research outcomes in light of the SciELO Program’s priority lines of action. It is divided into two parts. See Part I here<\/a>. …<\/span> Read More →<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":3442,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[63,18,50,68,62,7,67],"class_list":["post-3433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis","tag-article-processing-charge-apc","tag-open-access","tag-open-data","tag-open-science","tag-preprint","tag-scholarly-communication","tag-scielo-20-years"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3433"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3453,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3433\/revisions\/3453"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.scielo.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}