Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
5 Transitioning to Open Science by Design SUMMARY POINTS â¢ Despite the significant progress that has been made around the world, the research enterprise remains some distance from completely open science. â¢ In order to develop effective strategies for achieving open science by de- sign, it is necessary to take stock of what has worked and not worked around the world. Factors such as costs, researcher incentives, policy and legal frameworks, and publishing strategies need to be taken into account. â¢ The ultimate goals for an ecosystem that supports open science by design are clear: articles immediately available under gold open access, with data available under FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles, and other research products also available. Additional funding, mandates, and community initiatives can be deployed to push towards open science, but careful planning of stakeholder buy-in will be needed to avoid unintended negative consequences and disruptions. â¢ Still, there are clear short-term actions that can be taken to achieve further progress, and options for longer-term solutions that can be further ex- plored and pursued. BARRIERS AND LIMITATIONS In order to realize the vision of open science by design described in Chapter 4, it will be necessary to develop new tools, technologies, and practices. Research- ers will need to see the value in adopting them. Training and reward systems will need to be revamped. Discussion in this chapter covers several approaches that have been proposed or are being tried to overcome the most formidable barriers. Several barriers to open science are discussed in Chapter 2, including those related to the structure of the scholarly communications market as it has evolved over the years, and particularly developments of the past several decades. The vision of open science by design described in Chapter 4 contemplates that all products of the research process will be available immediately at no charge. This vision conflicts with the traditional subscription-based mode of scientific journal 121
122 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research distribution and related aspects of scholarly communications practices. Many tra- ditional publishers are offering open publication options and new open publishers have emerged, with most using a business model based on article processing charges (APCs) that are paid by the author, the authorâs institution, or the sponsor. Fully open publications are immediately accessible to all researchers at no cost and are available to all researchers under a copyright license that permits them to perform text and data mining or other productive reuses of the literature without the need for any negotiations or further permissions. While some sub- scription publishers have begun to offer researchers some forms of access for text and data mining and other productive reuses, their terms of access usually impose some restrictions on reuse. Another important aspect of the transition to open science relates to the availability of data, code, and other research products under FAIR principles. In contrast to the market for distributing articles, the markets for distributing digital research products such as data are unevenly developed. This chapter covers possible options and pathways for realizing open sci- ence by design, taking into account the legal and policy frameworks that apply, and the landscape of organizations and initiatives that are working in this area. LEGAL FRAMEWORK This section focuses on how the law treats âopennessâ as it relates to access and use of scientific information. While intellectual property law is the most com- mon legal regulation of open science, the relevant law begins with the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, along with interna- tional agreements. Free speech includes the right to speak, the right not to speak, and the right to listen. These fundamental liberties are the baseline condition gov- erning open access to scientific information. When applied to scientific research, they guarantee the right to share and have access to research results. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to depart from this base- line when creating intellectual property laws consistent with the First Amend- ment. Intellectual property law balances the publicâs right to know against the private interests of researchers to restrict the use of their works for limited times. In the United States, this guarantee provides the legal basis for open science when intellectual property law does not apply. Potentially applicable branches of intel- lectual property law are: (1) copyright, (2) special database rights in the EU, South Korea, and parts of Eastern Europe, (3) contracts and licenses, (4) patents, and (5) trade secrets. Each of them, except patents, applies automatically and attaches exclusive rights to the protected information. Although there are cases where private companies have made proprietary data available for research and analysis by the broader community, issues related to proprietary research at companies are not central to open science. Further, alt- hough inventions based on university research are often patented, patenting need not interfere with reporting results and making data available. Therefore, issues related to proprietary research that results in patented inventions and trade secrets
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 123 lie largely outside the scope of this report. Patents and trade secrets are not cov- ered in what follows. Also, legal issues related to the research use of data gener- ated in other contexts (e.g., social media data) and issues related to the utilization of research results by policy makers are not considered here. Copyright Copyright law is the most salient form of intellectual property for this report because it applies automatically to most informational outputs of scientific re- search, including journal articles, less formal research reports, the organization of datasets, and software. In the United States, federal copyright protection has been granted automatically since 1978, and the requirement that publications carry a copyright notice to maintain protection stopped in 1989. Copyright law is founded on certain science-friendly concepts and imposes no restrictions on sharing the basic building blocks of knowledgeâfacts and ideas. Researchers rely on this freedom to copy in their daily practice. While, for example, patents apply to spe- cific applications of the CRISPR/Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR associated protein 9) process for gene editing (NLM, 2018b), the ideas and facts underlying the process can be freely built upon. Similarly, raw observational and experimental data are considered âfactsâ for cop- yright purposes, free to be shared and reused (NRC, 2009). Copyright applies to original works of authorship. With respect to journal publications, the âauthor(s)â who own the copyright sometimes differ from listed authors. Scholarly norms about who receives authorship credit vary by discipline and usually are based on some measure of contribution. The 2016 article that re- ported the first observation of gravitational waves listed around 1,000 authors, and articles reporting on large clinical trials may have hundreds of authors (Abbott et al., 2016). For copyright purposes, authors are those individuals who wrote the text of an article, created figures or charts, or who otherwise contributed original expression in the work. Copyright grants the author(s) exclusive right to publicly reproduce the work, distribute copies, display, perform, or otherwise communicate it and make adaptations. When a copyrighted work is created within the scope of employment, the employer is treated as the author and owns the copyright. There is some un- certainty about how this so-called âwork for hireâ rule applies to outputs of re- search by full-time faculty, but many institutions have adopted IP policies that address this uncertainty, often recognizing researchers as the authors (and there- fore copyright owners) of journal articles they write, datasets they produce or as- semble, and software they create. Most countries also provide authors with some level of âmoral rightâ to their works. These rights are personal to the author and cannot be transferred. Outside the United States, authors have rights of attribution, as well as the right to end attribution if they no longer wish to be associated with the work. A strong version of such rights even gives the author the right to retract a work from publication and to enjoin any further publication or duplication.
124 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Under U.S. law, authors can transfer some or all of their copyright if they sign an agreement to this effect. Subscription-based journals usually require au- thors to transfer all or part of their copyright(s) to the journal, designating a âcor- responding authorâ who signs on the othersâ behalf. This allows publishers to re- strict access to paying customers and use the threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit to deter republishing or reusing content without a license. Alternatively, the grant of copyright permission (a nonexclusive license) can be executed less formally. In a case where authors never sign a publication agreement, the pub- lisher holds a nonexclusive license and the authors retain copyright. The rights of copyright holders are constrained by statutory limitations and by exceptions to the ownerâs exclusive rights to certain reuses. These limitations and exceptions vary by country, so that the right to use the copyrighted layer of a datasetâfor example, by copying the whole setâwithout permission depends on where the copying occurs. All countries have a list of uses permitted by law, but these lists vary widely, and the identified uses are often specific and narrow. Countries also create their own exceptions to determine whether a use is permit- ted, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States and Israel or fair dealing in many Commonwealth countries. Sui Generis Database RightsâEurope and South Korea In the EU, certain candidate countries in Eastern Europe, and South Korea, research data may also be subject to a special database right. As frustrating as this may be to a globalized research community, this right could apply to a substantial amount of computerized data downloaded in Europe or South Korea, but not else- where. When sui generis database rights were introduced in 1996, some experts warned that expanded copyright protections, new technologies restricting access to digital content, and database protections could enable proprietary claims to fac- tual matter that previously entered the public domain as soon as it was disclosed (Reichman and Uhlir, 2003). Others asserted that this legal right would be a sig- nificant barrier to sharing research data were it not subject to a limitation for non- commercial research. Since then, courts have interpreted this database right in a manner that limits its potential impact on researchers. However, the European Commission launched a review of its Database Directive in 2017, and a 2018 re- port supporting this evaluation found that European database rights added com- plexity to data-intensive research and created barriers to making databases open (EC, 2018d). Contracts and Licenses When one or more intellectual property rights apply to research outputs, the owner of such rights can grant permission for reuse through a license. In legal terms, a grant of permission is a nonexclusive license. An exclusive license is one
126 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research would like. This is so for two reasons. First, the source of all intellectual property rights is national law, so that usersâ rights vary by country. Second, as is discussed above, some countries have an additional right that applies to certain factual da- tabases. Copyright protection can also be permanently removed in most parts of the world if the owner of the rights publicly states the intention to relinquish the rights. Creative Commons provides a tool called CC0 (CC Zero) to remove the rights, and even in countries that deny owners this right, CC0 functions as a li- cense for the user (Box 5-1). RESEARCH FUNDER POLICIES This section covers the context for realizing open science by design shaped by the policies and requirements of research funders. The ability to obtain grants from funders to support scientific studies and publish in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals is important for scientists to advance their research careers and receive recognition nationally and internationally for their work. Funders award research projects that align with their values and mission, providing resources to scientists for collecting the data in order to offer solutions to important topics that the funders want to have an impact on. Therefore, the advances that funding agen- cies and publishers have made are essential in understanding how a transition to open science can be undertaken. Traditionally, research sponsors do not publish the articles or host the data generated by the work that they support. They may seek to impose certain condi- tions on awards, which the grantee can accept, reject, or try to modify. In recent years, research funders have taken a more active role in ensuring that work that they support is publicly available, with some going further in their support for open science. Although much of the discussion that follows focuses on U.S. fun- der policies, international policies are also included because they help shape the global environment for open science. U.S. Federal Government Policies Over the past several decades, the federal government has adopted a number of policy changes relevant to open publication or open data. Many of these have affected access to information resources of the federal government itself, or to data that the government produces or uses. Examples include legislative changes such as the Data Access Act of 1999, the Data Quality Act of 2001, and executive branch policies such as the Obama administrationâs memoranda on Transparency and Open Government (2009) and Open Data Policy (2013) (NRC, 2009; The White House, 2009; Burwell et al., 2013).
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 127 BOX 5-1 Creative Commons Creative Commons is a global organization that promotes the sharing and reuse of creative, educational, and scientific works by supplying standardized public licenses that anyone can use to permit reuse of works they created or to which they own the rights. The primary tools are six copyright licenses, a copy- right waiver, and a label that indicates that a work is free from copyright and in the public domain. The six licenses and the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) waiver are designed to respond to creators who have different appetites for re- use of their works. CC0 is a way to dedicate a work to the public domain by waiving all rights under copyright and any sui generis database rights that may apply. This tool is used by those who create public domain clipart, for example, and in connection with sharing data for which copyright is only an incidental con- sideration. Unlike CC0, the six licenses, including Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY), Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA), Creative Com- mons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC), Creative Commons Attribution- NoDerivs (CC BY-ND), Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA), and Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer- cial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND), impose some conditions on reuse. As the broadest license, the CC BY license âlets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creationâ (Creative Commons, 2018). As recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials, the CC BY license is used by open access publishers and creators of open educational resources. The remaining five licenses keep the attribution requirement and add other conditions. For example, the Share Alike requirement provides that anyone who adapts the licensed work must license the adaptation under the same license as the source work. This requirement is often compared to âcopyleftâ licenses used for software, such as the GNU General Public License (GNUâs Not Unix!). Wikipedia uses the CC BY-SA license, and only materials licensed under CC BY or CC BY-SA can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The CC BY-NC license limits licensed uses to noncommercial uses. One may permit only copy-paste reuse and not license the creation of derivative works by using the CC BY-ND license. The final two licenses, including CC BY-NC-SA and CC BY-NC-ND (most restrictive) combine the noncommercial condition with either the Share Alike or the No Derivatives condition (Creative Commons, 2018). This may seem like more complexity than it is worth; how- ever, the uses of these licenses on Flickr demonstrates that creators appear to want this full choice set to share their works (Flickr, 2018). References Carroll, M. W. 2015. Sharing Research Data and Intellectual Property Law: A Primer. PLOS Biology 13(8):e1002235. Creative Commons. 2018. About The Licenses. Online. Available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses. Accessed April 11, 2018. Flickr. 2018. Explore/Creative Commons. Online. Available at https://www. flickr.com/creativecommons. Accessed April 11, 2018.
128 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research The National Institutes of Health (NIH) was a pioneer in supporting open- ness in relation to outputs from research that it supports. In 2005, NIH adopted a voluntary public access policy for peer-reviewed literature that resulted from its funding. In 2008, under the Consolidated Appropriation Act, NIH began to re- quire all grantees to submit an electronic version of their final peer-reviewed man- uscripts upon acceptance for publication to the National Library of Medicineâs PubMed Central. Articles were to be publicly available no later than 12 months after the official publication (NIH, 2008). The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 called on the Na- tional Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to set up a working group that would coordinate federal science agency research and policies related to the dis- semination and long-term stewardship of the results of unclassified research. The material covered includes digital data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications, supported wholly or in part by funding from U.S. federal science agencies. The next significant step toward openness was the release of the memoran- dum Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP, 2013). The âHoldren memoâ directs federal agencies with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the federal government. This access includes any results published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications that are based on re- search that directly arises from federal funds, as defined in relevant Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars (e.g., A-21 and A-11). Several months after the Holdren memo was issued, the National Research Council organized two planning meetings for the federal government to receive public comments (NASEM, 2013c). Over the next several years following the release of the memo, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foun- dation, and other relevant agencies developed their own policies to implement the Holdren memo (NIH, 2015; NSF, 2015). The policies set out requirements for data management plans and public access to scholarly publications to be included in grant applications, though data deposit requirements and publication date re- quirements varied by agencies (CENDI, 2017). In January 2017, the OSTP pub- lished a report to Congress on the progress of these agencies on implementation of their public-access polices (Holdren, 2017). A 2017 analysis of how well the agency plans addressed the themes set out in the Holdren memo related to the availability of research data found unevenness among agencies, with some themes such as digitization/legacy data and digital object identifiers (DOIs) not men- tioned or addressed in a significant percentage of plans (Kriesberg et al., 2017). The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act of 2017 is the latest version of legislation that would essentially provide a statutory basis for the policies instituted in the Holdren memo. Bipartisan groups of sponsors have in- troduced versions of this legislation in both houses of the last several Congresses, but it has not yet passed (S.1701). If adopted, it would provide a stable legal basis for federal support of open science.
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 129 Other Open Science Mandates of Funders, Publishers, and Universities A number of public funding entities around the world have instituted open science policies (ROARMAP, 2018). As might be expected, these policies vary in terms of their coverage, whether compliance is encouraged or mandated, whether article processing charges (APCs) or other costs associated with open publications or open data are covered or not, and so forth. For example, the Re- search Councils UK policy was adopted in 2012, and was designed to be imple- mented over a period of five years, with regular assessment (RCUK, 2012). The RCUK policy focuses on open publications, allows for compliance through both immediate open publishing and the use of repositories, and provides for coverage of APCs. The European Open Science Cloud, which was announced by the EC in 2017 with a goal of implementation by 2020, focuses on enabling FAIR data and principles that will underlie data accessibility and stewardship on a Europe-wide basis (EC, 2017a). Several private foundations have implemented even stronger mandates on open access. For example, as of January 1, 2017, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun- dation requires that publications supported by its grants be: (1) deposited in a specified repository(s) with proper tagging of metadata, (2) published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License (CC-BY 4.0) or an equiva- lent, and (3) available immediately upon their publication with no embargo period (Hansen, 2017). Further, data underlying the published research should be imme- diately accessible and open with the foundation paying reasonable fees in order to publish on the terms of OA policy (Hansen, 2017). The Wellcome Trust also demands that results of research that it funds be made openly available within 6 months of publication and provides financial support for those researchers to publish under a CC-BY license (Wellcome Trust, 2016). Other international or- ganizations such as CERN and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have also published open science policies and cover expenses for data sharing. Furthermore, funders are moving from resource provider to knowledge institutions, with increased special funding for programs to understand open science practices and tools (Table 5-1). Several websites have been established so that researchers can check the publication and data sharing policies of funders and publishers (SHERPA/Juliet, 2016; FAIRsharing, 2017; ROARMAP, 2018). While publishers expect authors to make research data available to the jour- nal or readers upon request for validation and as a supplement to publication, many do not mandate that researchers or institutions provide for FAIR access or long-term curation of the data. Some prestigious subscription journals including Science, Nature, and PNAS, have adopted policies allowing preprint sharing from authors. The SHERPA/RoMEO (SHERPA/RoMEO, 2016) website indexed over 2000 publishers, with 46 percent explicitly allowing preprint posting and 72 per- cent allowing authors to archive postprints. For example, Science allows authors to immediately post the accepted version of their manuscript on their website and to post to larger repositories such as PubMed Central 6 months after publication.
130 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research And the journal Nature allows archiving of accepted articles in open repositories 6 months after publication. For journals that do not formally support self-archiv- ing, authors can submit an author addendum (a template is provided by SPARC, 2016) to allow them to retain rights to post a copy of their article in an open re- pository. Universities such as Harvard and MIT have adopted rights-retention open access policies in which faculty members agree to grant their universities nonex- clusive reuse rights for future published works. With this policy in place prior to publication, faculty work is archived freely without the need to negotiate with publishers. Many subscription publications offer an open access option that re- quires authors to pay an APC. There is a significant range in the prices charged for APCs, with many open access (OA) journals charging nothing (Crawford, 2016; West et al., 2014). The majority of OA publishers charging moderate or high APCs offer fee waivers upon request for authors with financial difficulty such as those from low-income or low-middle-income countries. Some publishers (e.g., BioMed Central, F1000, PeerJ) have membership programs through which institutions pay part of all of the APCs for affiliated authors, some institutions provide discretionary funds for author APCs, and some funders also cover fees for publishing in OA journals. TABLE 5-1 Special Funding Opportunities for Open Research, Training, and Advocacy Funding Description URL Shuttleworth Foundation Funding for researchers working shuttleworthfoundation.org/ Fellowship Program openly on diverse problems fellows Mozilla Fellowship for Science Funding for researchers interested www.mozillascience.org/ in open data and open source fellows Leamer-Rosenthal Prizes for Open Rewards social scientists for open www.bitss.org/prizes/ Science (UC Berkeley and John research and education practices leamer-rosenthal-prizes Templeton Foundation) OpenCon Travel Scholarship Funding for students and early-career www.opencon2016.org (Right to Research Coalition and researchers to attend OpenCon, and SPARC) receive training in open practices and advocacy Preregistration Challenge Prizes for researchers who publish the www.cos.io.prereg (Center for Open Science) results of a preregistered study Open Science Prize (Wellcome Funding to develop services, tools, www.openscienceprize.org Trust, NIH, and HHMI) and platforms that will increase openness in biomedical research SOURCE: McKiernan, 2016.
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 131 STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OPEN SCIENCE BY DESIGN Given the current legal and policy context, how should research enterprise stakeholders work together to facilitate and accelerate the transition to open sci- ence by design? This section discusses various strategies and options for achiev- ing open science by design, given the motivations and barriers discussed in Chap- ter 2, the current approaches discussed in Chapter 3, and the vision of open science by design described in Chapter 4. Transitions to open science should enable the research enterprise and those who utilize research results to reap the benefitsâ increased reliability of knowledge, more rapid advances, broader participation in scienceâwhile minimizing any disruptions. The vision or new status quo should be sustainable in the sense that it needs to succeed over time, create value for stakeholders, and be adaptable to changes in the research and scholarly commu- nications environment. The committee was not tasked with developing a specific, detailed funding plan and timeline for implementing open science. The committee recognizes the significant cost barriers that remain to widespread implementation of open publi- cation, open data, and open code. The discussion below explores the trends that are likely to affect the adoption of open science, and discusses analysis, policy changes, and options that have been proposed by a variety of groups. In addition to considering which options might best facilitate a transition to open science, it is important to consider which approaches might be less effective or might have undesirable side effects, such as disadvantaging early career re- searchers or researchers based in developing countries. Avoiding such missteps will likely be just as important as choosing effective actions. The committee started with the assumption that all the relevant stakeholders will understand and agree that open science by design is the most desirable future state for the global research enterprise. These stakeholders include public and pri- vate research sponsors, universities and other research institutions, and scholarly communicators. The committee also believes that a critical mass of stakeholder organizations will be willing to coordinate policies and funding mechanisms to support both open data and open publications. The committeeâs discussion has focused on steps that U.S.-based stakeholders might take, while keeping in mind that no single institution or national body can singlehandedly change the system. Working and thinking globally will help to smooth and accelerate progress toward open science. Paying for Open Science Open publication is a complicated mÃ©lange of traditional subscription jour- nals, green and gold open access journals, hybrid models, archiving services, and others. In discussing open publishing, we must consider not only relevant costs, sources of funds, policies, and appropriate business models for open publishing, but also how to transition from the current mixed closed-open environment to a model that fully supports open publications. The committee prefers a system that
132 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research supports author choice for where to publish. Policy and incentive should drive the system toward open science. Table 5-2 provides a basic outline of dissemination systems based on subscriptions, green open publications, and gold open publica- tions. Researcher incentives are important. Researcher incentives are very im- portant to take into account when considering transitioning to open publications supported by APCs or by other mechanisms from current subscription-based pub- lishing. As discussed in Chapter 3, bibliometric indicators, most notably the Jour- nal Impact Factor (JIF), play an important role in current research evaluation prac- tices, which affects research funding decisions and reward systems for researchers. The importance of publishing in highly prestigious journals varies widely by discipline and has grown significantly over the past few decades. For example, in biomedical research, Ginther et al. (2018) showed that the most sig- nificant predictor of NIH funding is the weighted sum of impact factors of journals where principal investigators publish. The adoption of open science principles and practices holds the promise of changing incentive and reward systems so that this focus on journal prestige may be reduced. Still, some disparities in the prestige of various dissemination venues might be expected to continue, at least for the foreseeable future, with implica- tions for researcher incentives. As long as universities and funders rely heavily on the signals provided by journals with the highest JIFs, which overwhelmingly tend to be subscription-based, those journals will continue to dominate high-quality submissions, and their publishers will continue to have considerable leverage in negotiating access agreements with research libraries. TABLE 5-2 Costs to the Research Community in Subscription-Based and Open Access Scholarly Communication Systems Basis of the system Cost Types Subscriptions-based â¢ Subscriptions to journals â¢ Subscriptions to regularly published conference proceedings â¢ Library handling costs, e.g., managing subscriptions, negotiating purchasing packages, etc. â¢ Author charges, e.g., page charges, color plate charges, etc. âGreenâ Open Access â¢ Dissemination costs: the costs of building and running (provided via repositories) repositories â¢ Storage and archiving costs: the costs of running repositories, storing content and associated content migration and other technical procedures involved in long-term archiving âGoldâ Open Access â¢ Cost of article-processing charges (APCs) where levied (provided via journals) by journals â¢ Cost of systems within research institutions for processing and recording APC payments SOURCE: Swan, 2016.
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 133 The financial incentives of researchers also need to be taken into account. Currently the average cost of publishing in subscription journals is negligible for many researchers. Thus, the willingness of researchers to devote additional re- sources from their grant funding or other sources is limited (Tenopir et al., 2017). Taking the above into account, it is clear that the transition to open science will require a concerted effort on the part of all stakeholders to change researcher incentive and reward systems in ways that place higher value on open practices. In particular, reducing and eliminating the power of bibliometrics in evaluation practices is an urgent task. Funding agencies and research institutions could work together to develop broader measures of scientific contribution such as credit for peer review, data and code creation, replicability, and open publication. On the financial side, co-pays for APC fees would encourage cost competition amongst journals. Maintaining and strengthening quality review. Quality review and certi- fication of research will continue to be important, and needs to be maintained and strengthened in the transition to a world characterized by open publications. Tra- ditional prepublication peer review, typically performed confidentially by volun- teers and organized by publishers, is an important component of the current re- search dissemination system, in that it provides an expert judgment on the quality and importance of an article and serves as a mechanism to select the articles to fill what has traditionally been a limited number of slots. While the limitations of prepublication peer review in performing these functions are significant and well known, it will likely continue to play an important role, at least in the near future (NASEM, 2017b). It is unclear how review systems of the future will adjust to an open science world where dissemination opportunities are not artificially limited, and where other forms of review made possible by technological and cultural changes come to be more valued. Strategies to achieve open science might include initiatives to develop and deploy new mechanisms for quality review. For example, authors might publish a preprint that undergoes open peer review and certification before the article is included in an appropriate open journal or online collection. The current system of prepublication peer review has challenges, such as lack of transparency, bias, and exclusivity, that open peer review actually has the potential to improve. Alt- hough the scientific community has a long tradition of peer review of journal ar- ticles, there is no culture for peer review of other digital research objects, such as metadata for experimental datasets. The success of open science will require new mechanisms to extend peer review to all products of scientific research. There are working examples of postpublication and open peer review, such as F1000 and PeerJ that can be learned from. Resources and shifts in the distribution of costs are important. Dissem- ination of research under open science principles requires additional resources. For example, curating and storing data and samples are not without cost. Dissem- ination of research results requires substantial effort and resources in addition to
134 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research the organization of quality review. There is considerable debate over the magni- tude of these costs, and the level of income that will be necessary for dissemina- tors to provide necessary services and maintain quality (Van Noorden, 2013). In open science, revenue can come in the form of grant funding, service fees, dues, membership fees, and donations. There is considerable funding for dissemination already in the system, but it tends to support subscriptions with paywall barriers to readers. Research institutions, the federal government, and other research funders already provide significant financial and in-kind support to the existing system of disseminating research results through journals and other publications. For example, one analysis estimated that Carnegie Research 1 uni- versity libraries paid an average of $6 million annually in subscription fees to journals in 2009 (Bergstrom et al., 2014). Some portion of subscription fees are covered by the indirect assessments charged by institutions to research contracts and grants. In addition, institutions and research funders sometimes provide direct or in-kind support (e.g., office space, IT infrastructure, staffing) to scientific so- cieties that publish journals. Likewise, the researchers who serve as the volunteer editors of journals and peer reviewers of articles are typically employed by uni- versities and other research institutions, so that their service represents a signifi- cant in-kind contribution by these institutions as well as by the volunteers them- selves. Finally, some institutions and funders are covering costs associated with publishing in journals that do not rely on subscription fees. New services and ca- pabilities enabled by open science will require additional resources. The costs of other services associated with open science dissemination, particularly those re- lated to data and the associated software code, may not be covered under current business models. These services are likely to grow in importance in the future and include data analysis, processing, visualization, and mashups with other data. It is important that the transition to open publication results in a system that serves individual researchers and the community at large at least as well as the existing system. Some will question whether the current system might not be the best available, given that most researchers in the developed world have access to most of the articles that they need and that the system delivers millions of peer- reviewed articles per year. Open publication will need to continue to demonstrate its value. Although the desire on the part of institutions to restrain increases in subscription costs often arises in considering how to transition to open publica- tion, they are distinct issues. Commercial and nonprofit publishers operating on a subscription model may well continue to exist as a key component of the research enterprise. The overarching goal of open science by design is an effective and efficient publication system that ensures openness. Managing transition is important. Transitioning to open science will in- volve some uncomfortable changes on the part of stakeholders. It is important that transitions are planned and managed effectively. For example, asking a scientific society to shift its publishing business model as if this could be done quickly and easily is unrealistic. As discussed in Chapter 2, many scientific societies generate surpluses through their publishing activities that support society activities. There
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 135 is considerable variety among societies and disciplines in the size of their publish- ing operations and the extent to which their professional ecosystems depends upon publishing income. Some societies would be severely challenged by the imposi- tion of some types of open publication mandates, especially if they did not include transition provisions. At the same time, research institutions are currently experi- encing difficulty in absorbing the steady increases in subscription rates of recent years. There is a need to ensure that institutions can continue to function and per- form their functions in the system during any transition. Reducing or eliminating embargo periods. Central to the rationale for open science are the principles of accelerating discovery and making dissemina- tion of results as effective as possible. Embargo periods work against these prin- ciples. Even short embargo periods mean that results are available only to paying subscribers, not to the public, nor to researchers outside a specialty field, nor to search engines, nor to companies, artificially inhibiting progress in an era when scientific progress is accelerating and can in principle be made available immedi- ately. The committee assumes that the ultimate goal of open science is that pub- lished results are available immediately upon publication without any embargo period. As discussed above, transitions should take account of the sustainability of stakeholders and their activities. Some disciplines such as physics and econom- ics, where sharing preprints is a long-established practice, are essentially operat- ing on a green open access model with no embargo period today. Other disciplines would face challenges in making such a transition. Mandates One possible approach to transitioning to open science would be for all fun- ders to simply mandate gold open publications, perhaps adopting a policy similar to the current Gates Foundation policy, with APCs to be covered by funders as a fixed amount or percentage of the grant, and/or through institutional funds. Some percentage of institutional funding used to support journal subscriptions could be reallocated to support open science projects and infrastructure. However, mandates, applied naively, can have potentially damaging side effects. It would be difficult for larger agencies, especially those that cover the entire spectrum of research (e.g., NSF), to adopt such an approach abruptly. Some journals that have the reputational value required for advancement in a given field may not currently have open science options. Meanwhile, a number of high-pres- tige journals important to a field, especially those published by nonprofit scientific societies that operate subscription journals on the bare edge of making ends meet, could suffer disruptions. There are also reasons to believe that such an approach would produce âwinnersâ and âlosers,â and would likely involve several unintended negative consequences. For example, researchers in their role as consumers of the scientific literature would win by having better and cheaper access to publications. Open journals themselves and subscription-based journals with open access options
136 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research would benefit from additional revenue. Many authors would gain additional read- ers. Losers would include the âlow-demandâ authors who do not have research funding or do not have access to funds from their institutions to pay for APCs (McCabe et al., 2013). Pushing these results to their logical conclusion, a completely open publi- cation model (without any form of subsidies for APCs) could harm early career, less well-funded scientists and those at less prestigious institutions and institutions in low- and middle-income countries. In addition to early career researchers and those at less research-intensive institutions being âpriced outâ of publication ac- tivity, this might result in less research being undertaken and fewer publications. The Pay It Forward Project (see Chapter 3) estimates that moving to an entirely OA model will be costlier than the current system for research-intensive univer- sities. This contrasts with the current situation where subscription fees paid by less research-intensive universities subsidize the publications of the more re- search-intensive universities: âConsidering both the scholar-as-author and scholar-as-reader roles simultaneously, assessing the net value of OA for scholars appears complicatedâ (McCabe et al., 2013). In addition, some are questioning whether a long-term scholarly communi- cations model based on APCs is the best or only answer for science. As discussed above, research funders increasingly recognize that communication of the result is integral to the research process. Without communication, funder investment in research is of no value. As a result, funders are open to covering reasonable com- munication costs as part of their funding responsibility. This coverage does not have to be in the form of covering APCs. It includes posting papers to preprint servers (some with discipline-organized peer review) and disseminating annotated datasets. Major funders (Welcome, Gates, European Commission) are creating their own platforms, suggesting that the journalâs days of exclusive primacy may be numbered. Stakeholders might examine how current mandates are operating, including the current NIH policy, the 2013 OSTP Memorandum, and the EC Horizon 2020. Future changes might be aimed at producing measurable advances in open science that feature transparent costs and ensures that key infrastructure facilitates open- ness and community control. Community-Based Initiatives There are excellent examples of well-defined communities publishing in a specific set of journals and negotiating a business model tailored to that commu- nity to achieve open science. In this model, an agent representing a community negotiates with the major journals that publish community-specific papers to pro- vide a price considered acceptable to cover the costs of publications in return for making them open upon publication. An example is the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3), which, after many years of discussions and negotia- tions in the high-energy physics (HEP) community, arrived at an arrangement for
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 137 open publishing (SCOAP3, 2018). In this case, much of the science community working in HEP is connected to CERN, which represents SCOAP3. Agreements were negotiated over time with numerous publishers in this field; as of January 1, 2018, for example, all HEP articles published by the American Physical Society in their relevant journals have been paid for centrally by SCOAP3. Those articles are now available upon publication. In return, APS reduced subscription rates to libraries. This arrangement will be re-examined 2 years after its initiation. This arrangement has several notable features: (1) a hybrid model is in ef- fect where certain articles are made available upon publication; (2) a central fund, formed out of a complex arrangement of international agency funds, is used to pay for the cost of publications; and (3) participants used a transition period that moved the system toward an open science environment. Assuming it is successful, it may be renewed and extended to additional parts of the physics community. This arrangement does not include data services, but data are available to the broader community of HEP scientists through data sharing agreements of collab- orating scientists that are funded by cooperating science agencies. It is important to note that in this arrangement, authors are not required by their funding agencies to publish in open access journals, nor are any journals required to switch to open access. Authors can still choose where to publish, and journals can decide if they wish to join the agreement and offer similar services. In principle, a HEP author might still choose to publish in a subscription-based journal that is not open, but given these incentives and community norms it is highly unlikely that one would choose to do so. Issues Raised by Data and Related Services Open science means more than open publishing. Researchers need to ar- chive data and code and scientific collections associated with preprints and pub- lications. The committee started with the assumption that the desired end state is for all data underlying reported results to be openly available under FAIR princi- ples, with disciplinary standards in place to determine which data should be pre- served over what time period and clarity over how the costs will be covered. The economic issues around data are very different from those around publishing, largely because there is already a mature publishing industry with established funding sources and business models in play that evolved over centuries, whereas data services are not well developed nor funded in many fields. Most data in repositories today are not available under FAIR principles, and the complexities of realizing this will entail significant costs. Making data FAIR is a difficult task for investigators, and substantial public investment is going to be required to change the current situation. Making data âfindableâ is going to require better standards for metadata; new ontologies for the vast majority of scientific dis- ciplines, which currently lack standardized, granular terms that can be used by data search engines; and new tools to enable investigators and curators to author scien- tific metadata that are sufficiently comprehensive and standardized so that search engines can locate appropriate datasets with adequate precision and recall. Making
138 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research data âinteroperableâ and âreusableâ can only be achieved if the data are annotated with comprehensive, standardized, high-quality metadata. Again, the absence of necessary metadata standards, appropriate ontologies, and easy-to-use annotation tools is a significant barrier. There is a misconception in the scientific community that simply putting experimental datasets in the cloud will make them FAIR. Scien- tific publications become findable and useable to others only when they are well indexed; scientific data require nothing less. The practices of data curation and dissemination lag behind article publish- ing in most fields. For data curation and services to be provided routinely, signif- icantly more agency funding will be required. This is absolutely necessary to sup- port the vision of open science. With over 2.5 million peer-reviewed journal articles published each year with a projected annual growth rate of +3.5 percent (EC, 2012), completely new funding sources, business models, and even busi- nesses will be needed to support not only storage, discovery, access, and delivery of data, but also new solutions that could entail curation, replication tools and services, and the like. The premise of open science by design is that scholarly articles and associ- ated datasets should be open and available for others without paywall barriers, and that the agencies and universities that support and perform this research should consider the cost and curation of these results to be part of the cost of performing research. However, the services of analysis, manipulation of data, vis- ualization, and so on do not all have to be borne by the funding sources. Such value-added services might be provided by for-profit businesses or by nonprofit organizations. Service providers might compete for subscribers in an open market. When creating a change, some steps might be eliminated, new steps might be added, and the existing relationship between value, revenue, and cost will change. For example, in the recorded music industry, disruption was caused by changes in recording technologyâphonograph to LP to 8-track to CD to stream- ing and packagingâand purchasing a curated form (an album) gave way to sin- gle-track selection and adoption. The âunbundlingâ and âcord cuttingâ phenom- ena seen in cable television represents a similar transition. In the current publishing model, data might be thought of as part of the new âlisteningâ stream of open science, and sharing of open data is perhaps analogous to the âsamplingâ of music. Some of the conditions needed to ensure that the necessary technologies and infrastructure exist to realize open and FAIR data and code on a universal or near- universal basis are described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. Important elements in- clude: (1) clarification and standardization of data management plan requirements with enforcement mechanisms, (2) training/assistance in data/code archival best practices, (3) development of disciplinary guidelines for the resources that need to be preserved, and (4) resources to support these activities. It is important to understand the barriers to realizing open and FAIR data across the sciences. At the same time, it is important to recognize and learn from successful efforts to create community data resources described in Chapter 3, such as the National Center for Biotechnology Information (funded publicly by NIH)
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 139 and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (funded privately by the Alfred P. Sloan Foun- dation). These efforts have accelerated progress in their respective fields. Changes in the Business Environment An additional issue to take into consideration in developing strategies to achieve open science is the shift in the business environment around scholarly communication. For example, commercial publishers have undertaken significant horizontal and vertical integration in recent years. As a result of mergers and ac- quisitions, just five firms now publish over half of the worldâs peer-reviewed lit- erature (Lipton, 2006). In addition, commercial publishers are acquiring important pieces of the scholarly communications infrastructure, such as preprint servers and institutional repositories, and expanding data archiving and analytics services associated with their journals (Posada and Chen, 2017; Schonfeld, 2017). For ex- ample, Elsevier is working to capitalize on movement toward open access by in- tegrating services and tools for researchers and institutions that address needs from âthe research design and grant application stages through laboratory research and to and even beyond publishingâ (Schonfeld, 2017). At the same time, a number of libraries and library consortia around the world have taken a harder line in negotiating with commercial publishers (Schiermeir, 2017). The emergence of national consortia with greater bargaining power than individual universities means that commercial publishers may have less room to raise prices (Normile, 2018). The âbig dealâ pricing strategies of journal publishers have affected the market for research journals, as described in Chapter 2. The growing trend of âbig dealâ journal cancellations and the rise of availability of free, legally vetted copies of manuscripts (through use of oaDOI and other tools, such as UnPaywall, the Open Access Button, etc.) signals growing support for open science. Short-Term Steps Given these trends, what steps might the research enterprise and its stake- holders take to move closer to open science? Possible steps might be framed in terms of short-term and long-term actions that uphold the principles of open science. Realize Universal Green Open Publication While an immediate, universal gold open publication mandate might have negative unintended consequences, a universal green open publication mandate would have a number of beneficial effects. This would not be the end solution, since green open publishers might not have final versions of articles and would include material that ends up not being quality-reviewed at all, but such a mandate would be an important step toward a fully open system. There is some useful ex- perience and precedent. For example, the advent and growth of arXiv and other
140 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research preprint servers over the last quarter-century has expanded access without disrupt- ing scholarly communication in physics and astronomy. An appropriate embargo policy would need to be determined, such as the current Science policy that allows immediate self-archiving and deposit in an open access repository after 6 months. In order to support such a mandate, funders will need to articulate a desired rights retention or licensing designation in their funding terms and conditions. Likewise, institutions would need to include rights-retention provisions in their campus policies. Researchers would be encouraged to use available tools, such as author addenda, to retain rights to research outputs. The University of Californiaâs University Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication issued a Decla- ration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication, which is one example of a supportive institutional approach (UCOLASC, 2018). Green open publication and preprints are not synonymous. Other models for green open publishers that incorporate more elaborate quality review exist and can be expanded. In addition, green open publishers often require a support model that includes institutional membership funding and grants from foundations. The committee believes that a comprehensive plan to bring the market to a world of fully open science could start with an approach along these lines, but it would need to be accompanied by additional steps as discussed below. Devote More Resources to Data Management and Other Open Infrastructure Additional resources that will be required for open science could come from several sources. Although a rapid repurposing of the fees that libraries devote to journal subscriptions might be difficult to manage, the idea of devoting some of these funds to support open infrastructure (the 2.5 percent commitment) has gained some currency within the research library community (Lewis et al., 2018). The Open Research Funders Group and its members are another source of funding for open infrastructure (ORFG, 2018). Some voices have stressed the importance of community control of open infrastructure: âEverything we have gained by opening content and data will be under threat if we allow the enclosure of scholarly infrastructuresâ (Bilder et al., 2015). Adopt Approaches to Evaluation and Reward Systems That Avoid Misuse of Bibliometric Indicators and Value Open Science As discussed above and in Chapter 2, approaches to evaluating research and researchers that misuse bibliometric indicators constitute a significant barrier to more rapid adoption of open science practices. Quite a few funders and journals have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA, 2013). Some funders are taking specific steps such as limiting the number of ci- tations that can be included in a proposal biosketch, and allowing preprints and
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 141 other interim research products to be included in applications and reports (NIH, 2017a; NSF, 2016b). In addition to addressing deficiencies in evaluation practices, research in- stitutions and sponsors could make efforts to visibly reward open practices as a direct effort to improve progress towards their core missions. The idea is that open science is not an âadd-onâ for these stakeholders, but an important enabling strat- egy to become more effective. Strengthen Consortia of Libraries and Other Research Consumers An important element of controlling costs in a transition to fully open sci- ence will be to ensure that stakeholders are not simply adding additional resources to what they are already paying for access to research results. The NorthEast Re- search Libraries Consortium coordinates and negotiates terms for 30 core aca- demic research libraries. Greater transparency in the prices that research libraries are paying for sub- scriptions would also be of wide value to the community (Ploeger, 2017). Alt- hough some commercial publishers routinely use nondisclosure agreements, pub- lic institutions are often subject to state freedom of information laws, and disclosure of terms can be pursued through this mechanism. The UCOLASCâs Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication, cited above, includes 18 principles regarding rights and principles when negotiat- ing with publishers during journal license renewals (UCOLASC, 2018). If adopted, it will influence future journal license negotiations with publishers. Possible Long-Term Actions Depending upon the degree of progress made in taking some of the short- term actions outlined above, a more significant set of steps might be explored by stakeholders. Such an approach might combine more far-reaching mandates and other coordinated policy changes, a defined transition period, and a âburstâ of funding to cover costs associated with the transition, including those associated with both transitioning to open publishing (e.g., with a temporary hybrid period) and provisioning additional data services (e.g., minimally, new services for data associated with published articles). The transition period is likely to require some years for the market to adjust, analogous to the period when the music industry experienced a dramatic realign- ment of revenue and cost reduction stimulated by new delivery models. It will also require policies coordinated across agencies and countries that will differ for science communities that currently operate in different ways. Likewise, the tran- sition is also likely to need a temporary infusion of funds to initiate and cover the transition. Sources of this âburstâ funding could come from philanthropic invest- ment, federal agencies, and universities. Since this funding would be designed to incentivize different behavior, clear benchmarks and requirements would need to
142 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research be developed. Government participation is likely to require extensive time due to the processes of approval and budgeting. Communities that have already begun this process may experience little dif- ficulty, but others may face extreme disruption as the market sorts itself out. Define and Frame a Commitment to Open Science A more aggressive pathway toward open science might involve one or more commitments on the part of stakeholders to achieve openness by a given date in the future. Given the time that has passed since the 2013 OSTP memorandum, it might be worthwhile to revisit and update this key federal policy. Also, Congres- sional passage of the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act would constitute a stronger commitment to open science than the current policy based on an executive branch memo. The OA2020 statement, established at the 12th Berlin Open Access conference in 2015, is an international initiative aimed at moving the community toward open science on a global basis (Samberg et al., 2018). Its support is not very broad, however. As of April 2018, 107 scholarly organizations worldwide have officially signed the Expression of Interest, includ- ing the University of California Los Angeles and UC Riverside (Open Access 2020, 2018). Expand Voluntary Market Initiatives The SCOAP3 initiative described above is an example of a voluntary agree- ment, negotiated by a central organization, that makes certain articles in numerous journals available without an embargo period. This is a big step toward an open science model during a transition period, but it is limited to a specific sub-field of physics and to specific parts of existing journals; the other parts are still behind subscription paywalls. These ideas illustrate how one might go further and coor- dinate policy across different countries, different funders, and different fields to incentivize the creation of conditions for an open science environment. The goal is to transition to open science without resorting to simple mandates or complex negotiations around a central organization in every subfield (which may nonethe- less still be helpful in transitioning to a fully open science model). Generalizing from the SCOAP3 example, journals might be willing to switch voluntarily to a business model of gold open access if enough funders that cover a given domain (say, physics, computer science, or civil engineering) all agree to an open science policy and provide funds to support it. However, several features are required for such an approach to work: (1) critical massâsupport would likely need to span multiple countries; (2) regional flexibilityâdifferent countries have differ- ent models for funding research and publications (e.g., direct vs. indirect funding of subscriptions); and (3) discretionary waiving of APC costsâthere is a need to account for authors without support whose papers merit publication in important journals with an APC-based open science business models.
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 143 It is important to note that the complexities of the SCOAP3 arrangement are not all presented here, and that it benefits from the concentration of the HEP com- munity around one international, centrally administered institution (CERN). Adapting the model to other communities may not be straightforward. Develop Concepts for Transitional Funding As discussed above, there is currently significant debate over the desired future state of scholarly communication, with some assuming that the future will be dominated by open access and hybrid journals that charge APCs, and others resistant to a future where APCs are the primary mechanism for financing schol- arly communication. Whichever approach is ultimately pursued, a burst of transi- tional funding might be provided to support researchers and institutions that lack the resources necessary to cover APCs or other costs, to support societies that rely on subscription income from their journals to support general society functions, and to launch a new scholarly communications infrastructure that does not rely on APCs. In addition, availability of funding for publication might be made contin- gent on publishers meeting certain conditions. During the transition period, additional funds would likely be needed to in- itiate the movement of the market toward open science so that costs for new ap- proaches could be paid while subscriptions are still also being paid. One issue encountered in other countries that have mandated open publications is that the average APCs of fully open journals are about half as much as those âhybridâ subscription journals that offer single articles in open form (Swan, 2016). To the extent that APCs are supported, a key to this transition would be to ensure that publishers are only eligible for hybrid APC charges if they lower subscription fees as an increasing fraction of their articles are open. A âhybrid-to-open processâ would need to be carefully monitored. There is a need to prevent âdouble dip- pingââaccruing APC and subscription revenue from the same articlesâon the part of publishers (Swan, 2016). Such an approach would require negotiation and monitoring, but lessons learned by SCOAP3 may be useful. For example, agencies might agree to pilot a switch to such a voluntary market in some specific disciplines, with the goal of opening the entire market after a period of, for example, 5 years. Explore New Standards and Governance Approaches An ambitious transition might require new approaches for managing open science within the community at large. This can be complex or very simple. Fed- eral agencies would need to work with research institutions and other stakehold- ers, perhaps through a new coordinating mechanism. The research community might also need to create and accept standards that can lower operating costs, provide the structure and guidance that allow for smoother operations, and speed the process of getting data into an open science
144 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research format. Standards developed by the community will speed the growth of markets and numbers of users which will justify and allow for investment by service and support organizations in new systems, services, and products. It is also possible for researchers to support services themselves at a low barrier of access as they do for commercial services. Transition to this model would need to overcome considerable resistance from many in the community. As described in Chapter 3, openness varies significantly by discipline, with the highest levels in biomedical research and mathematics, and lower levels in chemistry and engineering (Piwowar et al., 2018). Common issues in different disciplines are availability of infrastructures, policies and standards, and culture. There is a need for raising awareness within different disciplines of the importance of setting standards to move towards open science. With the creation of standards, a development road map can be created to allow existing services to be extended and new solutions to be developed. A com- munity-based model could ensure that FAIR processes are followed, requirements from the community are worked on at the appropriate time, and resources are al- located to the needs deemed most urgent. A development road map done clearly, transparently, and with appropriate context will benefit the funders, recipients, and consumers of open science. Provide for Training Open science will introduce new steps and new processes. As discussed in Chapter 4, training in open practices has to be an important part of the rollout and of ongoing education of all stakeholders, including researchers, librarians, univer- sities, and funders. Training can also help gain supporters and advocates to im- prove the system toward an open science enterprise. Ensure Fair Pricing The open science workflow will incur costs at various points, some of them at service or vendor prices. Creating an ecosystem in which there is a monopoly or single supplier could cause costs to rise without being checked. Conversely, too much competition will fragment or balkanize the market so no individual or group of stakeholders can achieve a critical mass associated with low-cost behav- ior. Fair pricing also allows for capital that can be applied to investment in future development (features, enhancements, or even disruptive innovation). Cover New Service Costs While traditional funding sources can help support publishing in an open science model, additional costs will be needed for new services, particularly those of data storage and analysis. In the special cases of very large data science projects
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 145 (e.g., LSST, SDSS), data management and services are fundamental to the pro- jects themselves, and plans to cover costs are usually in place from the outset. But for the majority of research projects, across virtually all fields, the practice of data stewardship is not supported, and significant funds to cover additional data ser- vices, both disciplinary and interdisciplinary, will be needed. For new areas required to support open science, the three main funding sourcesâgovernment agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH), private foundations (e.g., Gates), and universitiesâwill need to collaborate on several strategies: covering costs through a mixture of local (university) data stewardship; project-based stew- ardship, in which the receiver of a grant spends a portion of a grant on the new services; and centrally funded national data services that together support open science. Strengthen Community Leadership We can already see that the answer depends on community leadership. It is clear that the technology enablers of open science are causing disruptions in many markets, and that open science is just one of many outcomes. But as science is largely performed and funded by governments, foundations, and universities, this âmarketâ is not able to adjust as quickly and freely as other fields such as the music industry (although its transition might still be traumatic, e.g., publishers may go out of business, early career open science practitioners may have difficulty with promotion and tenure, etc.). Therefore, leadership will be needed to develop, coordinate, and implement policy in order to ensure that the disruptive transition to fully open science is orderly and complete, and the goals of open science can be realized effectively, affordably, and quickly. In the U.S., a possible example for community leadership might be an or- ganization experienced in setting standards and developing technologies, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). While the committee does not make a formal recommendation with regard to NIST, it suggests that such a combination of skills would be appropriate, as long as the entity is tasked at the level of OSTP with working across agencies and foundations. The task of developing a set of coordinated policies that accelerate and manage the transition to open science publishing is indeed a daunting one, whomever is charged with its execution. In addition, community groups would need to be established to ad- vise and guide the processes, which will vary for communities in very different stages of open science practice. For an undertaking of this scale, international co- ordination would be required, especially with other OECD nations that have al- ready begun this process. In addition to these considerations, for a voluntary market to operate effec- tively there must be mechanisms to keep costs down. If coordinated policies from funders of science result in simply moving funds from covering subscriptions in libraries to APCsâsay, from a general fundâcompetition among journals may not be enough to limit price hikes. Authors would have little incentive to choose
146 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research lower cost journals if costs were fully covered by a central fund. One strategy would be to require APCs to be paid partly by a central fund and partly from an authorâs grant. This would ensure that authors are mindful of costs and incentiv- ized to choose lower-cost journals. Together such policies could enable open pub- lishing to operate voluntarily. After a transition period, during which adjustments are made to the funding mechanisms (e.g., how much is allocated centrally vs. from a grant, what revenues might be generated by value-added data services, etc.), the market should become more efficient and driven to lower cost. BOX 5-2 The Enabling Environment In 2011â2012, the National Science Foundation and the Max Planck Society hosted a series of meetings in Washington and Berlin with numerous international research supporting organizations, research performing organi- zations, publishers (particularly of physics journals), libraries, and universities to examine principles and business models around open science, focusing on models for open access publishing and paths to transition from the current system to one that supports broad open access publishing. These meetings culminated in the outlines of a voluntary open science model called the enabling environment. The aim was to create a marketplace for publishing articles that are open to the broader community, where incen- tives rather than mandates motivate research organizations, publishers, uni- versities, and authors to participate voluntarily in a new and flexible funding model that supports costs while removing access barriers to scholarly publi- cations and data. Essentially four key points were established that preserve benefits of the current system of publishing in a move to open science: â¢ Institutional policies: Funders adopt coordinated policies to provide funds for open access publishing of work supported by them. In return, it is assumed that the payment of these funds eliminates all barriers to electronic access to and reuse of articles in journals that choose to enter the marketplace. â¢ Publishersâ choice: The marketplace has to contain enough authors with access to the guaranteed funds so that publishers can reasonably ex- pect to be able to replace their subscription income with income from APCs. Publishers are not compelled to do this. They make decisions based on competitive advantage. Within the marketplace, publishers are free to set their own article fee levels that allow open access to the con- tent of the articles, and to offer other value-added services, possibly for a fee, to authors and readers. (Continued)
Transitioning to Open Science by Design 147 BOX 5-2 Continued â¢ Authorsâ choice: The decision about what journal to publish in is left to the author. In order to encourage competition among journals and pro- vide incentives to authors to keep fees low, funders provide support ac- cording to a co-payment scheme: part would come from central funds that authors can access only for the purpose of publishing in open jour- nals, and a smaller part would come from funds that authors can spend on articles or on other research activities. â¢ Flexibility: The details of how this is implemented will vary by publisher and organization, depending on the specific communities that are in- volved. For example, a public grant-giving agency such as the NSF would presumably have a different implementation from an institute- based organization, such as the Max Planck Society. At the same time, participating publishers would implement flexible charging schemes that allow high-quality articles to be published even from authors who do not have access to sufficient funds. But all participantsâ policies need to sup- port the basic principles. With these assumptions, the market could enable publishers to switch to APC business models, provided the way that the funders support the publication charges of their scholars successfully establishes a functioning market be- tween publishers and authors. Access by scholars to APC support could be regulated by just two requirements: â¢ Co-payment: The author can claim most but not necessarily all of the cost of the article charge from the funderâs central publication fund; the restâthe co-paymentâis expected to come from other research monies available to the author that could be spent in other ways. â¢ Journal eligibility: The fund will support articles only in journals which subject articles to peer-review; which provide, on a website, access to reading and downloading an article without charge; which provide a search interface for machine access to a plain-text version of the article; and which provide a license for unrestricted use of the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as there is proper attribution. The co-payment rule is designed to encourage authors to publish in open jour- nals by providing enough central funding to authors that paying author fees is not a disincentive to their choosing an open journal. The authorâs share, how- ever, is critical in establishing competition among publishers in this market. It gives authors an incentive to look for less-expensive journals, and it means that they will pay higher charges only if the journal offers higher quality (such as higher impact). Different funders may adopt different co-payment formulas, and they might change their formulas from time to time as they gain experi- ence with the system.