Cadmore media player playing video Unlocking socioeconomic potential through global collaboration: connecting researchers to research output
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Unlocking socioeconomic potential through global collaboration: connecting researchers to research output
Description:
Unlocking socioeconomic potential through global collaboration: connecting researchers to research output
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/99991a6a-399b-4d64-abdc-0d82b0dde73a/thumbnails/99991a6a-399b-4d64-abdc-0d82b0dde73a.png?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=MfyY8hNgmukUqvJBQ3TPey9FqXwhSY%2Byv6rbDZNV0J8%3D&st=2024-11-28T05%3A28%3A28Z&se=2024-11-28T09%3A33%3A28Z&sp=r
Duration:
T00H40M22S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/99991a6a-399b-4d64-abdc-0d82b0dde73a
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/99991a6a-399b-4d64-abdc-0d82b0dde73a/Unlocking socioeconomic potential through global collaborati.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=IwgnijnpufOcPTCWQp6gSRGC0q0qiSXZtxixOSkhw2E%3D&st=2024-11-28T05%3A28%3A29Z&se=2024-11-28T07%3A33%3A29Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2022-08-26T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
[MUSIC PLAYING]
HANNAH HECKNER: Hello, everyone and welcome to the NISO+ 2022 session, Unlocking Socioeconomic Potential Through Global Collaboration, Connecting Researchers to Research Output. I'm Hannah Heckner and I will be co-moderating this session with Chris Kenneally. Please submit your questions as they arise as you watch this recording, and we will either answer those as they come through or save them for larger group discussion. So Chris, I might hand it over to you to better introduce this session.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: All right. Well, thank you indeed, Hannah Heckner, and thank you to everyone at NISO and all of you for joining us today. It's a pleasure to be here. Looking forward to the presentations and to a lively discussion at the end. And as Hannah said, we're looking at unlocking socioeconomic potential through global collaboration, underscoring the subtitle here, which is connecting researchers to research output.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: As we've seen, it's a trend that's been accelerated in the pandemic. Global research collaborations continue to expand, but as COVID-19 does in so many ways, the persistent sharing and accuracy of many identifiers is revealed to fall short compared to the rapid progress in global collaboration and the research ecosystem. Metadata on research teams, including affiliation, funder grant, and specific contribution information are all critical to measuring the impact of open research as well as enabling equity and inclusion in research funding.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: This panel today brings together industry leaders to discuss the infrastructure that exists today, what is still needed, and how it can facilitate global collaboration as well as the measurement of its impact. So we're going to address issues such as who's responsible for collecting and validating researcher information? What is the role of publishers and submission platforms, as well as research institutions and funders?
CHRIS KENNEALLY: And what organizations are activities will drive dramatic improvements in the accuracy and persistence of this data? And finally, what parts of open science, open access, and DE&I really are critical to this endeavor? So we encourage you to share your own thoughts and concerns for the discussion that follows. And our first speaker is my colleague at Copyright Clearance Center, Jamie Carmichael.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Jamie Carmichael brings nearly 20 years' experience in publishing to her current role as Senior Director, Information and Content Solutions at Copyright Clearance Center. In this position, she's responsible for the strategic direction of CCC's open access platform, RightsLink for Scientific Communications. And she heads up our go-to-market efforts for new products and services across the scholarly publishing ecosystem.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Jamie, over to you.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Chris. So I should probably start by saying that I'm coming from the perspective of a neutral intermediary providing technology to publishers and their institutional and funder stakeholders to manage open access funding models. So this isn't the first time that people are talking about this topic, and it won't be the last. I can offer a view into the downstream implications when certain metadata elements aren't captured or they're used inconsistently throughout the publication lifecycle.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And there are-- it's probably also worth mentioning that we know there are multiple initiatives underway to drive widespread adoption of persistent identifiers, including at the national level, in the UK through RINCC. So we hope to reinforce what's possible when different stakeholder groups come together as a community to address gaps in this area, and really, to just point out, again, what's at stake if these efforts don't gain broad support.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So when I talk about metadata in this context, what am I really talking about? Well, here are five important metadata elements as we see them. And to just run briefly through this list, we're talking about author identifiers, your ORCIDs, your ISNIs to disambiguate who led and who contributed to the research output. Your affiliation identifiers.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So your RORs, your Ringgolds to disambiguate which institutions were affiliated with the research output. Your funder identifiers. Your open funder IDs to disambiguate the organizations who funded the research. Your grant IDs, which increasingly are in the form of DOIs to disambiguate the grant recipients and tie research to the grant funders.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And then publication and related output IDs with DOIs being another example here to disambiguate who published the article and the underlying data sets and when. When these five elements are present, they're registered and they're, even more importantly, connected, it opens tremendous opportunity and efficiency for stakeholders across the ecosystem.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: I believe JISC has a similar list that they came out with quite a while ago, but I think what the problem is that research output is too often missing one or more of these critical elements. And the implications of that are, from an open access perspective, there's uncertainty around author eligibility for open access funding, there's lost opportunities to track research impact and to transform publishing business models, and there's increased costs for publishers, for funders, for institutions, and intermediaries.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: There's a good cost-benefit analysis report funded by the UK, Persistent Identifiers for Open Access Project, that shows compelling savings in a PID-optimized environment. Just one more note before we leave this slide. The scale of the problem, how big is it, what are we talking about? I found an interesting statistic in ORCID in that nearly 4.2 million records with an affiliation, which is 33% of all records in ORCID, only 9% have been added by member organizations.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And additionally, when we think about the registering of grant IDs through Crossref, Crossref notes that about 26,000 grants have been registered by their funder members since 2019, but we know that that's only a small of total research grants provided worldwide. Although I will say, I was just having a conversation with FWF in Austria this morning, and in the next year by the fall, they intend to introduce grant DOIs through Crossref.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So a lot of good movement, but still a long way to go. So when these five metadata elements are part of the scholarly record, there's really a positive cascading effect throughout the entire ecosystem. So authors across the globe are more informed about opportunities to publish open access. Researchers can more easily discover early-stage research and identify collaborators and accelerate scientific discovery.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Funding options under pure OA agreements or transformative-- read-and-publish, publish-and-read deals, they're more-- people are more aware of them and are more fully utilized. Funders and institutions can more fully assess the impact of research and map their future strategies accordingly. And then very importantly, you trust and transparency, core tenets of open scholarship, are achievable for all.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: The good news here is that there seems to be a shift in thinking, from metadata as something owned by publishers to something created through the contributions of many, including publishers, researchers, funders, institutions, and their respective technology and service providers. And as I mentioned before, there's a lot of efforts underway to better link research output to people and places and things.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And one avenue for that, in our opinion, is to increase adoption of assertion and validation services. And so these have existed for many years. ORCID comes to mind as a prime example. They can verify where authors work, who funded the research, under what grants, and starting very early in the stage of grant application all the way through to post-publication.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So Chris mentioned earlier, we wanted to discuss a little bit about roles and responsibilities. Manuscript submission, to me, seems like a very critical point in the workflow to enrich and validate these data. And in talking with our own submission system partners like Aries and ScholarOne, there is progress toward this right where ORCIDs and Ringgolds and open funder IDs are already being captured or they're using AI to pull that data out of submission files.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: But there are still challenges that remain in terms of editorial teams not wanting to put too much of a burden on authors' shoulders, which is completely understandable. Coauthor data can be inaccurate or incomplete for a variety of reasons. We'd really like to see, and to the extent we can contribute to, more cross-organization collaboration.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Really tying up these different identifiers and having them travel together so that it radically improves the collection and validation of manuscript metadata. So just some takeaways here to reinforce a couple of things I mentioned earlier. When those five metadata elements are flowing properly through grant management systems, submission platforms, open access funding management systems, production, hosting platforms, everybody in the ecosystem wins.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Teams involved with funding, research, and publishing teams, they can focus on the social and business rewards of sharing innovative ideas rather than a very costly and very manual aspect of disambiguating data. Automated workflows, which is a fundamental requirement for scaling open access publishing and essential to driving down its costs, can succeed, while informing future improvements to that infrastructure.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Assessing the impact of published material becomes easier and more reliable. And as I said before, trust and transparency, core tenets of open science flourish really for the benefit of all. So as we transition into the Q&A portion, I'd love for that to be as much about information-sharing and raising some of the initiatives that might not be discussed today so that we can understand the good work going on, raise awareness, and come together to brainstorm how to leverage its full potential.
HANNAH HECKNER: That was wonderful. Thank you so much, Jamie. We'll next be hearing from Diane Cogan. Diane is Vice President of Global Sales with Ringgold, which maintains the database of the Ringgold identifier, a unique numerical identifier applied to organizations in the scholarly supply chain. Diane has worked in the scholarly publishing industry for over 40 years. She started her publishing career at Butterworth Heinemann managing their science journals, and she was then the publishing director for Elsevier's social science and economics program for books and journals for many years.
HANNAH HECKNER: Diane ran a publishing consultancy for five years and joined Ringgold 10 years ago. She heads up sales at Ringgold and works with customers to help them to find solutions to their data problems. Diane, over to you.
DIANE COGAN: OK. Thank you, Hannah. OK. All right, OK. Thank you. So I don't need to introduce myself because Hannah's done a very good job. But I'm very pleased to be part of this session today.
DIANE COGAN: And I'm really speaking from the perspective of provider and curator of persistent ID through organization, so that's really my stance today. So it's very important, as we've already said-- and Jamie has said, the people and organizations and the work that they do, the research work is recognized so that we can attribute the work back to them, and we can't do that if we don't know who they are or exactly where they are.
DIANE COGAN: So we need to identify the organizations they're working with, who they are unambiguously. And also, the things that they do, the articles that they produce, the funding mandates that they're using. We all need to identify all of those things. And once we have identified all of those, we can link all of the data to other-- this data or other data to map and analyze, for instance, where the work's being done as a body of work geographically, who's doing it, and I think that can give us an insight into helping with diversity, equity, and inclusion in research overall.
DIANE COGAN: So Ringgold has championed the use of persistent IDs for organizations, Ringgold ID and business for many, many years. We've been creating and curating actively the identified database organizations for nearly 20 years. We initially worked with publishers to identify the organizations that subscribe to their journals or bought their books, but now increasingly we're working with publishers and other organizations-- research organizations to identify the organizations of individuals writing papers and affiliations.
DIANE COGAN: So we've-- Ringgold's developed a very detailed and granular metadata to help better describe and identify organizations, and to connect them to other organizations. So we do a lot of work on relationships. So we build hierarchies for all the organizations in the database. So we can identify parent and child organizations. And knowing the interrelationship between organizations is very important in order to attribute research.
DIANE COGAN: And it's not always obvious looking at an author affiliation, for example, where that research was actually done, because often an author will affiliate at the part of the organization where they're doing the work, naturally, but that might not be the part of the organization that sponsored the research. And so we developed these very detailed hierarchies to help to identify that, and that's very useful also in transformative agreements and for paying APCs and knowing actually who's responsible for doing that.
DIANE COGAN: So this is an example. We're looking here at three author affiliations. And they've all affiliated at different parts of an organization, but if you actually look at the organizations that they're working at, they're all part of UCLA, but that's not obvious from looking at these affiliations at first. And so that's where I think that's very important, that we're able to do that.
DIANE COGAN: Also, organizations have more than one parent. And it's also quite important to know which parent is sponsoring the research. So again, we've built a lot of relationships into the identified database to enable people to identify that organization that's responsible. I want to say a few words about ISNI as well, because Ringgold has a very close relationship with ISNI Ringgold became the first Disney registration authority for organizations in the scholarly communication space in 2012.
DIANE COGAN: And the majority of the-- I think we've got about 567,000 records in the identified database now have an ISNI. And we work very closely with the ISNI International Agency to create ISNIs when we come across a new organization. And ISNI is an open identifier. It's an ISO standard, but it's a bridge identifier. So it doesn't contain a lot of metadata in itself, but it helps to link.
DIANE COGAN: So you can link between perhaps of Ringgold ID or something like a grid or rule that also includes an ISNI, and that's really its purpose. I mean, the ISNI International Agency was established in 2010, really, because a number of stakeholders came together and recognized the need to unambiguously identify people involved in creative work, in order to make rights management, more effective in a way.
DIANE COGAN: And so that attribution is there, so they were really for the same reason trying to identify people and organizations. So I think as Jamie mentioned, there are lots of different persistent IDs, there seem to be more and more all the time. It's a good thing that we include them in the various workflows, but they need to interoperate.
DIANE COGAN: And I think where you have more than one identifier for a particular thing, we need to make sure that they talk to one another. So as Jamie said, we've got the various ones for people, the things, we've got grants, research projects. Quite a lot for organizations, including the Ringgold ID, IPEDs, funder IDs, GRID rule, et cetera, et cetera. So we need to make sure that they can speak to each other to help the flow of research so that we can attribute everything.
DIANE COGAN: So finally, really-- this is my last slide, persistent IDs are, by their nature, neutral. They're just a sequence of numbers and letters or an alphanumeric URI. However, if research and scholarly communications environment really were to work more effectively and the PIDs and associated metadata need to be made interoperable across the whole of the system. The use of persistent IDs in every aspect of the system would allow accurate attribution and measurement, and that analytical data in itself would inform and educate all stakeholders to potentially enable changes and improvement in diversity, equity, and inclusion for research.
DIANE COGAN: So that's my last slide. It's a very ambitious objective, but I think it can be done with cooperation across the research lifecycle. So thank you very much, and I look forward to a stimulating discussion.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Well indeed, thank you very much, Diane Cogan with Ringgold. And I think the picture is becoming a lot clearer and a lot better defined about this ambition, as you call it, to connect researchers and researcher input. And certainly, along that chain of connections, of course, is publishing. And our next guest will address the way that publishing is tackling this issue.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: I want to welcome Georgie Field. She is associate publisher for six of the journals for PLOS. PLOS is, of course, a non-profit open access science technology and medicine publisher and has a library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open content license. Georgie Field works with a team of managing editors to develop the journals and to ensure they champion the communities they serve. Alongside this, she works on PLOS's alternative business models to enable equitable access to publishing, and she's going to present today a case study of PLOS's global equity business model and discuss how data challenges and persistent identifiers have real-world implications for authors and institutions.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Georgie Field with PLOS, over to you.
GEORGIE FIELD: Thank you so much to Chris and Hannah for the invitation. I assume that most of you know PLOS. In case you don't, as Chris said, we're a nonprofit open access publisher. And our goal is really to empower researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication. And today, I want to give you a case study, actually, of our global equity business model and the impact really of good metadata in that business model, and I'm hoping this is really going to complement the talks we've heard so far and repeats a lot of the issues we've already heard.
GEORGIE FIELD: So first off, I want to start with some guiding principles here that have driven us to experiment with new business models. Research is a global collaborative enterprise. Participation in sharing knowledge is equally as important as access to the published literature, and that we need to move away from entrenched inequities and focus on the creation of shared value.
GEORGIE FIELD: So to enable equity, we've made the decision to expand our business model's past article processing charges to a system of accountability that is not purely based on counting articles. So two of our business models are currently using this approach, Community Action Publishing and Global Equity. I'm only going to focus on Global Equity today because the impact of inconsistent metadata has felt really quite acutely within that model.
GEORGIE FIELD: So what is it? In a nutshell, Global Equity is a model where the institution pays a single yearly fee. It gives unlimited publication to all of their researchers and there are no additional author fees. Any institution in a research for life country has automatic membership and there are no fees for any of those authors. So each institution or research organization is given a tier based on the number of publications they've made within the topic area of the journal, and that's their publishing history.
GEORGIE FIELD: And then the fees are weighted based on the World Bank lending class of the country the institute is based in. The fee is a mix of both publishing history and World Bank class. So an Institute with a lot of publishing output in a middle-income country might end up paying less than an institute publishing less but in a high-income country. And that approach enables all institutions and their researchers to participate in funding a journal, not just the corresponding author of that research intensive institution.
GEORGIE FIELD: So to model fees, we first need to find applicable publications within the scope of the journal. And that lets us set the bar for the number of institutes that could make use of publishing agreement. Doing that relies on really accurate keywords being attributed to a publication in the first place in abstracting an indexing service, and then the ability of the searcher to do a nuanced search to identify the difference between, let's say, a biological cell and a battery cell, because they're not going to both be in scope for the journal.
GEORGIE FIELD: Then we need to be able to distinguish the difference between a corresponding and a contributing author, because in this model, the contributing author also counts towards this publishing history of an institute, so we've got to be able to credit them. And then we need to allocate an institution to each author in the author list, but then not double-count the publications if there are multiple authors at the same institute, so we have to be able to aggregate in a way that counts author type and institution by unique DOI.
GEORGIE FIELD: And then finally, we have to place each institution within a country so that we can apply the World Bank lending class and weight the fee. We are relying totally on the abstracting and indexing service here. And by extension, we're reliant on all publishers providing accurate and usable metadata for that publication. So you're thinking, that's great, just get all of that data, but it is really not that simple.
GEORGIE FIELD: And there are a ton of points in this process where human or system error is possible. It is a ton of manual work, and we're missing opportunities to do more by limitations in data. So we first end up with these super long Boolean strings to find publications, and we have to spot-check and make sure we've not accidentally included an ambiguous term in the search. Different keywords and classifications are used across different abstracting and indexing services, so the consistent approach to this is really key.
GEORGIE FIELD: We use formulas to aggregate and to calculate a corresponding author percentage for each institution, and the institution data can be patchy and it's not always standardized to Ringgold's to RORs, to GRID. Even if it is standardized, it's not a given that all of those data sources are standardizing to the same scheme. So sometimes you end up mapping between schemes. We found sometimes institutes equated to a departmental level, as you saw from Diane, and some are attributed to what I like to call a super parent.
GEORGIE FIELD: So like the University of California system which encompasses several institutions and countless more departments. In the majority of cases, all negotiations are happening with consortia for agreements at an institutional level, not at a super parent level. So if you can't disentangle all of those institutions, you're modeling a price for a customer that doesn't exist. So the institutional hierarchies are key here.
GEORGIE FIELD: And the last thing we do, and I really took this for granted when we started, was we had to map alpha-3 country codes to all the various different ways of writing a country so that we could map the World Bank lending classes. So having country codes as just a standard thing would have been a massive time-saver for us. We ended up with a ton of data, and that makes up what I like to call the universe of publications and institutes for each journal.
GEORGIE FIELD: So why does it matter? Surely there must be a margin for error in this process, but getting it right is quite high stakes for us. Charging an institution removes the burden of payment from an author, it levels the playing field across disciplines that receive really different levels of funding, and it prevents the indignity of an author having to apply for a waiver. If our model doesn't resonate with an institute and they don't want to enter into an agreement, then publishing fees remain for an author.
GEORGIE FIELD: We have a real opportunity here to set the bar for transparency and affordability for institutions. So if we mischaracterize that universe of publications due to poor metadata, we risk over or undercharging and institution and immediately undermining trust in our model. So better metadata would also enable us to be even more transparent. And at renewal, we could do something provide a breakdown of which research departments are using our agreements and how a library could support their research is to engage more with open access.
GEORGIE FIELD: And I didn't really want to end on money, but financial sustainability is really fundamental, and we can only continue to change the scholarly communications process if we can fund the work. So the fees are set using the size and the makeup of the university publication. So if we've got it wrong, then the balance between income and costs could really be off.
GEORGIE FIELD: There are a ton of opportunities to make better use of the system identifiers, and it would certainly make modeling this kind of fee structure much, much easier. And it would lower the barrier to entry for other publishers to experiment in this area, and for me, the more paths there are to equitable scholarly communications, the better. That's all for me. Thank you so much there is more about global equity at the link on the slide, as is my email and Twitter.
GEORGIE FIELD: I'd love to chat further.
HANNAH HECKNER: Thank you so much, Georgie. I wonder whether authors really truly understand the importance of that affiliation line as they're writing their paper. I feel like all of the speakers thus far today have really shown that there is a lot of information there and there's a lot of ways to have things get confused and garbled, and having more persistence along those lines is going to be really important. Speaking of the researcher perspective, our final speaker is Steven Vidovic who will be able to offer some insights from that side of things.
HANNAH HECKNER: Dr. Steven Vidovic is the Head of Open Research and Publication Practice at the University of Southampton UK. Previously, Steven managed a substantial and diverse portfolio of biological and earth and environmental sciences journals for Taylor & Francis. And additionally, Steven is the chair of the DOAJ advisory board. So we really look forward to hearing your perspective as a recovering publisher now on the research side of things, Steven.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Yeah, definitely a recovering publisher, I like that. So yes, I'm from the University of Southampton in the UK. We're a research-intensive university, part of the Russell Group of Universities. And-- I can't seem to move on my slide. And I'm here today to give the institutional perspective, as Hannah said. And we're really privileged from an institutional perspective, because from the turn of the century, the University of Southampton started to develop the EPrints platform which contributes to most or many, at least, institutional and subject repositories for the progress of green open access, which hasn't really been discussed yet today.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: And I'm mindful starting off this presentation, however, that we are based in the UK. We're on the South Coast of England and we're a Global North institution. And so whilst I'm here to represent the views of institutions, I can't begin to fully represent all of the views and all of the institutions globally. Although everything that we do at the University of Southampton works towards an open research agenda.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: The university strategy, which was recently launched, which is a Triple Helix, where research enterprise and education all feed into each other is very much the way that we like to work. Research-- the Open Research Agenda is embedded into our policies, including, of course, our open access policy, but also our responsible research metrics policy, our authorship and contribution publishing policies.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: It's embedded in our activities all the way from education to post-publication engagement with our research. And as mentioned, it's also in enterprise and the people in the form of the services and support we provide as an institution. And this is all for this grand aim of realizing our best research, which I'm sure is a common aim across all institutions.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Yes, so this is actually my last slide, but I will talk around it quite a lot. So I want to talk a bit about the challenges in open research. We've spoken a lot about the solutions, really, so far. But with every solution, that is presented there's also additional challenges, especially from the institutional perspective, the boots on the ground.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: So we have this issue of growing awareness, which, I think, has been touched upon already making the researchers aware of the need for open research and the value of open research. Why would they want to engage with it? There's also open throughout the research lifecycle. So many people are now starting to become better aware of the need for open access publishing of their final research output, but what about the development of that research output?
STEVEN VIDOVIC: What about after the final publication? It's not just about doing the research, publishing it. It's also about having the research read by the right people at the right time so that they can build upon that research for the benefit of the public. It's partly to do with reward and recognition as well. A lot of these things that we've spoken about, the identifiers are part of the rewards and recognition system.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: So the reason that we might get funding in an institution is because the good work we do. The reason that we're able to demonstrate that is because of abstracting and indexing services which receive information from Ringgold and from DOIs and these other persistent identifiers that allow us to demonstrate the value of our research. This also opens up opportunities for inappropriate behaviors around publishing.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: And it also opens up for unintentional misapplication of publishing. For example, when we're talking about global perspective where there are these institutions that are heavily involved in open research, we might think benevolently that it's really a good thing to have one of our authors is a corresponding author so that we can take advantage of an agreement that we have with a publisher.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: But that, then, might deny opportunities to somebody else from another institution who is from a less developed institution, a less developed nation, et cetera. So we have to be mindful of these unintentional consequences of our ambitions. We have a responsibility to the funder's agenda, and when I say that, really, actually, the funders have a responsibility to us first, and they develop their policies and their requirements.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Because on large part, this is what the institutions are asking them to do, that we're asking them to mandate open research to help us to progress. We, then, can take responsibility for those because with the contract holders with the publishers, with these other organizations. And we're also the people who are managing the finances. So we're able to have those conversations.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: We're the direct contact to these organizations that manage our research, and so that's important. From the point of view of the institutional repository, we need robust metadata. In many circumstances, we are actually-- because of University of Southampton's version of EPrints especially being so old and organically grown, but well-established, more importantly, quite often we do find that we surface content better than some publishers and it's much easier to find content through EPrints.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: The institutional repositories are not going to go away, and they are quite often the best way-- as well as subjects repositories, they're the best way of collecting similar research together rather than being under a branded umbrella of a publisher. From that point of view, we need to gather the most robust metadata as possible, and we need to ensure that there's duplication of effort, because at every twist and turn of that research lifecycle, researchers are asked to re-enter the same information over and over again.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: If we could harvest this information from the original source from the point of first entry, usually into a peer review management system, then that would be better for everyone, and it would give us greater insight into the research that's being produced at the institution because we don't always have cited it until after the acceptance date. And then the final thing that me and my team do-- what we do an awful lot, in fact but we contribute to conversations with organizations such as JISC in the UK.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: And also we contribute to research libraries, UK'S Open Access Publishing Processes Group who work with publishers to ensure the best workflows are in place, and this is to ensure that transformative agreements are effective and truly transformational, which is very important for us, because we really do want to see this transition to open research to have traction and to work in the best way, then for it to be as inclusive and equitable as possible.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Thank you very much.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Well, thank you, Dr. Steven Vidovic at the University of Southampton for your presentation. And thank you for reminding us about the challenges. I think that's an important point. We've been talking about persistent identifiers. It's something that seems actually insubstantial, but the very substantial challenges that you just outlined for us are really tied so closely to it.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: And we appreciate you raising that, and we think that that's a very good place to also remind our audience that we encourage you to share with us your challenges, your own thoughts and your concerns in the discussion period that follows this program. And with that, I'll turn things over to my co-host, Hannah Heckner, to wrap up this piece of the program.
HANNAH HECKNER: Yeah. Thank you so much, Chris. Thank you so much to all of these panelists. I really look forward to hearing the discussion that is going to follow, as well as maybe participating myself. So thanks, everyone, for your engagement and your participation, and we'll look forward to continuing this conversation in the chat as well as hopefully in future in-person meetings. Thanks so much.
HANNAH HECKNER: [MUSIC PLAYING]
Segment:0 .
[MUSIC PLAYING]
HANNAH HECKNER: Hello, everyone and welcome to the NISO+ 2022 session, Unlocking Socioeconomic Potential Through Global Collaboration, Connecting Researchers to Research Output. I'm Hannah Heckner and I will be co-moderating this session with Chris Kenneally. Please submit your questions as they arise as you watch this recording, and we will either answer those as they come through or save them for larger group discussion. So Chris, I might hand it over to you to better introduce this session.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: All right. Well, thank you indeed, Hannah Heckner, and thank you to everyone at NISO and all of you for joining us today. It's a pleasure to be here. Looking forward to the presentations and to a lively discussion at the end. And as Hannah said, we're looking at unlocking socioeconomic potential through global collaboration, underscoring the subtitle here, which is connecting researchers to research output.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: As we've seen, it's a trend that's been accelerated in the pandemic. Global research collaborations continue to expand, but as COVID-19 does in so many ways, the persistent sharing and accuracy of many identifiers is revealed to fall short compared to the rapid progress in global collaboration and the research ecosystem. Metadata on research teams, including affiliation, funder grant, and specific contribution information are all critical to measuring the impact of open research as well as enabling equity and inclusion in research funding.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: This panel today brings together industry leaders to discuss the infrastructure that exists today, what is still needed, and how it can facilitate global collaboration as well as the measurement of its impact. So we're going to address issues such as who's responsible for collecting and validating researcher information? What is the role of publishers and submission platforms, as well as research institutions and funders?
CHRIS KENNEALLY: And what organizations are activities will drive dramatic improvements in the accuracy and persistence of this data? And finally, what parts of open science, open access, and DE&I really are critical to this endeavor? So we encourage you to share your own thoughts and concerns for the discussion that follows. And our first speaker is my colleague at Copyright Clearance Center, Jamie Carmichael.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Jamie Carmichael brings nearly 20 years' experience in publishing to her current role as Senior Director, Information and Content Solutions at Copyright Clearance Center. In this position, she's responsible for the strategic direction of CCC's open access platform, RightsLink for Scientific Communications. And she heads up our go-to-market efforts for new products and services across the scholarly publishing ecosystem.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Jamie, over to you.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Chris. So I should probably start by saying that I'm coming from the perspective of a neutral intermediary providing technology to publishers and their institutional and funder stakeholders to manage open access funding models. So this isn't the first time that people are talking about this topic, and it won't be the last. I can offer a view into the downstream implications when certain metadata elements aren't captured or they're used inconsistently throughout the publication lifecycle.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And there are-- it's probably also worth mentioning that we know there are multiple initiatives underway to drive widespread adoption of persistent identifiers, including at the national level, in the UK through RINCC. So we hope to reinforce what's possible when different stakeholder groups come together as a community to address gaps in this area, and really, to just point out, again, what's at stake if these efforts don't gain broad support.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So when I talk about metadata in this context, what am I really talking about? Well, here are five important metadata elements as we see them. And to just run briefly through this list, we're talking about author identifiers, your ORCIDs, your ISNIs to disambiguate who led and who contributed to the research output. Your affiliation identifiers.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So your RORs, your Ringgolds to disambiguate which institutions were affiliated with the research output. Your funder identifiers. Your open funder IDs to disambiguate the organizations who funded the research. Your grant IDs, which increasingly are in the form of DOIs to disambiguate the grant recipients and tie research to the grant funders.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And then publication and related output IDs with DOIs being another example here to disambiguate who published the article and the underlying data sets and when. When these five elements are present, they're registered and they're, even more importantly, connected, it opens tremendous opportunity and efficiency for stakeholders across the ecosystem.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: I believe JISC has a similar list that they came out with quite a while ago, but I think what the problem is that research output is too often missing one or more of these critical elements. And the implications of that are, from an open access perspective, there's uncertainty around author eligibility for open access funding, there's lost opportunities to track research impact and to transform publishing business models, and there's increased costs for publishers, for funders, for institutions, and intermediaries.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: There's a good cost-benefit analysis report funded by the UK, Persistent Identifiers for Open Access Project, that shows compelling savings in a PID-optimized environment. Just one more note before we leave this slide. The scale of the problem, how big is it, what are we talking about? I found an interesting statistic in ORCID in that nearly 4.2 million records with an affiliation, which is 33% of all records in ORCID, only 9% have been added by member organizations.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And additionally, when we think about the registering of grant IDs through Crossref, Crossref notes that about 26,000 grants have been registered by their funder members since 2019, but we know that that's only a small of total research grants provided worldwide. Although I will say, I was just having a conversation with FWF in Austria this morning, and in the next year by the fall, they intend to introduce grant DOIs through Crossref.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So a lot of good movement, but still a long way to go. So when these five metadata elements are part of the scholarly record, there's really a positive cascading effect throughout the entire ecosystem. So authors across the globe are more informed about opportunities to publish open access. Researchers can more easily discover early-stage research and identify collaborators and accelerate scientific discovery.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Funding options under pure OA agreements or transformative-- read-and-publish, publish-and-read deals, they're more-- people are more aware of them and are more fully utilized. Funders and institutions can more fully assess the impact of research and map their future strategies accordingly. And then very importantly, you trust and transparency, core tenets of open scholarship, are achievable for all.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: The good news here is that there seems to be a shift in thinking, from metadata as something owned by publishers to something created through the contributions of many, including publishers, researchers, funders, institutions, and their respective technology and service providers. And as I mentioned before, there's a lot of efforts underway to better link research output to people and places and things.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: And one avenue for that, in our opinion, is to increase adoption of assertion and validation services. And so these have existed for many years. ORCID comes to mind as a prime example. They can verify where authors work, who funded the research, under what grants, and starting very early in the stage of grant application all the way through to post-publication.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: So Chris mentioned earlier, we wanted to discuss a little bit about roles and responsibilities. Manuscript submission, to me, seems like a very critical point in the workflow to enrich and validate these data. And in talking with our own submission system partners like Aries and ScholarOne, there is progress toward this right where ORCIDs and Ringgolds and open funder IDs are already being captured or they're using AI to pull that data out of submission files.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: But there are still challenges that remain in terms of editorial teams not wanting to put too much of a burden on authors' shoulders, which is completely understandable. Coauthor data can be inaccurate or incomplete for a variety of reasons. We'd really like to see, and to the extent we can contribute to, more cross-organization collaboration.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Really tying up these different identifiers and having them travel together so that it radically improves the collection and validation of manuscript metadata. So just some takeaways here to reinforce a couple of things I mentioned earlier. When those five metadata elements are flowing properly through grant management systems, submission platforms, open access funding management systems, production, hosting platforms, everybody in the ecosystem wins.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Teams involved with funding, research, and publishing teams, they can focus on the social and business rewards of sharing innovative ideas rather than a very costly and very manual aspect of disambiguating data. Automated workflows, which is a fundamental requirement for scaling open access publishing and essential to driving down its costs, can succeed, while informing future improvements to that infrastructure.
JAMIE CARMICHAEL: Assessing the impact of published material becomes easier and more reliable. And as I said before, trust and transparency, core tenets of open science flourish really for the benefit of all. So as we transition into the Q&A portion, I'd love for that to be as much about information-sharing and raising some of the initiatives that might not be discussed today so that we can understand the good work going on, raise awareness, and come together to brainstorm how to leverage its full potential.
HANNAH HECKNER: That was wonderful. Thank you so much, Jamie. We'll next be hearing from Diane Cogan. Diane is Vice President of Global Sales with Ringgold, which maintains the database of the Ringgold identifier, a unique numerical identifier applied to organizations in the scholarly supply chain. Diane has worked in the scholarly publishing industry for over 40 years. She started her publishing career at Butterworth Heinemann managing their science journals, and she was then the publishing director for Elsevier's social science and economics program for books and journals for many years.
HANNAH HECKNER: Diane ran a publishing consultancy for five years and joined Ringgold 10 years ago. She heads up sales at Ringgold and works with customers to help them to find solutions to their data problems. Diane, over to you.
DIANE COGAN: OK. Thank you, Hannah. OK. All right, OK. Thank you. So I don't need to introduce myself because Hannah's done a very good job. But I'm very pleased to be part of this session today.
DIANE COGAN: And I'm really speaking from the perspective of provider and curator of persistent ID through organization, so that's really my stance today. So it's very important, as we've already said-- and Jamie has said, the people and organizations and the work that they do, the research work is recognized so that we can attribute the work back to them, and we can't do that if we don't know who they are or exactly where they are.
DIANE COGAN: So we need to identify the organizations they're working with, who they are unambiguously. And also, the things that they do, the articles that they produce, the funding mandates that they're using. We all need to identify all of those things. And once we have identified all of those, we can link all of the data to other-- this data or other data to map and analyze, for instance, where the work's being done as a body of work geographically, who's doing it, and I think that can give us an insight into helping with diversity, equity, and inclusion in research overall.
DIANE COGAN: So Ringgold has championed the use of persistent IDs for organizations, Ringgold ID and business for many, many years. We've been creating and curating actively the identified database organizations for nearly 20 years. We initially worked with publishers to identify the organizations that subscribe to their journals or bought their books, but now increasingly we're working with publishers and other organizations-- research organizations to identify the organizations of individuals writing papers and affiliations.
DIANE COGAN: So we've-- Ringgold's developed a very detailed and granular metadata to help better describe and identify organizations, and to connect them to other organizations. So we do a lot of work on relationships. So we build hierarchies for all the organizations in the database. So we can identify parent and child organizations. And knowing the interrelationship between organizations is very important in order to attribute research.
DIANE COGAN: And it's not always obvious looking at an author affiliation, for example, where that research was actually done, because often an author will affiliate at the part of the organization where they're doing the work, naturally, but that might not be the part of the organization that sponsored the research. And so we developed these very detailed hierarchies to help to identify that, and that's very useful also in transformative agreements and for paying APCs and knowing actually who's responsible for doing that.
DIANE COGAN: So this is an example. We're looking here at three author affiliations. And they've all affiliated at different parts of an organization, but if you actually look at the organizations that they're working at, they're all part of UCLA, but that's not obvious from looking at these affiliations at first. And so that's where I think that's very important, that we're able to do that.
DIANE COGAN: Also, organizations have more than one parent. And it's also quite important to know which parent is sponsoring the research. So again, we've built a lot of relationships into the identified database to enable people to identify that organization that's responsible. I want to say a few words about ISNI as well, because Ringgold has a very close relationship with ISNI Ringgold became the first Disney registration authority for organizations in the scholarly communication space in 2012.
DIANE COGAN: And the majority of the-- I think we've got about 567,000 records in the identified database now have an ISNI. And we work very closely with the ISNI International Agency to create ISNIs when we come across a new organization. And ISNI is an open identifier. It's an ISO standard, but it's a bridge identifier. So it doesn't contain a lot of metadata in itself, but it helps to link.
DIANE COGAN: So you can link between perhaps of Ringgold ID or something like a grid or rule that also includes an ISNI, and that's really its purpose. I mean, the ISNI International Agency was established in 2010, really, because a number of stakeholders came together and recognized the need to unambiguously identify people involved in creative work, in order to make rights management, more effective in a way.
DIANE COGAN: And so that attribution is there, so they were really for the same reason trying to identify people and organizations. So I think as Jamie mentioned, there are lots of different persistent IDs, there seem to be more and more all the time. It's a good thing that we include them in the various workflows, but they need to interoperate.
DIANE COGAN: And I think where you have more than one identifier for a particular thing, we need to make sure that they talk to one another. So as Jamie said, we've got the various ones for people, the things, we've got grants, research projects. Quite a lot for organizations, including the Ringgold ID, IPEDs, funder IDs, GRID rule, et cetera, et cetera. So we need to make sure that they can speak to each other to help the flow of research so that we can attribute everything.
DIANE COGAN: So finally, really-- this is my last slide, persistent IDs are, by their nature, neutral. They're just a sequence of numbers and letters or an alphanumeric URI. However, if research and scholarly communications environment really were to work more effectively and the PIDs and associated metadata need to be made interoperable across the whole of the system. The use of persistent IDs in every aspect of the system would allow accurate attribution and measurement, and that analytical data in itself would inform and educate all stakeholders to potentially enable changes and improvement in diversity, equity, and inclusion for research.
DIANE COGAN: So that's my last slide. It's a very ambitious objective, but I think it can be done with cooperation across the research lifecycle. So thank you very much, and I look forward to a stimulating discussion.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Well indeed, thank you very much, Diane Cogan with Ringgold. And I think the picture is becoming a lot clearer and a lot better defined about this ambition, as you call it, to connect researchers and researcher input. And certainly, along that chain of connections, of course, is publishing. And our next guest will address the way that publishing is tackling this issue.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: I want to welcome Georgie Field. She is associate publisher for six of the journals for PLOS. PLOS is, of course, a non-profit open access science technology and medicine publisher and has a library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open content license. Georgie Field works with a team of managing editors to develop the journals and to ensure they champion the communities they serve. Alongside this, she works on PLOS's alternative business models to enable equitable access to publishing, and she's going to present today a case study of PLOS's global equity business model and discuss how data challenges and persistent identifiers have real-world implications for authors and institutions.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Georgie Field with PLOS, over to you.
GEORGIE FIELD: Thank you so much to Chris and Hannah for the invitation. I assume that most of you know PLOS. In case you don't, as Chris said, we're a nonprofit open access publisher. And our goal is really to empower researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication. And today, I want to give you a case study, actually, of our global equity business model and the impact really of good metadata in that business model, and I'm hoping this is really going to complement the talks we've heard so far and repeats a lot of the issues we've already heard.
GEORGIE FIELD: So first off, I want to start with some guiding principles here that have driven us to experiment with new business models. Research is a global collaborative enterprise. Participation in sharing knowledge is equally as important as access to the published literature, and that we need to move away from entrenched inequities and focus on the creation of shared value.
GEORGIE FIELD: So to enable equity, we've made the decision to expand our business model's past article processing charges to a system of accountability that is not purely based on counting articles. So two of our business models are currently using this approach, Community Action Publishing and Global Equity. I'm only going to focus on Global Equity today because the impact of inconsistent metadata has felt really quite acutely within that model.
GEORGIE FIELD: So what is it? In a nutshell, Global Equity is a model where the institution pays a single yearly fee. It gives unlimited publication to all of their researchers and there are no additional author fees. Any institution in a research for life country has automatic membership and there are no fees for any of those authors. So each institution or research organization is given a tier based on the number of publications they've made within the topic area of the journal, and that's their publishing history.
GEORGIE FIELD: And then the fees are weighted based on the World Bank lending class of the country the institute is based in. The fee is a mix of both publishing history and World Bank class. So an Institute with a lot of publishing output in a middle-income country might end up paying less than an institute publishing less but in a high-income country. And that approach enables all institutions and their researchers to participate in funding a journal, not just the corresponding author of that research intensive institution.
GEORGIE FIELD: So to model fees, we first need to find applicable publications within the scope of the journal. And that lets us set the bar for the number of institutes that could make use of publishing agreement. Doing that relies on really accurate keywords being attributed to a publication in the first place in abstracting an indexing service, and then the ability of the searcher to do a nuanced search to identify the difference between, let's say, a biological cell and a battery cell, because they're not going to both be in scope for the journal.
GEORGIE FIELD: Then we need to be able to distinguish the difference between a corresponding and a contributing author, because in this model, the contributing author also counts towards this publishing history of an institute, so we've got to be able to credit them. And then we need to allocate an institution to each author in the author list, but then not double-count the publications if there are multiple authors at the same institute, so we have to be able to aggregate in a way that counts author type and institution by unique DOI.
GEORGIE FIELD: And then finally, we have to place each institution within a country so that we can apply the World Bank lending class and weight the fee. We are relying totally on the abstracting and indexing service here. And by extension, we're reliant on all publishers providing accurate and usable metadata for that publication. So you're thinking, that's great, just get all of that data, but it is really not that simple.
GEORGIE FIELD: And there are a ton of points in this process where human or system error is possible. It is a ton of manual work, and we're missing opportunities to do more by limitations in data. So we first end up with these super long Boolean strings to find publications, and we have to spot-check and make sure we've not accidentally included an ambiguous term in the search. Different keywords and classifications are used across different abstracting and indexing services, so the consistent approach to this is really key.
GEORGIE FIELD: We use formulas to aggregate and to calculate a corresponding author percentage for each institution, and the institution data can be patchy and it's not always standardized to Ringgold's to RORs, to GRID. Even if it is standardized, it's not a given that all of those data sources are standardizing to the same scheme. So sometimes you end up mapping between schemes. We found sometimes institutes equated to a departmental level, as you saw from Diane, and some are attributed to what I like to call a super parent.
GEORGIE FIELD: So like the University of California system which encompasses several institutions and countless more departments. In the majority of cases, all negotiations are happening with consortia for agreements at an institutional level, not at a super parent level. So if you can't disentangle all of those institutions, you're modeling a price for a customer that doesn't exist. So the institutional hierarchies are key here.
GEORGIE FIELD: And the last thing we do, and I really took this for granted when we started, was we had to map alpha-3 country codes to all the various different ways of writing a country so that we could map the World Bank lending classes. So having country codes as just a standard thing would have been a massive time-saver for us. We ended up with a ton of data, and that makes up what I like to call the universe of publications and institutes for each journal.
GEORGIE FIELD: So why does it matter? Surely there must be a margin for error in this process, but getting it right is quite high stakes for us. Charging an institution removes the burden of payment from an author, it levels the playing field across disciplines that receive really different levels of funding, and it prevents the indignity of an author having to apply for a waiver. If our model doesn't resonate with an institute and they don't want to enter into an agreement, then publishing fees remain for an author.
GEORGIE FIELD: We have a real opportunity here to set the bar for transparency and affordability for institutions. So if we mischaracterize that universe of publications due to poor metadata, we risk over or undercharging and institution and immediately undermining trust in our model. So better metadata would also enable us to be even more transparent. And at renewal, we could do something provide a breakdown of which research departments are using our agreements and how a library could support their research is to engage more with open access.
GEORGIE FIELD: And I didn't really want to end on money, but financial sustainability is really fundamental, and we can only continue to change the scholarly communications process if we can fund the work. So the fees are set using the size and the makeup of the university publication. So if we've got it wrong, then the balance between income and costs could really be off.
GEORGIE FIELD: There are a ton of opportunities to make better use of the system identifiers, and it would certainly make modeling this kind of fee structure much, much easier. And it would lower the barrier to entry for other publishers to experiment in this area, and for me, the more paths there are to equitable scholarly communications, the better. That's all for me. Thank you so much there is more about global equity at the link on the slide, as is my email and Twitter.
GEORGIE FIELD: I'd love to chat further.
HANNAH HECKNER: Thank you so much, Georgie. I wonder whether authors really truly understand the importance of that affiliation line as they're writing their paper. I feel like all of the speakers thus far today have really shown that there is a lot of information there and there's a lot of ways to have things get confused and garbled, and having more persistence along those lines is going to be really important. Speaking of the researcher perspective, our final speaker is Steven Vidovic who will be able to offer some insights from that side of things.
HANNAH HECKNER: Dr. Steven Vidovic is the Head of Open Research and Publication Practice at the University of Southampton UK. Previously, Steven managed a substantial and diverse portfolio of biological and earth and environmental sciences journals for Taylor & Francis. And additionally, Steven is the chair of the DOAJ advisory board. So we really look forward to hearing your perspective as a recovering publisher now on the research side of things, Steven.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Yeah, definitely a recovering publisher, I like that. So yes, I'm from the University of Southampton in the UK. We're a research-intensive university, part of the Russell Group of Universities. And-- I can't seem to move on my slide. And I'm here today to give the institutional perspective, as Hannah said. And we're really privileged from an institutional perspective, because from the turn of the century, the University of Southampton started to develop the EPrints platform which contributes to most or many, at least, institutional and subject repositories for the progress of green open access, which hasn't really been discussed yet today.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: And I'm mindful starting off this presentation, however, that we are based in the UK. We're on the South Coast of England and we're a Global North institution. And so whilst I'm here to represent the views of institutions, I can't begin to fully represent all of the views and all of the institutions globally. Although everything that we do at the University of Southampton works towards an open research agenda.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: The university strategy, which was recently launched, which is a Triple Helix, where research enterprise and education all feed into each other is very much the way that we like to work. Research-- the Open Research Agenda is embedded into our policies, including, of course, our open access policy, but also our responsible research metrics policy, our authorship and contribution publishing policies.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: It's embedded in our activities all the way from education to post-publication engagement with our research. And as mentioned, it's also in enterprise and the people in the form of the services and support we provide as an institution. And this is all for this grand aim of realizing our best research, which I'm sure is a common aim across all institutions.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Yes, so this is actually my last slide, but I will talk around it quite a lot. So I want to talk a bit about the challenges in open research. We've spoken a lot about the solutions, really, so far. But with every solution, that is presented there's also additional challenges, especially from the institutional perspective, the boots on the ground.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: So we have this issue of growing awareness, which, I think, has been touched upon already making the researchers aware of the need for open research and the value of open research. Why would they want to engage with it? There's also open throughout the research lifecycle. So many people are now starting to become better aware of the need for open access publishing of their final research output, but what about the development of that research output?
STEVEN VIDOVIC: What about after the final publication? It's not just about doing the research, publishing it. It's also about having the research read by the right people at the right time so that they can build upon that research for the benefit of the public. It's partly to do with reward and recognition as well. A lot of these things that we've spoken about, the identifiers are part of the rewards and recognition system.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: So the reason that we might get funding in an institution is because the good work we do. The reason that we're able to demonstrate that is because of abstracting and indexing services which receive information from Ringgold and from DOIs and these other persistent identifiers that allow us to demonstrate the value of our research. This also opens up opportunities for inappropriate behaviors around publishing.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: And it also opens up for unintentional misapplication of publishing. For example, when we're talking about global perspective where there are these institutions that are heavily involved in open research, we might think benevolently that it's really a good thing to have one of our authors is a corresponding author so that we can take advantage of an agreement that we have with a publisher.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: But that, then, might deny opportunities to somebody else from another institution who is from a less developed institution, a less developed nation, et cetera. So we have to be mindful of these unintentional consequences of our ambitions. We have a responsibility to the funder's agenda, and when I say that, really, actually, the funders have a responsibility to us first, and they develop their policies and their requirements.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Because on large part, this is what the institutions are asking them to do, that we're asking them to mandate open research to help us to progress. We, then, can take responsibility for those because with the contract holders with the publishers, with these other organizations. And we're also the people who are managing the finances. So we're able to have those conversations.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: We're the direct contact to these organizations that manage our research, and so that's important. From the point of view of the institutional repository, we need robust metadata. In many circumstances, we are actually-- because of University of Southampton's version of EPrints especially being so old and organically grown, but well-established, more importantly, quite often we do find that we surface content better than some publishers and it's much easier to find content through EPrints.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: The institutional repositories are not going to go away, and they are quite often the best way-- as well as subjects repositories, they're the best way of collecting similar research together rather than being under a branded umbrella of a publisher. From that point of view, we need to gather the most robust metadata as possible, and we need to ensure that there's duplication of effort, because at every twist and turn of that research lifecycle, researchers are asked to re-enter the same information over and over again.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: If we could harvest this information from the original source from the point of first entry, usually into a peer review management system, then that would be better for everyone, and it would give us greater insight into the research that's being produced at the institution because we don't always have cited it until after the acceptance date. And then the final thing that me and my team do-- what we do an awful lot, in fact but we contribute to conversations with organizations such as JISC in the UK.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: And also we contribute to research libraries, UK'S Open Access Publishing Processes Group who work with publishers to ensure the best workflows are in place, and this is to ensure that transformative agreements are effective and truly transformational, which is very important for us, because we really do want to see this transition to open research to have traction and to work in the best way, then for it to be as inclusive and equitable as possible.
STEVEN VIDOVIC: Thank you very much.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: Well, thank you, Dr. Steven Vidovic at the University of Southampton for your presentation. And thank you for reminding us about the challenges. I think that's an important point. We've been talking about persistent identifiers. It's something that seems actually insubstantial, but the very substantial challenges that you just outlined for us are really tied so closely to it.
CHRIS KENNEALLY: And we appreciate you raising that, and we think that that's a very good place to also remind our audience that we encourage you to share with us your challenges, your own thoughts and your concerns in the discussion period that follows this program. And with that, I'll turn things over to my co-host, Hannah Heckner, to wrap up this piece of the program.
HANNAH HECKNER: Yeah. Thank you so much, Chris. Thank you so much to all of these panelists. I really look forward to hearing the discussion that is going to follow, as well as maybe participating myself. So thanks, everyone, for your engagement and your participation, and we'll look forward to continuing this conversation in the chat as well as hopefully in future in-person meetings. Thanks so much.
HANNAH HECKNER: [MUSIC PLAYING]
Form Title Download
Video
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode