Name:
APAC Countries Approaching OA
Description:
APAC Countries Approaching OA
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/fd8f7bac-fd6a-45bd-ba06-b7f7a254fbe4/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H29M03S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/fd8f7bac-fd6a-45bd-ba06-b7f7a254fbe4
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/fd8f7bac-fd6a-45bd-ba06-b7f7a254fbe4/APAC Countries Approaching OA.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=Np9kpQWPAfPcwO3DIV1z6JZ4EYRqny1ENRdwtdLyLKA%3D&st=2024-05-17T02%3A46%3A19Z&se=2024-05-17T04%3A51%3A19Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
OK thank you for joining the discussion part. We are waiting for some more participants to come. Yup now. It's good to see you. I mean, you were having a commitment this morning, so I was afraid you cannot make it. Yeah, I could. I yeah, I got here finally.
OK OK. Again, thank you for participating. And we have about 20 minutes for a discussion. So if you have questions, please raise your hands, or you could post your question to the chat window in either way. And while you were thinking about questions, I have a question to cut through and thank you for explaining about the history of the open access and also the landscape in other countries.
Now, you emphasized that the emergence of the transformative agreement in European countries and also in North America, well as well as South America, was driven by a policy such as the pen se or the OCP memorandum. And you also mentioned those movements. Although there are no strong policy in Asian region, those movement did affect or has been affecting the acceleration of transform the agreement in a region.
But still. Well, to the best of my knowledge, except for NHMRC, there is no apparent strong policy in this region and you might have felt a difference of the atmosphere of the negotiation in this region compared to other area of the world. So from that perspective, do you have any inputs to funders or policymakers in Asian countries, in particular to Japan and Korea who are present here today?
We would like to hear that. Yeah thank you. Yes is she? Yes as a publisher, of course. This is personal. So of course I represent yz. So there might be different opinions. But my personal view is that I have a privilege that I've connected with Sohn as well as the association, and we can discuss on how we can unify the policies in Japan.
But I have been impressed by the Ministry of Education is now heavily involved in the negotiation and the dialogue and they're having a dialogue with the major publishers. We have that the last one was last month and they are keen to know the transformative agreement structure as well as our strategy. So although we are a little bit behind in terms of well in Japan, there are different funders who have different standpoints.
But I think that in comparison with 10 years ago when I was in a different company, I think it has really progressed since then. Of course, there was a committee within the Ministry of Education that the price structure is not well perceived, and I must admit that the publishers and the libraries were not best friends. But I'm trying to stress the fact that we have a common goal.
We have our common goal is how we can support the researchers. So having that common goal, I would like to continue the dialogue in order to raise the presence of Japan. I hope that answers your question. OK thank you. So, Hannah or vico, so what is your response to Carter's comment? I mean, as I understand well, after all, the commitment from the high level entities, such as a government or ministry is one of the key driver to promote open access, including a Transfer Agreement.
So how do you see your country landscape in korea? Japan? whoever comes first, please. Right can I say something? Yes before I remember that, I asked cuts that if there are any some a certain effort to unify those so many laws or negotiations came into, especially in Japan because we are aware that the Japanese is not good at doing some kind of communicate, having such communications or negotiation that it's a very big work to talk with publishers, especially for publishers.
And one by one. And while I'm at university, by University or institution institutions, then I think the more unified efforts or our system can be suitable for Japan culture. So that's I hope that kind of different system could would be also developed.
I agree that the government is promoting or considering that. So starting some new negotiation or conversation with publishers. OK thank you. So, Hannah, do you have any comments? Yes as I mentioned in my presentation. Can you hear me? Well, as I mentioned in my presentation, Korea concluded two transformative agreements with Elsevier and violet.
But it's not enough. As I mentioned, there are a few critical problems, urgent problems for further policy actions. Firstly, doesn't have a proper National Open access policy yet, so it's important to amend legislation in the area of management of outputs from government funded research by including explicit open access mandates in that legislation. And after such amendments, funders and public institutions will have to adopt aligned open access policies and according to Korean legal systems, a kind of top down approach, the real push needed for the legislation level.
Second, we really don't want to be dependent exclusively on transformative agreements model, so we want to foster a domestic open access publishing ecosystem first, for example, a greater financial support that's needed for domestic journals to flip to open access model. Currently, academic journals can be supported by National Research Foundation. If you know, NSF and this fund is really limited for domestic journals.
For example, only 10% of all journals in the field of social sciences are supported by this fund. So creative support is needed. And also we are thinking about creating some more collaborative, diverse venues for immediate open access publishing, like open access publishing platforms. So the means that like researchers should have different like choices for open access. So support is needed and researchers should have diverse venues for open access publishing.
And the final thing is, sadly, at this moment, there is no incentives in research evaluation processes. So if you publish open access paper, it's not counted. It's not within the indicators for research performance. So we need to transform this system as well. And I think it's not only a problem in Korea, it's a global problem. And especially this research evaluation is a problem in the Asian region because in Europe these days there are lots of initiatives.
For example, in Netherlands, in France, for example, in the French institute, CNRS, they allow reporting so that all outputs should be deposited in open access archive called Cow and only open publication is eligible for reporting and evaluation. But closed papers, you cannot report them as output of your project, but there is no initiative at this moment in Korea. So it's also a very important area for push.
Thank you. Well, any reflection from cuts to these comments? Yes, I agree. Well, culturally, Japan and Korea were similar. I think if there's a top down decision made, some sort of policy makes a lot of people want easier, but the reality is that it's not that way yet. So as a foreign publisher, I think that how can we bottom up the and I know that the green policy is still underlying in Japan so how can we collaborate not under evaluating green repositories?
You know, maybe we can link together the version of record in order to retain the version of a record. And of course, that's happening. But I think that we need to continue that as well. We won't just push gold away. You will also maybe have a link linkage to the repositories themselves and. Yes like to accelerate that way, maybe. OK thank you.
We we got a question from Robertson. Thank you, mark. In the chat window. So it's just a question of what cuts to the Take up of transformative agreements in Japan appears to be coming from University leadership and next rather than the libraries. So what part of the institutions will be managing the agreements from their side?
Well, it's very. Thank you. Thank you, mark. Yes as the deal is transformative right now, the libraries are the main contact for this deal. However, the atcs are managed in different divisions. So right now what we are doing is that the library themselves don't know the way on how to engage with the research department.
So I think it's kind of a consultative approach right now that, you know, please contact the research administration division because we acknowledge that your University researchers are paying this amount of ABC. So the library budget and you have to combine together the ABCs and the subscription amount in order to migrate to the transformative agreement. So right now there are various departments that we engage with.
Thank you. OK well, here's another question from Marc again. It's a question of risk, Nana. So saying that Jason Christie seemed to be leading the founder open access initiatives in these countries. So can you comment on how the other agencies are following or not? I want to correct a bit that Christie is not a funder.
So not this funding ANSI but is like research government funded research institute, which is responsible for management and distribution of knowledge and information from government funded research with a focus on science and technology field. So we particularly we develop some infrastructures, national infrastructures, which accumulate integrate all knowledge from government funded research. So as I mentioned, for example, in my presentation, we have also the main funder.
Called National Research foundation, and that if and since there are no requirements in legislation, they don't have official open access policies, a policy, but they have research data management policy, but it's applied to case by case to like certain data intensive projects, fields like neuroscience, biomedicine and so on. And for this project, they require to submit DNP.
But it's not various for like sharing data itself, depositing. It's not very strict requirement, but a requirement for data management plans. I also can put emphasis on one problem I mentioned in presentation regarding research data. So in we have a law which provide close list of four types of outputs of such outputs, and this law doesn't treat research data as a type of output.
So there are a few consequences of this. First, it's like a law and policies really don't have doesn't have any requirement for submitting research data and even formatted data because for other types, for research outputs, we have a requirements that research should submit at least metadata of outputs, but such data is not output, so there is no requirement even for metadata. If researchers want they on a voluntary basis, they can deposit the research data produced within the project to open repository.
And we also have a National Research data platform called data one, so it can be done through this platform. But the problem is that such data is not connected with project metadata. This project outputs so it's different platforms and there are no link between this information. OK so. So agenda for further work as well.
But it's also it's example how technology and regulation intertwined, because first it should be done like amendments in legislation level and then it will be a link between these platforms. OK so let's go. So I want you to answer to my first question. And also Hannah mentioned a very important point. And I think the GST is hosting a general platform and preprint servers and also a through course initiative.
You are trying to connect the projects and data and articles, everything through the pipeline. So would you make a comment on these issues? Yes, thank you for the question mark. And yes, there are our main three funders on science and technology under ministry of education and science and one of GSD and another is JSP, Japan Society for promotion of science.
And they funds more researchers broadly and that most of the researches are curiosity driven. The bottom up researches and on the other hand, is its funding is led by the government, by that government strategic policy. And so and JSP has also open science policy and they recommend mandate open access research they fund it but that their policy is not.
Very strong or they don't say. So they don't doesn't don't insist that it isn't mandate. I think because they fund more researchers and if they have more influence than GST, the amount of that fund is larger than GST.
Totally but and another one, the third one is aimed and I think yes, it is now is about that better than me. Better than I am. I do. And we don't have any policy yet. So I think that I found as well is considering that it and if government issued a new policy as a national policy, the other funders will define some of that policy.
And the question from Suzy and Hannah, yes, we have some platforms, including data and journal platform. And the way of kind of following the global trend and the. To provide some such platforms and they data and research data and articles should be open and also connected or only.
Then its as the present I as mentioned, I add as I mentioned at the end of my presentation, the government also promote open science, including research data and research papers on the National platforms day stage to archive preprint server and say data and also institutional repositories and data research data platforms by National Institute of informatics.
So that's all connected and that we are. Ready to receive such information and data. But the issue is how to utilize those platforms by especially by how researchers think about that or are of open science. Importance of open science. That's our issue. OK thank you. Well, I'm afraid we are approaching to the end of the session, and I have many other issues that we would like to discuss, but.
Allow me to take some few more minutes to invite some comments on this topic, which is a linguistic background. We had a session yesterday in the same time time slot about the metadata in the non Roman character countries. Now there were very many interesting. The conversations there. Now, I think the same kind of issue resides in this open access thing.
Now I'd like to invite one comment from niceville people how they view this landscape. I'm sorry for a sudden request, but that would be very nice for a comment that concludes this session. So anyone please, if there is any. This is a comment specifically on hello, by the way, my name is Mary Beth Burleigh.
I enjoy your presentation and hearing about how each perhaps from a different angle, but each of you are supporting that move toward open science in the apac region. So to address your question, did you mean to address, to share our thoughts specifically on multi multilingual metadata or just on your presentation in general? OK I would like to hear some comments about the multi linguistic issues that may affect the promotion of open access.
Well, there could be many, many issues. And this is I'm sorry for the vague question, but we it will be very interesting to hear. Sure sure. I see Todd coming on. And I'm sure that he will have some perspectives. I did sit I did sit-in that session. I think it really drove the point home that scholarly communication is global and it is not.
And I, I can't remember off the top of my head the speaker's name. But but, you know, we tend to think of English as the language for STM, but even in some STM disciplines, it is not. It depends on the country and it depends on the discipline. So I think what the speakers were talking about in that session were very important. And I think there are some opportunities there for enterprising organizations that want to explore solutions.
But I'm going to since I know it's good for me, I'm going to cede the floor to Todd, who I'm sure will have some thoughts on this. Yeah, sadly, I didn't participate in the session on multilingual metadata yet last evening I was moderating a different session. First of all, I think for those of you who haven't didn't see the conversation with safiya noble, her talk touched a lot on this.
And I encourage you all to listen to the recording. If you have not about engaging and international community a decolonial decolonial ized community in exchanging information. And a lot of that has to do with not forcing people who are non-English speakers to communicate in a second language in order to communicate their science.
I tend to think there is an opportunity with the advancements of natural, natural language processing and machine learning to help support. I don't want to hand over to the AI systems. Machine translations. Anyone who has seen some of that, it's OK under some circumstances, but particularly when it comes to science.
I would trust it, but I think there could be pretty interesting efforts to create a corpus of. Mappings between controlled vocabularies for metadata so that there is a Japanese vocabulary and there's a corresponding English vocabulary that you could have experts who are bilingual.
Double check the automated translations and confirm that they are correct. You know, there was a great example last evening in one of the presentations about the term, and this was in the how standards organizations work together. The Japanese term for more than which trend like more than four, more than three in the US that means four or five or six.
But in the Japanese translation, it includes three, which if you're doing a standard for manufacturing, that kind of lack of accuracy can create real problems when you're talking about manufacturing. So I hold out hope for sort of human assisted or machine assisted by human translations and mappings of things like metadata.
And as long as we have a kind of human in the loop that sort of. Metadata creation will facilitate greater exchange of content between different native speakers of different languages. It's a really important issue. Is it sushi? I really think we should think ahead in terms of where we could go with it.
And I open access will very likely facilitate that because you don't have to negotiate a license to train some machine learning model in order to do that. OK thank you. Thank you for the memory for. Answering to my sudden request. So, Hannah, did you have any quick comments, please? Because we are running all the time, so.
Yes I mean, in Europe, there are lots of states initiatives, projects on this issue because in Europe there are also different languages and but they have very strong regional cooperation on domestic open access publishing. And maybe, you know, this example, Kraft, the demos projects which focus on multilingual issues, on also how to build capacities in domestic journals.
So, I mean, maybe it's a good idea for Asian countries try to cooperate and on sharing capacities for helping journals to flip, to open access model and so on. OK share sharing, technical tools, training and standards, discussing standards and so on. Yes OK. Well I am afraid to that I have to end the session shop here.
And also we. And thank you for all who posted the links to information in the chat window. Please follow those links. So with this, I'd like to close the session and we all appreciate the participation from many, many people here, regardless of sometimes inconvenient times, depending on where you are. So thank you.
Thank you and goodbye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye.