As you probably know, last week was International Open Access Week, a time when trends and issues related to open access are on the minds of many in the academic community. I was no exception, and found myself thinking back to Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research, a report published over the summer by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
According to the report, real progress has been made toward open science in the last number of years, and we are beginning to see the benefits of researchers having free access to the latest publications, data, and other research products in their fields. Open science encourages cross-disciplinary collaboration, accelerates the dissemination of knowledge, achieves efficiencies in the use of resources, and much more.
That said, the research community still faces a number of challenges, both economic and cultural. Many of the most prestigious venues adhere to traditional, closed publishing models, and it is difficult for academic institutions to adequately incentivize and reward open science practices. Moreover, significant cost and infrastructure barriers remain.
In response to this ecosystem, the authors of the report propose a framework for open science by design. They lay out a series of practices and principles aimed at helping researchers share and collaborate more effectively, contributing to and benefitting from open science at each stage of the research process.
But what does this mean for us here at the Libraries?
As the report notes, libraries are a key stakeholder in the scholarly communication process. We have a responsibility to facilitate open science, from training researchers in best practices such as compliance with FAIR data principles to ensuring the long-term preservation and stewardship of research products.
At Rutgers, we have established a reputation on campus as being at the forefront of open access, playing leadership roles in establishing the university’s Open Access Policy, publishing and providing a platform for gold open access journals, spearheading the university’s ORCID initiative, and managing SOAR, the university’s green open access repository.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the report’s discussion of the high cost related to green open access repositories. While they are a useful first step in the move toward a fully open system, green repositories are costly to build and maintain, present ongoing challenges in terms of content storage, and are impacted by continuing discussions about bibliographic metrics. Moreover, “compliance involving deposits in a repository requires time, which necessitates education, assistance, and incentives,” the authors write. And so it is unsurprising to see that comparatively little of the scholarly literature is available through these avenues.
While we are well-positioned at Rutgers to effect change in this area, clearly we can’t do it alone. In order for us to be successful, we need to canvass key partners on campus for their support and promote a unified approach to open access. We have to scale up and develop new methods to acquire content. And we must use the findings of reports like Open Science by Design as guidance to ensure we are facilitating open scholarship in an effective and sustainable way that realizes the vision articulated by the National Academies.
