Tag Archives: open access

Data Diversity Podcast #3 – Dr Nick H. Wise (4/4)

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Thank you for staying with us throughout this four-part series with Dr Nick Wise, scientist and an engineer, who has made his name as a scientific sleuth. By now, it is hoped that he needs no introduction (though if you would like one, please look back at the previous posts).

In this final post, we get Nick’s take on what he thinks the repercussions should be for engaging in fraud, and we get a parting tip from Nick on what researchers should do when performing a literature search on papers in their field. Below are some excerpts from the conversation, which can be listened to in full here.

Most people don’t go into science wanting to fake stuff. With such cases, it can often be a sign that there’s a real problem in the lab or in the group. Why else would someone feel so compelled to do this? If the pressure is coming from the university demanding papers from them, then it’s the problem with the university. 

Repercussions for research fraud 

LO: You have mentioned that some editors have been let go from their positions as editors – are there any other repercussions for getting involved with fraud? 

NW: Often, institutions are the worst in terms of responding. Recently, I was at the World Conference on Research Integrity in Athens and spoke to other investigators like me, including publishers and people in the research integrity space. Some publishers have informed me that even when they want to make a retraction and have gone to the author’s or editor’s institution to inform them that a staff member has been involved with fraud, often the institution doesn’t reply at all, or even if they do, they will not do anything. They are very defensive, and they do not want any bad publicity for the institution and so they will not respond at all. Even in a well-regarded western University where someone has been caught fabricating their data, the response could just be that they have been relieved of teaching duties for six months, but they’ve kept their job and there will be no publicity that we know.  

In Spain, a professor that has just been made Rector, the Head of the University of Salamanca, the oldest university in Spain, has been linked to questionable publication practices for the last decade or so. He was found to have his name on an incredible number of papers which have been cited an incredible number of times, including by people who don’t exist. There has been a fight in the Spanish press to try highlight this. But despite of all this press, including national press in Spain, this person has become the Rector of the University of Salamanca. And it’s basically the same the world over: institutions very much go into protection mode even if publishers have agreed on retracting the papers. Often there are no career repercussions at all. Sometimes, they will just go and be editor of a different journal or for a different publisher. 

LO: In your opinion, what should happen to an academic or researcher who has engaged in fraud? 

NW: I think it really depends on the nature of the fraud and the position that the researcher holds. If a PhD student has done something and if they have been caught after, say, the first offence, then I think there should be leniency. Regardless of if they have bought an authorship, or if they have tried to fake some data, they still have a way out and it should be offered to them. Again, a lot of the drive for PhD students faking some data is because their P.I. (Principal Investigator) is demanding results, demanding that things happen faster, or demanding ground-breaking results. At some point, people become desperate. Most people don’t go into science wanting to fake stuff. With such cases, it can often be a sign that there’s a real problem in the lab or in the group. Why else would someone feel so compelled to do this? If the pressure is coming from the university demanding papers from them, then it’s the problem with the university. A lot of this drive is external to researchers. But if you have someone that is a tenured professor who has been doing this for a long time and they have been caught out on a decade or more of fabricated results, those feel like that should be the end of the road. It really depends on the nature of what has been done, the stage of career of the person, and how much fraud has been committed. 

LO: Do you ever worry about being called out for being sued for defamation? 

NW: I have thought about it, and I try to err on the side of caution and make sure that there is fairly hard evidence for anything I say publicly. You can have suspicions without saying anything publicly – you would just go to the publisher. But when I find an advert for a named paper and then six months later a paper with that same title is published, then it is clear cut that someone should investigate. But fortunately, so far, I have not been threatened with anything. 

I think it is also partly due to the fact that accusing people of making up their data is more personal. When authorship is bought, by the time I find it, some of these people would have already got what they needed. If they needed to have a publication in order to graduate, once they have graduated, they do not care if the publication is retracted. Often when you read a retraction notice after the authorship has been sold, they will normally say that none of the authors responded. This may also be down to the fact that they know that they have been caught but there is nothing to defend. But when you are accusing someone of making up data, I think that is far more personal attack. When someone has bought authorship, they do not have a personal connection to the paper, so they move on. They are probably annoyed, but they cannot do anything about it. 

Parting advice

LO: To end, are there any takeaways that you would like to share? 

 NW: I would encourage all researchers to download the PubPeer plugin, which means that whenever they are looking at a paper, it will flag whether there are any comments about that paper, or indeed any comments in the reference or the reference papers on PubPeer. If someone else has found a problem with that paper, they can just quickly go and check and be more informed. 

We are grateful for Dr Nick Wise sharing his perspective on the publishing industry and research culture that many of us are not privy to. Nick has highlighted many issues which raise pressing concerns for research integrity. We thank him for his time speaking with us and we hope that readers will take his advice on using PubPeer when they embark on literature searching (and of course, refrain from committing fraud, lest you will have Nick on your case).

Data Diversity Podcast #3 – Dr Nick H. Wise (3/4)

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

Welcome back to the penultimate post featuring Dr Nick H. Wise, Research Associate in Architectural Fluid Mechanics at the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge. If you have been with us for the previous two posts, you would know that besides being a scientist and an engineer, Nick has made his name as a scientific sleuth who, based on an article on the blog Retraction Watch which was written in 2022, is responsible for more than 850 retractions, leading Times Higher Education to dub him as a research fraudbuster. Since then, through his X account @Nickwizzo, he has continued his investigations, tracking cases of fraud and in some cases, naming and shaming the charlatans. In this four-part series, we will learn from Nick about some of the shady activities that taint the scientific publishing industry today.

In part three, we learn from Nick about how researchers try to generate more citations from a single piece of research through a trick called ‘salami slicing’ and the blurred lines between illegality and desperately coping to meet with the unrealistic expectations of academia (to the point of engaging with fraud). Below are some excerpts from the conversation, which can be listened to in full here. 

Citation count was once a proxy for quality and now it is citation count regardless of quality. People are only looking at the citation count, and not the actual quality. Actually assessing quality takes a lot more effort. 

‘Salami slicing’ and the Game of Citations

LO: What do you think is better for science? A slower, more thoughtful process of publishing and everything in between? Or more information, more research, but then things like fraud slip through and occur more frequently?

NW: I don’t think there’s necessarily more research. Another phenomenon that paper mills take advantage of is salami slicing. Imagine you have completed a research project. Now you could write this up as one, thirty-page paper or two, twenty-page papers. You could write two comprehensive papers or try to put out multiple ten-page papers where you have some minor parameters changed. I see this happening in nanofluids research because it is an area of research close to mine. The nanofluid is simply a base liquid – it might be water, it might be ethanol – and into that you mix these very small nanoscale particles of some other material, such as gold, silver, or iron oxide. And in this sort of mixture of liquid and particles, you want to investigate its fluid flow and describe this with some differential equations. You can use computers to solve the differential equations and then plot some results about velocity profiles and heat transfer coefficients, etcetera. Now, you could write a paper for a given situation where you say, I’m not going to specify the liquid, but here is a general and viscosity of this liquid. If you want to apply this to your own research, you plug in the density and viscosity of your liquid, and likewise the particles. I’m not going to specify which particles are used, because all that changes is their density and their heat transfer coefficient properties. So that’s one way you could do it.

Another way to do it is to go I’m going to write a paper about water and gold particles; that’s one paper. Then you can write another paper which has water and silver particles, and then you can write one with ethanol and iron oxide, and there are so many varieties. You can also vary the geometry that this flow is going around, and you can add in an electric field and a magnetic field, etcetera. You can build up in this n-factorial way. There are thirty possible liquids multiplied by a hundred possible particles and multiplied by however many geometric configurations. You can see that this is what they are doing. Rather than writing a few quite general comprehensive papers, they are writing hundreds of very specific papers which enables them to produce more papers and sell more authorships and put more citations in. But this overwhelm of papers produced; there’s still only so many peer reviewers, and so many editors. And this phenomenon happens in lots of fields, they find something where there are just these variables that they can keep writing almost the same paper. Yet, the paper is original. It has not been done before. It is incredibly derivative, but that is not necessarily a barrier to publication.

LO: What I’m getting from this is, this is part of the whole system, and the issue at hand is definitely enabled by certain motivations like getting more citations. You can take one big piece of salami or publish that in one book, or you can slice the salami thirty ways. And if they are in the position to slice the salami, they say why not, I suppose, right? A game is there to be played.

NW: Right, they are playing the game that is in front of them. And again, there are people who do this who are not from a paper mill. They just want to maximize the number of citations and publications. The question is why are they doing this? Why do they want to maximize their publications? Because they want a promotion, or they want a tenured job. There are also countries where you get a cash reward for publishing a paper in a good journal so the more papers you publish, the more money you get paid. Your government might have told all the universities that they need to increase their ranking in the World University rankings. How do you do that? By increasing your research output and the citations you get. That is another driver. These drivers come from all sorts of places but there is always an emphasis on numbers. Citation count was once a proxy for quality and now it is citation count regardless of quality. People are only looking at the citation count and not the actual quality. Assessing quality takes a lot more effort.

LO: Citations used to be a proxy for quality, but that is not the case anymore. But it still implies the quality of the research, or you would hope.

NW: You would hope, but only because there is an assumption that the only reason something has a lot of citations is because it is good quality. Citations are also easier to count. Quality is much harder to account for, but that incentivizes people to do things like cite their colleagues. Again, you could still track it if people from the same university were citing each other. But then you get bigger scale things with middlemen who organize people from across the world to cite each other or just do it for cash. If you are publishing and you are producing papers to order, each one of those papers has a reference section which is real estate. You can throw in and have some genuine references which are relevant to this paper, but you can also throw in some irrelevant references that someone paid you to include. You can also pay someone to include references that are actually relevant to a topic.

LO: If it is relevant to a topic, it is almost like merely encouraging someone to be aware of certain work as opposed to a scam, which sounds like a gray area.

NW: Well, I would say that as soon as someone is paying money, then it starts to be illegitimate. But I mean if someone emails you and says “I’ve just published this paper, I think you might be interested, it’s in your research field: maybe read it or maybe you do cite it”, it’s different from someone emailing you to say “I’ll pay you £50 if you cite my paper” and you do. Then I would say that you have crossed a line. So, it does get very gray. Then there are these organized paper mills who are doing this as a business and that is where I think it becomes quite clear that it is probably not legitimate.

Facebook (authorship) marketplace

NW: You could go on Facebook and there are people selling authorship of their paper as a one off. There are PhD students in some country with no research funding who say “it costs $2500 for the article processing charge for me to publish where I would like to publish, I do not have $2500 so if you pay the $2500, you can be first author on the paper” and that is the only way they can get their paper published. They’re not doing this as a business, they’re just doing this once for this one paper. And you get people responding. Quite often professors or more established academics with access to budgets are the ones who will say yes. And the only thing that the person has done is to provide the funding for the publication.

The minimum thing that one is supposed to have done to be considered an author is to have either written the draft or reviewed and edited the paper. You might have also done data analysis or conceptualization. I think we would agree that if all this person does is just pay the fee for publication, then that is not acceptable. But what if they read the paper and then made a couple of comments? Now they have reviewed and edited it, and so now they have done review, editing and funding. There are many big labs around the world that have some very senior scientist whose name is on every single paper that comes out of the lab. And what have they done? Well, they provided all the funding, and they have reviewed the paper. I bet there are some who have barely glanced at the paper. But let’s say that they have reviewed the paper, and they provided the funding for the publication. Is that what makes it different to the person on Facebook who has found some random professor from another country to pay for their publication? Where is the difference? I don’t think it is an easy line to draw. In this way, the move to Open Access publishing requiring large fees for publication has also driven quite a bit of this phenomenon.

LO: It also seems like you have developed a bit of empathy. Maybe you’ve looked at so many cases and you see that it’s not always clear.

NW: Absolutely. Again, if you have the people running a paper mill, or if you have some professor who is being bribed and waving through dozens of papers, I don’t have much empathy for them. But the Masters or PhD student who has been told that they have to publish papers to get their PhD or even a Masters and they have this demand placed on them, or they even have produced a paper but they need this on the all this money to get it published, I don’t blame them for what they’re doing. It’s the situation they’ve been placed in. It is the system that they are part of. I have a lot of empathy for them.

Look out for the final post coming next week, where we get Nick’s take on what he thinks should be the repercussions for engaging in fraud, and we get a parting tip from Nick on what researchers should do when performing a literature search on papers in their field.

Data Diversity Podcast #3 – Dr Nick H. Wise (2/4)

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

We are back again with our second blog post featuring Dr Nick H. Wise, Research Associate in Architectural Fluid Mechanics at the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge. As is the theme of the Data Diversity podcast, we spoke to Nick about his experience as a researcher, but this is a special edition of the podcast. Besides being a scientist and an engineer, Nick has made his name as a scientific sleuth who, based on an article on the blog Retraction Watch which was written in 2022, is responsible for more than 850 retractions, leading Times Higher Education to dub him as a research fraudbuster. Since then, through his X account @Nickwizzo, he has continued his investigations, tracking cases of fraud and in some cases, naming and shaming the charlatans.

In this four-part series, we will learn from Nick about some of the shady activities that taint the scientific publishing industry today. In this second part, we get Nick’s take on the peer review process and fake research data, and I ask his opinion on where the fault lies in the publication of fraudulent research. Below are some excerpts from the conversation, which can be listened to in full here. 

There are indices like Scopus or Web of Science or SCI, all these different bodies who claim journals are trustworthy, but every journal is going to get attacked by fraud and some will slip through. It is what you do afterwards that matters. 

On the peer review process

LO: As an Early Career Researcher, scientist, engineer, and researcher yourself, is your trust in the whole system still intact? Do you still see value in the peer review process? 

NW: It has absolutely changed how I read a paper and how I view particular journals. When you see a problem happening in a journal that you have read in your research or a journal you have considered submitting to, it really gives you pause for thought. There is an entire ecosystem of journals, right from the from the very good down to the very bad, that are implicated. There are indices like Scopus or Web of Science or SCI, all these different bodies who claim journals are trustworthy, but every journal is going to get attacked by fraud and some will slip through. It is what you do afterwards that matters. Another phenomenon that particularly happens with publishers with a wide list of journals, is that the paper mill will legitimately buy the journal. They may even take it over in a hostile way: they will make a clone of the journal and the website, and they will even redirect the publisher’s link to a different website. They now control a journal that is officially on this trustworthy list. Now they have a short period of time before someone notices and in that time, they will try to publish as many papers as possible and charge everyone for publication. They will absolutely cram this journal with any content. It does not even have to be relevant to the topic because they’re fully in control of the whole process up until the publisher notices and removes the journal from the list. For an author who needs a journal in a paper published in a well-regarded journal, they have achieved what they needed but as soon as the journal is removed from the list, then it becomes worthless. But there is a large supply of these journals, and they will keep trying to take them over. This tends to happen with low tier journals, but there are also paper mills which are targeting journals with an impact factor of over five, over ten – the supposedly absolute top tier journals. 

Between incompetence and conspiration

LO: These days, fraud is so convincing, scams are so rampant, and they always target your insecurities, the insecurity here being authors who want citations. 

NW: I would say that it is not a scam or fraud for the researcher, in the normal sense. These people are selling citations, and the buyer gets citations as opposed to someone getting cheated for their money and getting nothing in return. They are scamming the publishers and scamming the scientific community, but they are not scamming an actual person paying the money. It is a business that is operating as it says it is.  

LO: What does it say, though, that fraudulent papers are still getting through the peer review process. It’s still quite a long way from first draft to publication, and we have seen some cases where remnants of text from Chat GPT replies like “as a large language model…” gets through the review process. In your mind, what does it say about the industry? What’s happening here? 

NW: I think that it is somewhere between incompetence, people in a rush, and peer reviewers being bypassed or being paid. They could also be colluding with authors or the paper mill. To be fair, there are dodgy things that get through a legitimate peer review in the first place. All the peer reviewers are independent but how many people read every single word right of a paper they peer review? Not everyone. People have different standards that they hold themselves to. There is no agreed standard of what you are supposed to do to peer review a paper. As I’m sure anyone who has received peer review reports would know, sometimes you receive a five-page PDF document with hundreds of bullet points, and sometimes you receive a paragraph which maybe took them half an hour to put together. Legitimate peer reviewers could just not do a good job. Then there are also people who pride themselves on doing a load of peer reviews, and in fact you can get certificates from the publisher about how many peer reviews you do. There are people who say they peer review nearly a paper a day – I doubt that they are doing a great job at it.  

Even if someone is reading the text, how much is a peer reviewer supposed to be checking the data? Should someone be trying to run statistical analysis to see if they have been fudged? Should they be spotting that the image is manipulated? Is that something we should expect the peer reviewer to be doing? Or should a peer reviewer go into a review assuming the work is honest? It becomes a different process if you are also thinking about whether a piece of work is fraudulent or not. The easiest things to find are the people who are very lazy or very incompetent and there is just something that is so blatant that it is hard to miss. But if most people are trying to cover their tracks, then it comes down to just how well they have managed to do that. Again, if you are including remnants of Chat GPT like “as a large language model” in your text, you are either extremely lazy, or maybe you don’t read English. But if someone got rid of that bit, you would not notice from reading the abstract. You might think this is a bit bland, but people can write bland text; that is allowed. 

Sometimes peer reviewers are definitely compromised, and I don’t know what the balance is. When you see a bad paper, say a paper with an obvious problem or with chat GPT remnants lying around: is that bad peer reviewing or have they been paid not to notice, or even not to do it? I don’t know what the balance is there. I suspect it is more on the bad peer reviewing side than the criminal or the fraudulent to be honest, but I don’t know. There are times when you think OK, well, maybe they were paying the peer reviewers but did the editor look through this? Did the copy editor? We might want to think that copy editors and type setters are going through and questioning these things like this. It really depends on the journal. I have had things come back where they have gone through and changed from a comma to a dash, so they are clearly going through everything character by character. And there are other journals where the typesetter is clearly just taking everything with no thought. Their job is just to transfer what they have been given into the journal paper and they don’t do any spell checking or checking for grammar or anything. But should that be their job? I don’t know. Then there are journals where the only priority appears to be publishing as many papers as quickly as possible. And if you have made that your priority, even if everyone is acting in good faith, you are going to let a lot more things through. If you are just trying to push everything out the door and do things as quickly as possible, you are not going to give the things as much scrutiny. 

Fake research data

Even from doing my own research, I’ve realized that it would be very easy to fake some data. It would be very hard for anyone who wasn’t in the lab to know if data has been faked. There is no real way for someone to check. Even if you go open data; one experiment might need a few gigabytes of video footage to produce one data point. You can say what you have done to produce that data point, but for someone to go and check its validity, they would in theory need access to gigabytes and gigabytes of data that is not shared. But yes, there have been some things where it has been very easy to check. For instance, in material science, there are lots of experiments which result in the spectra diagram, basically producing a squiggly line on a graph. One thing that would always be true, and you don’t need any subject expertise to know this, is that the line should not double back on itself. Every X value should have one Y value. Well, if you are faking this by drawing it by hand with a mouse, it is quite hard to not double back and there are plenty of published Spectra which have bits where a peak bends over. And it is clearly because someone has drawn it by hand, and some of them are very bad. And that is again where you question what is happening with peer review because it is obvious that something is wrong. Sometimes they will even go outside the lines of the bounding box. I do see some of those because they are quite easy to spot. 

Stay tuned as we release the third conversation with Nick next week. In the penultimate post, we learn from Nick about how researchers try to generate more citations from a single piece of research from a trick called ‘salami slicing’ and the blurred lines between illegality and desperately coping to meet with the unrealistic expectations of academia to the point of engaging with fraud.

Diamond Open Access Journals platform launch at Cambridge

Publishing, Supporting Open Research,

Dr Agustina Martínez-García, Head of Open Research Systems, Digital Initiatives

We are pleased to announce that our Diamond Open Access Journals at Cambridge platform has launched in May and can be accessed at https://diamond-oa.lib.cam.ac.uk/home. This service will be available initially as part of a one-year pilot project undertaken by the Open Research Systems (ORS) and Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) teams within Cambridge University Library (CUL).  

Project overview

The main aim of the Diamond project is to support Cambridge’s research community in the context of a changing open research and scholarly publishing environment. To meet increasing demand to share research findings we are scoping, assessing, and implementing future services and systems that meet those needs, while contributing to a growing wider open research community and ecosystem. The pilot is being launched off the back of a project to understand the community-led publishing landscape at Cambridge (findings to be shared soon). Researchers in the Office of Scholarly Communication uncovered a vibrant ecosystem of DIY publishing projects at Cambridge that the library is exploring how to support through technical and resource-based approaches.  

As part of the project, we are engaging with Cambridge researchers and exploring whether open and community-developed platforms meet their needs around institutional publishing and can be used as the basis for service development in this area. We are using the DSpace repository platform to support this pilot. DSpace is a widely adopted, open-source repository platform, and it is currently the solution underpinning Apollo, Cambridge’s Institutional Repository. In its newest version, it offers advanced functionality and features that can potentially make it a suitable platform for journal publishing, an area we are keen to explore with this pilot. 

Where we are at

Main activities of the project are focusing on: 

  • Exploring the implementation of suitable infrastructure, built on interoperable, open, and widely adopted platforms. 
  • Gathering use cases of community-led open access journals at Cambridge, focusing on discipline, journal type, frequency of publication, production standards. 
  • Gathering insights and inform future service development in this area by a) assessing the suitability of the DSpace open-source repository platform as a journal publishing platform; and b) estimating the associated costs and resourcing requirements, both in terms of service management and infrastructure (long-term access, storage, and preservation costs). 

The following four Cambridge student-led journals have agreed initially to participate in the pilot, and we are also exploring opening participation to additional journals in the upcoming months. 

  • Cambridge Journal of Climate Research (Climate Research Society, first issue now available in the Diamond platform) 
  • Cambridge Journal of Human Behaviour (Anthropology) 
  • Cambridge Journal of Visual Culture (History of Art) 
  • Scroope (Architecture) 

What’s next

The next iteration of work for the pilot will focus on assessing the resources and costs involved in transitioning from pilot to service. Ensuring long-term preservation and access comes with several associated costs and it is critical to assess these when evaluating sustainable approaches to service development. Examples of cost elements that we will consider include onboarding (initial implementation) fees, hosting and maintenance fees, volume of content and storage costs, persistent identifier (DOIs and ISSN) minting and publisher databases indexing services costs, etc. We will also explore suitable long-term content preservation options, including approaches such as integrations with existing preservation services such as CLOCKSS (https://clockss.org/), or assessing in-house preservation via the services that are currently being developed as part of CUL’s Digital Preservation Programme. 

Open Research in Cambridge: 2022 in review

Open Research at Cambridge Conference, , ,

2022 has been another fantastic year for Open Research in Cambridge and I’m so proud of what we have achieved together as a community of researchers, library staff, technicians, administrators, publishers and more. I’d like to highlight some of the key themes in our work this year and thank all who have contributed to this work in any way throughout the year (though I have limited myself to naming chairs of workstrands below). The following video by our Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), Prof Anne Ferguson-Smith, gives an indication of the importance that the university places on this work.

Understanding disciplinary differences

I know that I’m not alone in hearing that researchers in Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences disciplines often feel a disconnect between the language and priorities of “Open Science” and their experiences of how research is conducted – this is one of the reasons we choose to frame it as “Open Research” here in Cambridge. I see a strong desire from many to engage with open research practices, paired with frustration with the challenges of translating the terminology of open science to other areas. In order to better understand these issues, we established two working groups (Open Research in the Humanities and Open Qualitative Research), each of which was tasked with forgetting what they think they should do due to how open science is generally described, and instead describe what they see as the opportunities for open research within their disciplines.

The Open Research in the Humanities group was chaired by Prof Emma Gilby and supported by Dr Matthias Ammon. Their excellent report is already available on Apollo and through a series of blog posts here on Unlocking Research. The Open Qualitative Research group was chaired by Dr Meg Westbury and their report is due to come to the university’s Open Research Steering Committee in January. We will be sharing this more widely in early 2023 – it’s well worth watching out for! Both reports will inform how we talk about Open Research at Cambridge and will shape the transformative programme that we are in the process of developing.

Research data management

Our small but dedicated Research Data team, led by Dr Sacha Jones, has had another impressive year. Our Data Champions Network goes from strength to strength, and has expanded into departments that have not been represented in previous years. Other key projects have included a review of our research data services with recommendations for future development, a project on electronic research notebooks, and lots of work to support open research system developments, all while continuing to support researchers with data deposits and writing data management plans. This team is expanding next year which will enable even more work to meet the needs of different disciplines.

The future of scholarly publishing

We hosted a series of three strategic workshops on the future of scholarly communication earlier this year, developed in collaboration between Cambridge University Libraries and Cambridge University Press. Led by independent facilitator Mark Allin, participants across disciplines and career stages came together to discuss the problems of scholarly communication, potential long-term solutions to these problems and a strategy to help Cambridge get us there. The proposals emerging from the meeting are currently being developed and include newly developed infrastructures for diamond open access publishing projects and a series of high-level strategic meetings aimed at strategic improvements to equity in academic publishing. There are already diamond publishing initiatives within Cambridge, and projects will start in early 2023 to understand existing initiatives in greater detail and to provide the infrastructure to establish additional diamond journals. 

The library’s annual Open Research Conference took a similar visionary approach in its focus on the future of open access. Titled Open Access: Where Next?, the conference featured expert speakers on how we can think beyond open access toward more innovative, sustainable and equitable open futures. We heard from researchers excluded by certain approaches to open access, how other researchers are addressing issues through their own scholar-led approaches, alongside how openness fits into changing research cultures and can facilitate experimental publishing projects. A full round up with videos of each session is available on the Unlocking Research blog.  My thanks to Dr Bea Gini for her leadership in planning this conference.

Open Access now

While we are actively working towards a new future for scholarly publishing, we also need to ensure that our researchers have ways to make their work open access right now. We do this in a number of ways, engaging with the academic community and contributing expert open access advice on publishing agreements that are negotiating across the sector and administering the block grants that are provided by funders and the university to cover the costs of publishing in fully open access venues. All of this requires close reading and interpretation of funder requirements to ensure that we are able to support our researchers in what they are required to as well as what they would like to do. I’d like to specifically thank Alexia Sutton, who leads our Open Access team, and Dr Samuel Moore, our Scholarly Communication Specialist, for their leadership in this area.

We are particularly pleased with the engagement from across the university with the ongoing Rights Retention Pilot, which provides a route to open access for articles that cannot be made immediately available through existing publishing deals, are not eligible for the block grants mentioned above or where the publisher simply does not provide any route to immediate open access. We are now consulting on the development of a Self-Archiving Policy which is buit on what we have learned throught he pilot and will sit within our Open Access Publications Policy Framework. Members of the university can find out more by reading this document (accessible to Raven users only). It has been an honour to lead a dedicated group of library and research staff on this project.

Open research systems

Everything we do requires that we have the right technical infrastructure in place. The Open Research Systems team is led by Dr Agustina Martinez-Garcia and based within Cambridge University Libraries’ Digital Initiatives directorate. This year has seen projects to upgrade links between Symplectic Elements and Apollo, technical changes to support the rights retention pilot, a review of the open research systems landscape, contributing to thinking around future publishing platforms, electronic research notebooks and data infrastructure, and planning ahead for the upgrade to DSpace 7, improvements in the thesis service, and building connections between DSpace repositories and Octopus. This is not a comprehensive list and we plan to showcase more of their work on the blog in 2023.

Research enquiries, briefings and training

I want to end with huge thanks to the library staff based both in the Office of Scholarly Communication and in the Faculty & Department Libraries who do so much throughout the year, answering frontline research support queries, signposting as required, providing tailored briefings and training on highly complex and constantly changing topics. We especially value the disciplinary insights we get through working closely with the Research Support Librarians that are based within the Schools.

Join our team!

Open Research is an incredibly rewarding area to work in and the scale of what we’re trying to achieve is really ambitious. I’m delighted that the importance of what we are doing is recognised by both Cambridge University Libraries and the wider university and as a result we are expanding our team!

We are currently recruiting for an Open Research Community Manager to establish and develop a Cambridge Open Research Community, bringing researchers across the university community together through regular online and in person events to enable exchange of expertise in open and rigorous research practices. In January, we plan to advertise for two Research Data Coordinators and an Open Research Administrator, with a Research Services Manager post following later in the year. All of these roles will be listed on the university’s jobs site as well as on LinkedIn, mailing lists etc. If you’re interested in our work and would like to find out more about these opportunities please get in touch at info@osc.cam.ac.uk!


Open access: where next? – event round-up

Open Research at Cambridge Conference, ,

Dr. Samuel Moore, Scholarly Communication Specialist, Cambridge University Libraries

On Friday 18th November, participants from across Cambridge and beyond gathered for a hybrid meeting on the future of open access publishing. Hosted by Homerton College, ‘Open Access: Where Next?’ explored issues relating to article-processing charges, research assessment and innovation in scientific publishing. 65 in-person attendees and 78 online attendees participated in the day-long event consisting of four panels and a keynote from Professor Gina Neff of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy.

Prof. Neff kicked off the event with a timely and insightful talk titled ‘Further than the academy: the stakes for open research’. Covering themes such as misinformation, preservation and widening participation in knowledge, Prof. Neff explored the importance of democratic and responsible approaches to our digital present and future, looking especially to libraries as key to supporting these issues.

The first panel of the day, ‘Further than privileged universities’, was introduced by Dr. Matthias Ammon and featured Dr. Juliet Vickery, Chief Executive of the British Trust for Ornithology, Dr. Tabitha Mwangi, Cambridge-Africa Programme Manager, and Dr. Stuart Pracy, Lecturer in Medieval History at the University of Exeter. Each panellist spoke on the challenges of open access that arise from either being outside privileged university spaces or without secure employment within them. Despite representing quite different communities, there were a number of commonalities between the experiences of each speaker, most notably the fact that moving from paying to access scholarly material to paying to publish it added a new exclusionary dimension to their ability to communicate research.

In the second panel, we heard from three speakers who are working against the move toward paying to publish. ‘Further than APCs and BPCs’ featured speakers working on publishing projects that do not require authors to pay processing charges to publish their work – so-called Diamond open access. Cambridge librarians Dr Meg Westbury (Academic Services Librarian, Human and Social Sciences) and Dr Yvonne Nobis (Head of Physical Sciences libraries) described their respective publishing projects, The Journal of Information Literacy and Discrete Analysis. The audience learned about both the challenges around running a journal on a shoestring, but also the advantages of a DIY approach to publishing without recourse to expensive publishing networks. In addition, Dr. Joe Deville of Lancaster University explained the work of the soon-to-launch Open Book Collective to collaboratively fund the publication of open access books in the humanities and social sciences.

After lunch, Niamh Tumelty chaired a roundtable with Cambridge researchers on research assessment and its relationship with publishing. Prof. Steve Russell, Head of Department of Genetics, described his work as Chair of DORA (the Declaration on Research Assessment) alongside the work needed for the university to fulfil its commitment to ensuring researchers are no longer judged by the venues in which they publish. Following this, Liz Simmonds – the University’s Head of Research Culture – described the pros and cons of alternative approaches to assessment such as narrative CVs. Finally, Prof. Emma Gilby of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics explained the view from the humanities, particularly how declarations such as DORA are designed and implemented with the sciences in mind.

The final panel of the day was on innovations in scholarly publishing. Chaired by Dr. Samuel Moore, three panellists described their publishing approaches to moving beyond the traditional journal article. Dr. Mónica Moniz of Cambridge University Press & Assessment presented Research Directions – the press’ approach to publishing the research lifecycle across a variety of disciplinary questions. Following this, F1000’s Head of Data and Software Publishing, Dr. Beck Grant, described the publisher’s approach to automated data publishing in partnership with the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Finally, Dr. Damian Pattinson discussed eLife’s new approach to removing accept/reject decisions from its publishing process – and an invigorating discussion ensued!

At the end of the day, Niamh Tumelty summarised the event and reminded participants to fill out the postcards they were given at the start of the day to document what actions they will take in response to the issues covered in the conference. We will be posting these postcards to participants in January as a reminder of what you planned to do (with vouchers to three lucky recipients). Special thanks to all participants, attendees and organisers, but especially to Bea Gini for all her help with this, her last, event as part of the Office of Scholarly Communication. Thanks also to Clare Trowell for designing our postcards.

Springer negotiations: what’s our plan B? 

Policy development, Publishing, ,

The negotiations 

The UK universities sector is negotiating a read & publish deal with publisher Springer Nature. Reaching a transitional agreement is particularly important to make it easier for our authors to publish their work open access, as well as continuing to read all of Springer Nature’s content. The deal needs to be affordable for our sector, which is already under financial strain.  

The Jisc negotiating team and the University of Cambridge are committed to finding a deal that works well for us, that is our plan A. But we are aware that some previous negotiations between universities and publishers could not find enough mutual ground (for example UCLA and German universities). If a contract can’t be signed, what would that mean for our researchers? 

What would we keep access to? 

Our current deal with Springer Nature includes perpetual access to some of their catalogue. We would retain access to 69% of content we currently subscribe to, even if we have to walk away from negotiations without a deal. When clicking on these articles, you will be given automatic access if you are connected to a Cambridge network or VPN, or you would be able to gain access from elsewhere with your Raven credentials.  

Of course, we would only retain access to historic materials, not new publications. This means that the percentage of articles we have access to will slowly decline over time. The areas most impacted by the loss of access would be Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine. But we have other plans to help people get access to the articles they require. 

How would we access other articles? 

If the University does not subscribe to an article you need to access, you would still be able to get hold of it, but the process is a little longer. The best thing to do is to install the Lean Library plugin on your device. Lean Library will look for open access content and allow you to access anything to which we retain post-cancellation access.  

If you can’t get access through Lean Library, Cambridge University Libraries will help you get the article through an inter-library loan or other routes. The exact process will depend on ongoing work, so look out for further communications about the details.  

How would we publish in Springer Nature journals?  

Open access publishing is a great way to ensure that everyone in the world can read and apply your work for free. Many funders now require open access as a condition for their funding. As an additional complication, funders including the UK research councils will not pay for open access in hybrid journals, which charge for both subscriptions and open access (what we sometimes call ‘double-dipping’), unless there are transitional read & publish deals in place, or the journal is a transformative journal.  

A read & publish deal would mean that the cost of open access publishing is covered by the libraries upstream, and researchers can publish at no additional cost. However, if a deal cannot be reached, many Springer Nature journals would remain hybrid journals. This means that many researchers would be required to publish open access, but have no access to central funds for this.  

The solution is the Rights Retention strategy. By signing a pilot agreement with the University and including a rights retention statement in their manuscript, authors will retain their rights to make the manuscript openly available immediately on our repository, Apollo. This way, they will fulfil their funder requirement without having to pay a penny.  

It should also be noted that some journals, such as Nature, have put into place specific provisions for researchers whose funders mandate open access.  

How will we find out more? 

The current contract runs until the end of December 2022 and we are assured of a grace period stretching to February 2023, during which access will continue if negotiations are ongoing.  

We will continue to update our website as more information becomes available. An announcement will be made by email across the University once the outcome of the negotiations is known. Please email info@osc.cam.ac.uk or speak to your librarian if you have any questions.  

Rights retention: publisher responses to the University’s pilot

Policy development, Publishing, Uncategorized

The University’s one-year rights retention pilot has been running for six months now, during which time many papers containing the rights retention declaration have been submitted by Cambridge authors. As expected, the Office of Scholarly Communication is receiving more queries about rights retention from Cambridge academics, many of which relate to how publishers are responding to submissions containing the rights retention declaration. This post covers some of these queries to offer a picture of how rights retention is being received.   

It is worth reminding ourselves what the rights retention pilot entails. All researchers at Cambridge can sign up to participate in the pilot here. In doing so, the researcher enters into a non-exclusive agreement with the university to make all their papers immediately open access under a Creative Commons attribution (CC BY) licence. When a researcher submits an article to a publisher, they include the following statement in the acknowledgements or funding section of the article file: 

‘For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission’ 

Upon editorial acceptance, the researcher uploads a copy of the accepted manuscript to Symplectic Elements. The Open Access team will deposit the manuscript into Apollo and will release it publicly at the appropriate time. 

Publisher responses 

One of the primary fears researchers have regarding rights retention is that a publisher may editorially reject their article at the point of submission. While we are still dealing in small numbers of submissions and queries associated with the pilot, we have heard from at least two researchers that have been rejected from the journal at the point of submission due to rights retention language in their manuscript. In these cases, journals from the Seismological Society of America and the American Society of Hematology informed the respective authors that rights retention is not permitted because copyright transfer and an embargo period is required for publication in their journals. As a consequence, the authors in each case decided to submit to an alternative journal so that they could comply with their funder requirements. We are also aware of authors who received different answers from the American Society of Hematology, including to pay a fee or to accept rights retention. We hope rights retention will be approved in due course by the publisher as an acceptable route for all authors. 

A second group of publishers have asked for the rights retention language to be removed either because they deemed it not necessary to comply with or because another compliant route was available to the authors. For example, a journal published by Springer Nature asked for the rights retention language to be removed because it was not required for compliance purposes (because the article was submitted prior to the relevant policy coming into effect). Journals published by Elsevier, the American Chemical Society and Optica all asked for the rights retention language to be removed because of pre-existing publishing agreements that allow Cambridge researchers to publish open access free of charge. In these instances, authors were willing to remove the language from the final published version and so it was not clear what would have happened if they had not done so. We have received advice that removing this wording does not negate the fact that the publisher has been informed of the prior licence and so rights retention is still permissible here. We are recommending that researchers include the rights retention declaration where possible even when publishers ask for it to be removed.  

Despite the queries reported here, we have also seen a notable uptick in the number of submissions in the repository containing rights retention language, including within journals published by Elsevier, Wiley, Sage, Springer Nature, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Company of Biologists and JMIR Publications (to name a few). One journal published by the American Psychological Association was willing to accept immediate CC BY for UKRI-funded authors, although this was still subject to a copyright transfer agreement. In the case of Springer Nature, acceptance of the rights retention language also entailed payment of colour charges – something the authors had not anticipated and which we detailed further in this Twitter thread. We urge publishers to be as clear as possible about whether they accept rights retention and upon what conditions.  

I am sharing this data because it offers a snapshot of some of the responses we have seen from publishers so far. While we encourage our researchers to report any publisher pushback, we cannot be sure of all publisher responses, simply because researchers are under no obligation to report them. It is interesting, though, that some publishers are asking researchers to remove the rights retention declaration when there is a publishing agreement in place. We can hypothesise that this is because publishers want to prevent as many articles as possible from using this language because it would set a precedent for other researchers without access to such agreements to use rights retention too. Given this, the Office of Scholarly Communication is continuing to advise that the declaration is included in all manuscripts where possible, although this will be down to how persistent an author wants to be in requesting the language be retained.  

Is a Rights Retention Clause needed for OA books?

Uncategorized

Dr. Rupert Gatti is a Fellow and Director of Studies in Economics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and co-founder of the non-profit Open Book Publishers.

In recent discussion about funder-imposed Rights Retention Strategies (RRS) I realised that there is an important consideration for funders of Open Access (OA) books and book chapters that differs significantly to the standard arguments for RRS with journal articles, and that I haven’t seen articulated elsewhere.

The standard motivation for applying RRS to article submissions is that it ensures that the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) can be shared and reused under a CC BY licence even if there are greater restrictions over reuse of the final published article. Consequently it allows the author to comply with a funder’s OA mandate without having to pay the publisher’s Article Processing Charge (APC) or requiring the publisher to apply a CC BY licence to the published version. 

(As an aside, such a licence applied to a submitted book manuscript would present no difficulties for Open Book Publishers (OBP) as we require, no –  we impose!, Rights Retention for authors in any case. OBP’s standard contract is that the author maintains all copyright control of their work and provides OBP only with a non-exclusive licence to publish their work in various printed and digital formats. So a RRS would provide no issues for us, or for any of the many other OA book publishers who adopt similar policies.)

In situations where a book is published under a more restrictive CC licence, rather than CC BY, I believe there is a separate case for funders to require that an author Rights Retention Clause be inserted into the final publishing contract the author signs with the publisher.

Many funders are, or have signalled that they will be, allowing more restrictive licences than CC BY for books and book chapters. I believe there ARE very good academic reasons why NC and/or ND licences are the appropriate ones to use in some situations, which typically revolve around the scholarly integrity of the work (for example when the material published is culturally sensitive). Humanities and Social Science scholars have been raising these concerns for several years now, and I agree with many of them. For me, the critical consideration is when the reasons used to justify restrictions on re-use are SCHOLARLY – and based around the scholarly integrity of the work – rather than commercial or based around the perceived needs or demands of the publisher. 

By design, when a title is published under one of these more restrictive licences (say NC-ND) anybody wanting to reuse components of the book will need to seek permission from the copyright holder, in much the same way as for an ‘all rights reserved’ work. Typically, for books, the publishers require the authors to assign the copyright, or controls over the copyright permissions, to them – which means that for the full extent of the copyright term (typically author’s lifetime + 90 years) it is the PUBLISHER that has control over and decides on any allowed reuse of the work, rather than the author. 

This, of course, breaks the scholarly argument for imposing the restrictive licence in the first place. If the material is culturally sensitive then it is the AUTHOR who needs to be making any reuse decisions – based on the author’s understanding of the sensitivities, and possibly in consultation with a community of people. The publisher often has none of that knowledge or understanding, and may allow reuses in inappropriate situations (especially if financial remuneration is involved) or not allow appropriate reuses (especially if sufficient financial remuneration is not involved). 

An example may be helpful. Let us suppose that a scholarly work on a culturally sensitive topic is published using a CC BY-NC-ND licence. It may matter enormously how and by whom any translation of the work is created, how the work is commercialised, the specific pronunciation used in any audio edition, or the nature of the images used to illustrate a subsequent edition. With control in the hands of the publisher, culturally insensitive derivative works may be approved, and new works that have been carefully created with the approval of the community may be denied.  

If a funding body is allowing the use of more restrictive licences on scholarly rather than solely commercial grounds – then it is surely also important to ensure that control over reuse of the content is maintained by the scholar/author rather than allowing the publisher to usurp those rights.  

To achieve that, the copyright assignment and reuse controls have to be assigned to the author within the publication contract signed by the author, and thus some form of Rights Retention Clause needs to be included. Without an explicit presubmission funder mandate, authors alone are unlikely to have sufficient bargaining power to ensure the inclusion of such a clause in the publishing contract they sign.

Of course this doesn’t fully resolve the situation when the author dies. By default it will be the author’s estate which heredits those rights and controls for the last 90 years of the copyright term, and they may be no more informed than the publisher about cultural sensitivities. So a further question arises: can/should a rights assignment for the period after the author’s death also be included or considered a requirement of the publishing contract in these circumstances? At the very least, this would seem to be something to encourage authors to consider and include in the publishing contract as well.

Finally, it may be worth noting that the standard RRS on the submitted manuscript alone is not sufficient in the situations described above, as without the proposed clause in the final contract the publisher will still have permission to approve inappropriate reuse of the final published work without need to consult the author.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Lucy Barnes, Stephen Eglen, Graham Stone, Alessandra Tosi and Niamh Tumelty for helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this post.

This blog has been cross-posted on the Open Book Publisher Blog: http://blogs.openbookpublishers.com/is-a-rights-retention-clause-needed-for-oa-books

A new institutional open access fund for the University of Cambridge

Open Research at Cambridge Conference, Publishing, Supporting Researchers in the 21st Century, Supporting Researchers in the C21st

Open Access is a powerful tool that enables researchers to share their research and maximise the impact of their work. However, the reality is that gold open access is a business model that is based on paying to publish, and it’s a business model that is primarily supported by research funders. What that means in practice is that gold open access often comes with a price tag that effectively excludes unfunded researchers.

The University of Cambridge has established a new institutional open access fund to provide financial support for unfunded researchers across the collegiate University. Researchers who do not have access to grant funds with which to pay the open access fees will be able to use the fund to pay the open access fees for their research or review papers in fully open access journals.  

Professor Anne Ferguson-Smith, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research explains that:

“This is significant step in ensuring that all University of Cambridge researchers can opt for gold open access publishing. We are proud to establish this fund that will be especially beneficial to early career researchers as well as other researchers in the collegiate University who are not eligible for the open access funds that are provided by grant funders. Significant inequalities remain in the global scholarly publishing system, however, so we continue our commitment to support different open access solutions that are available to any researchers, both within and outside the University”.

The new fund is one of the many ways that the University helps researchers make their research open access and complements our many Read & Publish deals, the Rights Retention Pilot and the facilitation of green self-archiving in the University’s institutional repository, Apollo. 

Who can use the new institutional open access fund?

Researchers who have a strong connection (typically research staff and students) with the University of Cambridge (including the Colleges) who have no way of paying for open access fees in fully open access journals.

What will the new institutional open access fund cover?

The fund can be used to pay open access fees for full research articles or non-narrative review papers in fully open access journals, provided there is no other way of paying the fee (for example, where there is no Read & Publish deal available to any of the authors, or where none of the author team has access to any funding).

How will the new institutional open access fund work?

The Open Access team can provide in principle funding decisions but cannot guarantee payment until a paper has been accepted for publication. Researchers are encouraged to seek an in-principle decision before incurring any fees by emailing the Open Access Team.

Where can I find more information about the new institutional open access fund?

There is more information on the Open Access website about the institutional fund, and the Open Access Team is available to answer any queries.

What about the bigger issue?

We are very conscious about the wider challenges with author-pays models of open access, for example for unaffiliated researchers and those in institutions without access to funding of this sort, and especially of the global equity issues that arise. We held several strategic workshops looking at these issues earlier this year and will continue to work towards finding a more equitable future for open access scholarly publishing.