[okfn-discuss] Due 09 Sept: EU consultation on scientific information in the digital age (including open access)
H.
hb3141 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 20:40:22 UTC 2011
Dear okfn-discuss,
FYI: there is currently an EU consultation on scientific information
in the digital age (including open access).
* Access to digital scientific information (including open access):
scientific publications
* Access to digital scientific information (including open access):
research data
* Preservation of digital scientific information
The input is to be given via an HTML form. In case this is useful
for anyone full text below (there is also a downloadable PDF but
that is not editable). Keep in mind that in the end you have to
paste your input into the EU commission's (DG Research & Innovation)
web form. (For example, do *not* send to it to me!)
####
This an editable transcript of an EU consultation on scientific
information in the digital age (including open access)
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/questionnaire.pdf
for [2] http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/consultation_en.htm
(Consultation input until 09 September 2011).
Note that, according to [2] "The maximum time to complete the
questionnaire allowed by the system is 90 minutes. Partial responses
will not be saved." So to allow the input to be taken into account in
the end you will have to paste your answers in to the form at [2] (do
***not*** try to send in this version!).
This editable version may facilitate organisations to prepare a
statement (the original PDF [1] is not editable). It is a honest
attempt at a faithful transcript (trying to preserve verbatim all text
including punctuation while being minimalist on white space and
fonts).
In particular,
* each text boxes in the original PDF [1] has been omitted, however in
this text version it is still visible implied by the "(maximum xxx
characters)",
* each check box in the original PDF [1] has been replaced by "[ ]",
* each table row in the original PDF [1] has been replaced by a row of
"[ ]"s, with each field denoted by its column heading in the table.
The original PDF [1] only stipulates "at most 1 answer" where check
boxes are used, and seems to consider this same principle self-evident
where tables are used. That means, this scribe assumes that the
principle of "at most 1 answer" per row of check boxes also holds in
those rows (derived from table rows in the original PDF) where this is
not explicitly marked by "at most 1 answer".
Following the above words of introduction, the rest of this document
is the original text of the questionnaire:
On-line survey on scientific information in the digital age
-----------------------------------------------------------
In late 2011, the European Commission intends to adopt a Communication
and Recommendation on access to and preservation of digital scientific
information. This initiative builds on earlier policy developments in
this area, and is being developed within in the policy contexts of the
EU Flagship Initiatives Innovation Union and Digital Agenda for
Europe, and of the push for improved knowledge circulation in the
European Research Area.
The Communication will take stock of the developments in the area of
scientific information, and set out the actions that the Commission
intends to take on open access to publications and data in the context
of research projects funded by the Union budget. The Recommendation
will detail specific actions to be taken at Member State level.
Consultation of interested parties forms part of the policy process.
The purpose of this open consultation is to gather information from as
many sources as possible, including governments, research institutions
and universities, libraries, scientific publishers, research funding
organisations, businesses, individual researchers, and other
interested parties on their views of scientific information in the
digital age. The consultation will feed into the development of
possible policy options to be considered, and will contribute to the
ex-ante impact assessment that will be carried out.
The consultation is set up as follows:
--------------------------------------
1. The respondent
2. What role for Europe?
3. Access to digital scientific information (including open access):
scientific publications
4. Access to digital scientific information (including open access):
research data
5. Preservation of digital scientific information
6. Comments
It will take you approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey. The
consultation will close on 9 September 2011.
Results will be published on the Commission's website, including a
list of respondents (without e-mail addresses). Regarding personal
data protection, please also refer to the European Commission's legal
notice: http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm.
The Commission thanks you in advance for your collaboration and valuable input.
Definitions:
In this questionnaire, "scientific information" refers to both 1)
scientific (and scholarly, academic) publications published in
peer-reviewed journals and 2) research data.
"Research data" or "data" may be numerical/quantitative,
descriptive/qualitative or visual, raw or analysed, experimental or
observational. Examples are digitised primary research data,
photographs and images, films, etc.
"Open access" refers to access over the internet that is free of
charge for the reader.
"Preservation" refers to policies, strategies and actions that ensure
permanent access to digital content over time.
1. Respondent
-------------
1.1. I am replying as/on behalf of a(n) (if you represent more than
one category, please choose the most relevant one):* (compulsory) (at
most 1 answer)
[ ] National government
[ ] Regional or local government
[ ] Research funding organisation
[ ] University/research institute
[ ] Library
[ ] Publisher
[ ] International organisation
[ ] Individual researcher
[ ] Citizen
[ ] Other
Other (please specify): (optional) (maximum 50 characters)
If you answered "national government", of which country? (optional)
(at most 1 answer)
[ ] Austria [ ] Belgium [ ] Bulgaria [ ] Cyprus [ ] Czech Republic
[ ] Denmark [ ] Estonia [ ] Finland [ ] France [ ] Germany
[ ] Greece [ ] Hungary [ ] Ireland [ ] Italy [ ] Latvia
[ ] Lithuania [ ] Luxembourg [ ] Malta [ ] Netherlands [ ] Poland
[ ] Portugal [ ] Romania [ ] Slovakia [ ] Slovenia [ ] Spain
[ ] Sweden [ ] United Kingdom [ ] Other
Other (please specify): (optional) (maximum 250 characters)
If you answered "regional or local government", of which country?
(optional): (optional) (at most 1 answer)
[ ] Austria [ ] Belgium [ ] Bulgaria [ ] Cyprus [ ] Czech Republic
[ ] Denmark [ ] Estonia [ ] Finland [ ] France [ ] Germany
[ ] Greece [ ] Hungary [ ] Ireland [ ] Italy [ ] Latvia
[ ] Lithuania [ ] Luxembourg [ ] Malta [ ] Netherlands [ ] Poland
[ ] Portugal [ ] Romania [ ] Slovakia [ ] Slovenia [ ] Spain
[ ] Sweden [ ] United Kingdom [ ] Other
Other (please specify):* (compulsory) (between 2 and 50 characters)
1.2 Please provide your name (will be published):* (compulsory)
(between 1 and 100 characters)
1.3 Please provide your e-mail address (will not be published):* (compulsory)
(between 5 and 100 characters)
1.4 Please provide the name of your organisation (if you are
responding as citizen, enter "citizen"):* (compulsory)
(between 2 and 100 characters)
1.5 Please provide your country of residence / establishment:* (compulsory)
(at most 1 answer)
[ ] Austria [ ] Belgium [ ] Bulgaria [ ] Cyprus [ ] Czech Republic
[ ] Denmark [ ] Estonia [ ] Finland [ ] France [ ] Germany
[ ] Greece [ ] Hungary [ ] Ireland [ ] Italy [ ] Latvia
[ ] Lithuania [ ] Luxembourg [ ] Malta [ ] Netherlands [ ] Poland
[ ] Portugal [ ] Romania [ ] Slovakia [ ] Slovenia [ ] Spain
[ ] Sweden [ ] United Kingdom [ ] Other
Other country of residence/establishment (please specify):*
(compulsory) (between 2 and 50 characters)
2. What role for Europe?
------------------------
2.1 There are already many developments regarding access to and
preservation of scientific information in Europe, at governmental,
funding body and institutional level. For some years, the European
Union has also been developing policies in these areas.
In your opinion, in what specific areas can and should the European
Union best contribute to improving the circulation of knowledge, and
specifically access to and preservation of scientific information
(including both publications and data)?
Policy formulation at European level on access and preservation issues
(optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
Co-ordinating existing initiatives in EU Member States (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
Supporting the development of a European network of repositories
(online archives) (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
Encourage universities, libraries, funding bodies, etc., to implement
specific actions (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
2.2 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
3. Access to digital scientific information (including open access):
scientific publications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 Do you agree with the following statement "there is NO problem
with access to scientific publications in Europe"? (optional) (at most
1 answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
3.2 How would you rate the importance of the following potential
barriers to access to scientific publications?
Insufficient national/regional strategies/policies on access to
scientific publications (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
High prices of articles/journal subscriptions (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Limited or reduced library budgets (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Different Value Added Tax (VAT) rates for online media and printed
material (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Lack of awareness and interest within the research community on access
and open access (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
No incentive system in place encouraging and rewarding practices that
enhance access (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
3.3 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
3.4 Do you think that publications resulting from publicly funded
research should, as a matter of principle, be available free of charge
to readers on the internet (i.e. open access mode)? (optional) (at
most 1 answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
3.5 Do you think that open access can increase access to and
dissemination of scientific publications? (optional) (at most 1
answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
3.6 Do you think that open access to scientific publications can
co-exist with the traditional scientific publication system?
(optional) (at most 1 answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
3.7 Open access to scientific publications can be achieved in
different ways, in particular through researchers self-archiving in
repositories ("green open access") and through publications in open
access journals for a fee ("gold open access").
Which of the following different modes should public research policy
facilitate in order to increase the number and share of scientific
publications available in open access? Please rate the following
options from 1 to 4 (1 = first choice; 4 = last choice):
Open access publishing (author-pays model/"gold open access") (optional)
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4
Self-archiving ("green open access") (optional)
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4
A combination of self-archiving and open access publishing (optional)
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4
Funded conversion of traditional subscription-based journals to
open-access journals (optional)
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4
3.8 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
3.9 In the case of self-archiving ("green open access") what embargo
period (period of time during which publication is not yet open
access) is desirable?
18 months (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
12 months (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
9 months (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
6 months (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
3.10 Other embargo period/comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
4. Access to digital scientific information (including open access)
research data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1 Do you agree with the following statement: "generally speaking,
there is NO access problem to research data in Europe"? (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
4.2 How would you rate the importance of the following potential
barriers to enhancing access to research data?
Insufficient national/regional strategies/policies on access to
research data (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Lack of funding to develop and maintain the necessary data
infrastructures (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Insufficient credit given to researchers making research data
available/lack of incentives (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Lack of mandates to deposit research data (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Lack of data management requirements in research projects (optional)
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
Confidentiality/privacy issues
[ ]very important [ ]important [ ]no opinion [ ]not very important [
]not important at all
4.3 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
4.4 Do you think that research data that is publicly available and
that results from PUBLIC funding should, as a matter of principle, be
available for re-use and free of charge on the internet? (optional)
(at most 1 answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
4.5 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
4.6 Do you think that research data that is publicly available and
that results from PARTLY PUBLIC AND PARTLY PRIVATE funding should, as
a matter of principle, be available for re-use and free of charge on
the internet? (optional) (at most 1 answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
4.7 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
5. Preservation of digital scientific information
-------------------------------------------------
5.1 Do you agree with the following statement: "Generally speaking,
the issue of preservation of scientific information is at present
sufficiently addressed?" (optional) (at most 1 answer)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
5.2 Do you agree with the following statements regarding potential
barriers to enhancing preservation of scientific information in the
digital age?
It is not always clear which scientific information should be
preserved (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
It is not always clear who is responsible for preserving scientific
information (research organisations, libraries, governments?)
(optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
There is no harmonised approach to legal deposit (legal requirement
that copies of publications be submitted to a repository, usually to a
library) (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
Funding for preservation is inadequate (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
The quality and interoperability of repositories need to be further
developed (optional)
[ ] agree strongly [ ] agree [ ] no opinion [ ] disagree [ ] disagree strongly
5.3 Comments (optional) (maximum 400 characters)
6 Comments
----------
6.1 Please provide any further comments or inputs in the space below.
(optional) (maximum 600 characters)
####
More information about the okfn-discuss
mailing list