[Open-science-nl] What Open Science metrics should the European Union use?

Egon Willighagen egon.willighagen at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 12:54:17 UTC 2018

Hi all,

this was a crazy week... (what can we expect from a hot summer...)

- EU copyright law is back to the drawing table (fortunately)
- Elsevier introduced the term "100% OA-Ready" (which they claim they are
- the NPlatformOS page [1] is not remove from Wikipedia-NL yet (*)

*) But we must really use the term "National Platform Open Science" in our
communication more.

And, of course a discussion about the participation of Elsevier as
(currently) sole data provider of Open Science metrics [2,3,4], leading to
an official complain to the European Ombudsman [5]. The replies from
Elsevier [3] and the consortium coordinator [4] do not bode well, but there
is the public consultation page [6], where we leave our expectations (until
August 31).

I left some initial comment myself. The biggest problem with the current
consultation is that it is very narrow (mostly on Open Access and much less
on other Open Science aspects, like open source and open data), focused on
altmetrics provided by Elsevier. But there are some serious issues with
having only one provider (either Elsevier or Altmetric.com): data is biased.

That said, and to make this very clear, I think the Leiden CWTS has all it
takes to do this right, but they need to right input to their consultation.
We cannot afford not having an important metric missing, just because we
did not bring it up. Note, that where important here is basically anything,
as part of the consortium's effort will be to determine how metrics
complement each other: basically, any metric is important, until we have
prove there are unimportant metrics (like the JIF) and then we should not
be using those. Negative data is at least as important as positive data, as
we can expect these metrics to be used to be used in tenure track decisions.

BTW, I also strongly feel that their definition of Open Science and Open
Access is dangerously ill-defined (as common in EU policy documents).. they
tend to not define "reuse" as essential part of the Open Science field,
instead of focus on an ill-defined "free"... with deeply worrying claims as
a result [0]. Reuse requires the (near) unconditional rights to 1. modify
and 2. redistribute.

I think it is essential that:

- the NPOS working group on metrics issues an official statement (and link
to that in [5])
- researcher interest groups (postdoc platforms, KNAW, etc, etc) issue
official statements
- NWO should issue a reply as funder

Any ideas on how to get this happening?



PS. the complaint to the ombudsman was submitted with more than 200 people
signed, but the current count is 699 [7].


E.L. Willighagen
Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
PubList: https://www.zotero.org/egonw
ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286>
ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/u/egonwillighagen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science-nl/attachments/20180707/bdc84417/attachment.html>

More information about the Open-science-nl mailing list