[open-science] EU consultation on scientific information in the digital age (including open access)

Wed Sep 7 22:06:41 UTC 2011

Hi All

Apologies to those of you already on okfn-discuss but I know not
everyone is, so I thought this should be forwarded on.
Daniel Mietchen has drafted a response to the EU consultation on
scientific information in the digital age - please take a look and
contribute!

Jenny

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] Due 09 Sept: EU consultation on scientific
information in the digital age (including open access)
To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list <okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org>

Dear all,

I have finished a first draft at
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/OKFN_response_to_EU_Consultation_on_scientific_information_in_the_digital_age
.
Comments and improvements welcome.

Daniel

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:40 PM, H. <hb3141 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
>
> ####
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss