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

Thu Sep 8 07:21:42 UTC 2011

Dear all, dear Jenny,

Daniel Mietchen, Adrian Pohl and me answered  the consultation on behalf 
of the German OKFN chapter. As the consultation closes tomorrow anyone 
seeking inspiration might have a look at our results. The answers differ 
a little from Daniel's draft.

Our proposal can be found here: http://wiki.okfn.de/OA_EC

best regards

Uli

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

-- 
Postfach 10 13 13
D-66013 Saarbrücken
http://www.scinoptica.com
+49-(0)157 84759877
http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica