Structuring supplemental materials in support of reproducibility

Author: Dov Greenbaum

Abstract: Supplements are increasingly important to the scientific record, particularly in genomics. However, they are often underutilized. Optimally, supplements should make results findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (i.e., “FAIR”). Moreover, properly off-loading to them the data and detail in a paper could make the main text more readable. We propose a hierarchical organization for supplements, with some parts paralleling and “shadowing” the main text and other elements branching off from it, and we suggest a specific formatting to make this structure explicit. Furthermore, sections of the supplement could be presented in multiple scientific “dialects”, including machine-readable and lay-friendly formats.

Citation: Greenbaum, Dov, et al., 2017.Structuring supplemental materials in support of reproducibility. Genome Biology 18:64, 10.1186/s13059-017-1205-3.


Moving from Colonialism and Paternalism to Equity and Cooperation in Scholarly Communication

Authors: Josh Bolick, Ada Emmett, Marc Greenberg, Town Peterson, Brian Rosenblum

Abstract: An idealist might believe that communications among scholars represent open, clear, reasoned debate, and that all involved will share certain base values. While we realize that significant barriers, such as to women and people of color, have long existed, one might wish that equality would be on the list of such shared values… that is, one would like to believe that all scholars have the same range of opportunities open to them, regardless of their race, country of origin, economic status, or whatever, so that all of the relevant data and the best minds might be brought to bear on solving problems of interest to science and scholarship. One might wish that–whatever the details might be–all scholars would share the idea of equality as an underlying and overarching assumption. Here we examine this idea of equality in scholarly communication via the example of a recent exchange about open access in the Journal of Wildlife Management.

Citation: Bolick, Josh, Ada Emmett, Marc Greenberg, Town Peterson, and Brian Rosenblum. Moving from Colonialism and Paternalism to Equity and Cooperation in Scholarly Communication.” OAnarchy [blog] (April 20, 2017).


OpenAIRE survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

Authors: Tony Ross-Hellauer; Arvid Deppe; Birgit Schmidt

Abstract: Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016 that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority of respondents to be in favour of OPR becoming mainstream scholarly practice, as they also are for other areas of Open Science, like Open Access and Open Data. We also observe surprisingly high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) respondents reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR’s prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a “one-size fits all” solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. More research is also needed. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.

Citation: Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Deppe, Arvid, & Schmidt, Birgit. (2017, May 2). OpenAIRE survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. Zenodo.


Engaging Faculty and Reducing Costs by Leveraging Collections: A Pilot Project to Reduce Course Pack Use

Authors: Nelly Cancilla, Bobby Glushko, Stephanie Orfano, Graeme Slaght

Abstract: Academic libraries have the privilege of serving many roles in the lives of their institutions. One role that is largely untapped is their ability to actively leverage their collections to support faculty teaching and to reduce student out-of-pocket costs by eliminating systemic double payment for course materials.  This paper details a project by the Scholarly Communications and Copyright Office (SCCO) at the University of Toronto that aimed to reduce this systemic double payment by leveraging collections and electronic reserves to provide a new service, the Zero-to-Low Cost Courses. Building on existing relationships with faculty, SCCO staff reached out to potential candidates, identified library licensed materials in their printed course packs, and created digital course packs which students could use at no cost.

Citation: Cancilla, N. et al., (2017). Engaging Faculty and Reducing Costs by Leveraging Collections: A Pilot Project to Reduce Course Pack Use. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 4, p.eP2137. DOI:


Source: Engaging Faculty and Reducing Costs by Leveraging Collections: A Pilot Project to Reduce Course Pack Use

Passing a Campus Open Access Policy

Author: Chealsye Bowley

Abstract: On March 31, Florida Gulf Coast University’s (FGCU) Faculty Senate passed an Open Access policy! The Open Access Archiving Policy ensures that future scholarly articles authored by FGCU faculty will be made freely available to the public by requiring faculty to deposit copies of their accepted manuscripts in the university’s repository, DigitalFGCU.

As Scholarly Communication Librarian, I worked with my supervisor, library administration, the university’s Provost, and Faculty Senate to write and pass the policy. Typically in the United States, Open Access policies are passed through the Faculty Senate as a faculty level policy rather than a “university policy” that requires a different approval process. Policies are usually proposed to a Faculty Senate team or committee, such as Faculty Affairs, and then proceeds to Faculty Senate for voting.

Although each institution will be different, in this blog post I’ll share some of the key decisions and learnings that allowed our team at FGCU to pass an Open Access Policy quickly.

Citation: Bowley, C. “Passing a Campus Open Access Policy.” OpenCon2017 Blog, May 05, 2017,


Source: OpenCon2017 Blog


The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund: An open and shut case study

Author(s): Robin N. Sinn, Sue M. Woodson, and Mark Cyzyk

Abstract: This article details the history and outcomes of the open access promotion fund at Johns Hopkins University. It concludes with lessons learned from the experience of opening and closing the fund.

Citation: Sinn, Robin N., Sue M. Woodson, and Mark Cyzyk. “The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund An open and shut case study.” College & Research Libraries News 78.1 (2017): 32-35.


Source: The Johns Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund: An open and shut case study

ReplicationWiki: Improving Transparency in Social Sciences Research

Author: Jan H. Höffler

Abstract: In empirical social sciences research, only a small minority of study material is publicly available, therefore allowing full replication. The number of replication studies published in academic journals is even smaller. Our wiki documents the results of more than 300 replications, so far mainly in economics. It includes a database of more than 2,600 empirical studies. For each study we provide information about the availability of material for replication. This helps instructors to identify practical examples for courses focusing on empirical methods or on particular topics. Furthermore, it gives researchers better access to information on previous studies they can build on or compare their work with. We provide an overview of journals and their policies regarding data availability and publication of replications. The project has attracted interest from various fields and is open for expansion.

Citation: Jan H. Höffler. (2017). ReplicationWiki: Improving Transparency in Social Sciences Research. D-LIB Magazine, 23(3/4).


Bringing together the work of subscription and open access specialists: challenges and changes at the University of Sussex

Authors: Craig, E., & Webb, H.

Abstract: In common with the majority of UK universities, the last few years have seen the University of Sussex Library staff adapting to changes in workflows and procedures due to the increase in time and effort required to support open access (OA) publishing. [The University of Sussex has] recently started evaluating workflows and identifying ways of sharing knowledge within the Library to ensure that OA is considered, where appropriate, in the subscriptions workflow.

Citation: Craig, E., & Webb, H. (2017). Bringing together the work of subscription and open access specialists: challenges and changes at the University of Sussex. Insights, 30(1), 31–37. DOI:


A survey of current reproducibility practices in linguistics publications

Authors: Gawne, Lauren; Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L.; Kelly, Barbara; Heston, Tyler

Abstract: In order to move forward toward reproducible research in linguistics, we first need to know where we are now with regard to our practices for methodological clarity and data citation in publications. In this poster we share the results of a study of over 370 journal articles, dissertations, and grammars, which is taken as a sample of current practices in the field. The publications all come from a ten-year span. The journals were selected for broad coverage. Grammars included published grammars and dissertations written as grammars, with broad geographic coverage, both in terms of subject language and publisher or university.These publications are critiqued on the basis of transparency of data source, data collection methods, analysis, and storage. While we find examples of transparent reporting, most of the surveyed research does not include key metadata, methodological information, or citations that are resolvable to the data on which the analyses are based.

Citation: Gawne, Lauren; Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L.; Kelly, Barbara; Heston, Tyler.  (2017). “A survey of current reproducibility practices in linguistics publications.” Poster presented at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, 5-9 January 2017, Austin TX.