Nordic Perspectives on Open Science <p>A Nordic journal on all aspects of Open Science, relevant for or originating in the Nordic and Baltic countries.</p> Septentrio Academic Publishing en-US Nordic Perspectives on Open Science 2464-1839 <p>Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:</p> <ul> <li>Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a&nbsp;<a href="">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</li> <li>Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li> <li>Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).</li> <li>When self-archiving after the article has been published, please use the published version of the article.</li> </ul> The Research Data Alliance in Norway <p>The Research Data Alliance (RDA) is a neutral international network aiming at promoting data sharing and data-driven research. The efforts of RDA are organized in a number of groups, including national nodes, where contributors work together to develop and adopt approaches that foster the uptake of standards and good practice of research data management through all stages of the data lifecycle. Since 2019, Norway has had its national RDA group.</p> <p>This article gives a short introduction to the Norwegian RDA group. In section 1 we provide some background information about RDA. Section 2 describes the Norwegian RDA group, including its background and organisational structure, as well as past and future activities.</p> Philipp Conzett Trond Kvamme Copyright (c) 2021 Philipp Conzett, Trond Kvamme 2021-04-20 2021-04-20 10.7557/11.5783 A brief saga about open access books <p>Monographs and academic books are increasingly becoming a focus point in the open access debate and policy developments. This article gives a personal account of the rationale behind open access book publishing and open infrastructures for books. It elaborates on the need for collaboration between the actors in the community in order to sustain open access book publishing to the benefit of the scholarly community and the public at large.</p> Niels Stern Copyright (c) 2021 Niels Stern 2021-03-18 2021-03-18 10.7557/11.5751 Unholy goals and flawed methods <p>A problematic practice has evolved, which is threatening to undermine research in the social sciences and humanities. Bibliometrics is often claimed to be able to measure researchers’ efficiency. We find this quite problematic and, in this article, we illustrate this point by discussing two different bibliometric practices. One is the so-called h-index, the other the so-called BFI-points (Den bibliometriske Forskningsindikator, The Bibliometric Research Indicator). The BFI was <em>never</em> intended to be used for evaluating individual researchers and their productivity. Yet since its introduction in 2008 especially the social sciences and the humanities experience a pressure to deliver “BFI points” and academic job advertisements within the social sciences and the humanities increasingly mention expectations for people’s past and/or future production of BFI points. <br>The h-index is even more problematic because no one academic database covers all the research publications in the world. The whole thing is completely disorganized, and as many as five different h-indexes exist for each researcher. What makes the h-index even more useless is that it will not let you make comparisons across disciplines. Furthermore, like other simple measurements, it is liable to be manipulated and misinterpreted. On that background, it is remarkable that numbers extracted from incomplete databases are used for describing the quality of researchers and their institutions.</p> Charlotte Wien Bertil Fabricius Dorch Copyright (c) 2020 Charlotte Wien, Bertil Fabricius Dorch 2020-11-13 2020-11-13 10.7557/11.5659 Some highlights from the PKP 2019 International Scholarly Publishing Conference <p>This an overview of the PKP 2019 International Scholarly Publishing Conference that took place at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) on November 20–22, 2019.</p> Trude Eikebrokk Aysa Ekanger Katherine Fonn Jan Erik Frantsvåg Obiajulu Odu Copyright (c) 2019 Trude Eikebrokk, Aysa Ekanger, Katherine Fonn, Jan Erik Frantsvåg, Obiajulu Odu 2019-12-30 2019-12-30 10.7557/11.5204 Impressions from the 14th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing 2019 <p>The 14th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing 2019 took place at UiT The Arctic University of Norway on November 27–28, 2019.&nbsp; This short article reports some impressions from the conference. The full materials of the conference, including presentation slides and video recordings are available at <a href=""></a>.</p> Anna Mette Morthorst Copyright (c) 2019 Anna Mette Morthorst 2019-12-27 2019-12-27 10.7557/11.5203 Norwegian Read & Publish agreements – an overview <p>During the course of 2019, Unit (the Norwegian Directorate for ICT and Joint Services in Higher Education &amp; Research), who acts as the Norwegian coordinator of Open Access and licence negotiations, landed Open Access agreements with the four major academic publishers. This article gives an overview of the key elements in the agreements with Wiley, Elsevier, Springer Nature and Taylor &amp; Francis.</p> Lene Ottesen Copyright (c) 2019 Lene Ottesen 2019-12-19 2019-12-19 10.7557/11.5200 Implementation of Open Science in Lithuania <p>The number of open science policies being adopted in Europe by universities and research institutions is constantly increasing, however many European countries face difficulties while implementing open science practically. This publication reveals the Lithuanian landscape of open science policies and institutional involvement in open science practices. Prerequisites for sustainable and consistent open science implementation such as open science infrastructure, incentives for researchers, research assessment, and repositories' compliance with EC requirements on a national level are discussed.</p> Rasa Dovidonytė Copyright (c) 2019 Rasa Dovidonytė 2019-08-21 2019-08-21 10.7557/11.4828 Need for a change in scientific publishing <p>Outsourcing of scientific publishing to scientific journals is problematic, both economically and academically. It is expensive, slow, non-transparent, unbalanced and excluding. Academic library subscriptions contribute substantially to the publishing companies’ 30-40% profit. There is general consensus that scientific reports should be openly accessible on the Internet. This is generally not the case with articles published in the traditional scientific journals. Open access journals are multiplying fast, but many are of questionable quality. Although open access publishing is less expensive than journal subscription, the article processing charges (APC) of open access journals are still high (up to 5,000 USD) and should be reduced. Science is expensive, scientific publishing should not be expensive.</p><p>The impression the present system, with its editors and anonymous reviewers, conveys of quality and objectivity, is partly an illusion. The basis for decision on manuscripts is too thin and the balance of power is too uneven.</p>Instead of a complicated fallible system, a simple fallible system is suggested: web-based, indexed and searchable repositories funded and organized by accountable and non-profit institutions/organizations where researchers may upload reports that have been thoroughly reviewed by and are supported by one or more competent, impartial, unbiased and named expert peers chosen by the authors themselves. After publication, reports may be further openly evaluated and commented online by named researchers in the field. Article processing charges should be moderate. Such a system would be simple, reasonable, fast, transparent, balanced, including, efficient, and adequately quality secured. Steinar Risnes Copyright (c) 2018 Steinar Risnes 2018-12-04 2018-12-04 13 29 10.7557/11.4509 Offsetting: no big deal? In this paper I will discuss offsetting deals from their impact on accessibility, affordability to research results and on the possible development of scientific communication towards new modes and methods. I will look at the Swedish National Consortia’s offsetting deals as a specific case study.<div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><p> </p></div> Jörgen Eriksson Copyright (c) 2018 Jörgen Eriksson 2018-05-30 2018-05-30 1 11 10.7557/11.4430 Moving towards open science? Conference report: the 9th Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, Lisbon, September 20–21, 2017 <div id="articleAbstract">The Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, COASP, is held annually with the aim of reaching professional publishing organizations, independent publishers and university presses, as well as librarians, university administrators and other stakeholders. Here, we outline some themes and highlights from this year’s conference.</div><div> </div> Jörgen Eriksson Christer Lagvik Emma Nolin Copyright (c) 2017 Jörgen Eriksson, Christer Lagvik, Emma Nolin 2018-01-02 2018-01-02 10.7557/11.4307 Benefits of open access articles for industry <p>In this short article, benefits of open access articles for industry are discussed from the point of view of the industry as both the authors and readers of open access articles. Open access articles unlock the barrier to share knowledge and experiences and building collaboration – all of which are crucial for an industry that wishes to make a global impact for a sustainable future.</p> Tita Alissa Bach Bobbie Ray-Sannerud Copyright (c) 2017 Tita Alissa Bach, Bobbie Ray-Sannerud 2017-12-01 2017-12-01 10.7557/11.4148 Summary and thoughts from a conference – attending the 7th Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing The Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, COASP, is held annually with the aim of reaching professional publishing organizations, independent publishers and university presses, as well as librarians, university administrators and other stakeholders. Here, we outline some themes and highlights from this year’s conference. Jörgen Eriksson Helena Stjernberg Aina Svensson Copyright (c) 2015 Jörgen Eriksson, Helena Stjernberg, Aina Svensson 2015-12-10 2015-12-10 37–50 37–50 10.7557/11.3648 Welcome to Nordic Perspectives on Open Science Jan Erik Frantsvåg Copyright (c) 2015 Jan Erik Frantsvåg 2015-10-23 2015-10-23 i–ii i–ii 10.7557/11.3624 A new funding model and improved infrastructure for the Finnish Open Access journals <p>A new project launched by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies and the National Library of Finland will be looking for ways to make Open Access publishing more viable for the Finnish scholarly journals. Most of the journals are published by small learned societies with modest resources. The project will investigate potential new funding models for the OA journals and develop improved technological infrastructure for them.</p> Jyrki Ilva Johanna Lilja Copyright (c) 2015 Jyrki Ilva, Johanna Lilja 2015-10-23 2015-10-23 31–35 31–35 10.7557/11.3622 Crystals of Knowledge Production. An Intercontinental Conversation about Open Science and the Humanities <p>In this article two scholars engage in a conversation about open access and open science in research communication with a specific focus on the Humanities. </p><p>The two scholars have very different points of departure. Whereas Jean-Claude Guedón has been a professor of Literature in North-America for many years and part of the open access movements since its beginning, Thomas Wiben Jensen is in the early part of his carreer and fairly new to the concept of open access. </p><p>The conversation begins with a focus on the Danish national strategy for open access and this strategy's consquenses for the journal NyS where Thomas Wiben is part of the editorial board. However, the conversation brings the reader on an unexpected journey through the history of science communication and through alternative ways of understanding knowledge production as frozen moments or crystals in the Great Conversation of science.</p><p>It is the hope of the editor and the contributors that the conversation can lead to a debate about innovative ways of communicating and distributing scientific results. </p> Niels Stern Jean-Claude Guédon Thomas Wiben Jensen Copyright (c) 2015 Niels Stern, Jean-Claude Guédon, Thomas Wiben Jensen 2015-10-23 2015-10-23 1–24 1–24 10.7557/11.3619 Open, transparent and honest – the way we practice research <p>This paper makes the case for Open Science as a means to support and practice Responsible Conduct of Research. Responsible and ethical research practices imply research integrity in terms of transparency, honesty and accountability in all parts of research, being it when attaining funding for research, collecting and analyzing research data, collaborating on research, performing scholarly communication, e.g. authoring and disseminating research etc. Likewise, the topics normally associated with Open Science directly support responsible conduct and in fact, one can argue that Open Science is a ubiquitous prerequisite for good research practice.</p> Bertil Fabricius Dorch Copyright (c) 2015 Bertil Fabricius Dorch 2015-10-23 2015-10-23 25–30 25–30 10.7557/11.3618