It has just been launched Barcelona Declaration on open research information. The signatories undertake to pursue a series of commitments which provide for open, accessible and transparent tools to complement traditional proprietary tools, overcoming their limitations (related to reuse, geographical and linguistic coverage, assignment to specific subject categories). A further step forward towards the principles expressed by COARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment).
For years now, and especially in our country, we have become accustomed to thinking about the research produced and disseminated on the basis of research information deriving from closed and commercial databases, such as Scopus or Web of Science. This information, called metadata, includes (1) bibliographical references, titles, abstracts, authors and their affiliation, but (2) also metadata on software or research methodologies, sampling and instruments used, or (3) information on funding and grants as well as (4) information about the organizations, and collaborators who contributed to the research. This metadata does not include the “contents” of the research or publication, but represents a relevant information asset, which often plays a fundamental role in the distribution of resources and in the evaluation of researchers and institutions: the organizations that deal with research and funding research teams use this information to evaluate and set strategic priorities, as well as analyze collaborations and evaluate the impact of their work.
This metadata, through the use of closed and commercial databases, is the source used by Anvur and the Ministry of University and Research for the definition, for example, of the ASN thresholds and individual indicators for the National Scientific Qualification. We rely on these databases when it comes to defining the indicators of the scientific quality of the members of the doctoral colleges for accreditation, or in the last research quality evaluation exercise: the citations and references were obtained from these databases magazine indicators.
These databases are not free of errors, omissions and important limitations. Duplication of profiles, incorrect attribution, failure to index entire issues or articles within issues, for example. But also choice “from above”, made directly by the companies that own these databases, of which journals to index and which not, which languages to consider and which not, which disciplines to include and which not. At the macro level of analysis these errors may not be considered significant, but for those making decisions using this data, these errors, combined with the lack of transparency and inclusion, could represent a major problem.
A commonly made argument is that these databases offer quality assurance of scientific journals and integrated data. However, this topic is increasingly under discussion today, as the decision about which journals are considered ‘quality’ should not be left to a private provider, often in conflict of interest with journal publishers (e.g. Scopus is property of Elsevier), but rather entrusted to the relevant scientific community or national evaluation bodies.
These proprietary and closed databases are also the basis for very expensive business intelligence tools in which tools are made available to generate indicators that are often opaque and difficult to reproduce, contributing to generating a proliferation of non-replicable quantitative indicators of dubious value, for the purposes of evaluating scientific research and making decisions.
To those who wish to carry out in-depth and descriptive analyzes of the research of individual institutions or countries, or on specific areas, or relating to research groups, the data will be made available only in a manner protected by intellectual property rights, so it is not possible to make them available. available to communities, as is now widespread (and required) practice for research and analyzes that use and produce data.
The CWTS researchers who publish the Leiden ranking know this well and have never been able to expose the Web of Science data used for their ranking until this year, even though they have always had to carry out a lot of work on that data. cleaning and reprocessing. The numerous universities that painstakingly clean the data relating to their institution to appear in international university rankings know this well, but even in this case, this data is not then returned to the community, generating a waste of public resources and energy.
From this year at CWTS they began to produce a second ranking based on open data coming from infrastructures such as OpenAlex and ROR (Research organization Registry) which guarantee complete transparency of data used. The exercise that was then carried out was to compare the results of the ranking based on proprietary data with that based on open data, comparing critical points and strengths. In a post on the Leidenmadtrics blog the researchers responsible for the ranking explain how they will proceed in the coming years:
In the next one or two years, we expect the traditional Leiden Ranking and the Open Edition to co-exist. In the somewhat longer term, CWTS will make a full transition to open research information. Within the next few years, all bibliometric indicators produced by CWTS, including those in the Leiden Ranking, will be based on open data.
However, CWTS researchers are not the only ones who have understood the importance of using open research data. At the end of last year the Sorbonne University decided not to renew its subscription to Web of Science (the one to Scopus was never subscribed to), and the CNRS did not renew its subscription to Scopus. Both institutions have declared their intention to use open data for the analysis and description of the research.
It is within this context that, at the end of 2023, at a meeting in Barcelona between 25 experts representing research institutions, funding bodies and evaluation bodies, the declaration on open research data was defined (Barcelona Declaration on open research information)through the observation that the research information landscape requires a fundamental change and that it is therefore necessary for institutions to decide to actively commit to taking a leading role in the transformation of current practices towards completely open solutions.
The statement, which he received the signature of over 40 institutions was published today, Tuesday 16 April and is based on a series of commitments that the signatory institutions intend to pursue:
1 Make openness the norm for the research information we use and produce.
2 Work with services and systems that support and enable the openness of research information.
4 Support collective actions to accelerate the transition towards open research information.
There are already many institutions that have joined the Barcelona declaration, for Italy the University of Milan and the University of Bologna, the Galileo Museum and the Tuscany Region have already signed. Others have started internal reflection and will soon join the initiative.