Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education

PLoS Biology

Volumn 15, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  McKiernan, Erin C ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; EDUCATION PROGRAM; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ONLINE SYSTEM; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOFTWARE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; RESEARCH; UNIVERSITY;

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; RESEARCH; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 85032450384     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002614     Document Type: Article

References (136)

1. D.E. Atkins, J.S. Brown, and A.L. Hammond. A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. Report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2007. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d16/858268c5c15496aac6c880f9f50afd9640b2.pdf.
2. Neuro Cloud ConsortiumTo the cloud! A grassroots proposal to accelerate brain science discovery. Neuron, 920 (3):0 622–627, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.033 27810005
3. SPARC and the Right to Research Coalition. OpenCon Community Report, 2017. http://www.opencon2017.org/community_report.
4. Choudhury S., Fishman J.R., McGowan M.L., Juengst E.T., Big data, open science and the brain: Lessons learned from genomics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8:0239, 2014. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00239 24904347
5. LeBel E.P., Borsboom D., Giner-Sorolla R., Hasselman F., Peters K.R., Ratliff K.A., Smith C.T., PsychDisclosure.org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 80 (4):0 424–432, 2013. doi: 10.1177/1745691613491437 26173121
6. McKiernan E.C., Bourne P.E., Brown C.T., Buck S., Kenall A., Lin J., McDougall D., Nosek B.A., Ram K., Soderberg C.K., Spies J.R., Thaney K., Updegrove A., Woo K.H., Yarkoni T., How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5:0e16800, 2016. doi: 10.7554/eLife.16800 27387362
7. A. Swan, Y. Gargouri, M. Hunt, and S. Harnard. Open access policy: Numbers, analysis, effectiveness. 2015. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02261. Cited 9 September 2017.
8. Harley D., Earl-Novell S., Arter J., Lawrence S., King C.J., The influence of academic values on scholarly publication and communication practices. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 100 (2):0 1–10, 2007. doi: 10.3998/3336451.0010.204
9. Xia J., A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open-access journal publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 610 (3):0 615–624, 2010. doi: 10.1002/asi.21283
10. Zhang L., Watson E.M., Measuring the impact of gold and green open access. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Forthcoming, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.004
11. Gaines A., From concerned to cautiously optimistic: Assessing faculty perceptions and knowledge of open access in a campus-wide study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 30 (1):0 eP1212, 2015. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1212
12. Hurrell C., Meijer-Kline K., Open access up for review: academic attitudes towards open access publishing in relation to tenure and promotion. Open Excess, 10 (2), 2011. http://tsc.library.ubc.ca/index.php/journal4/article/view/104.
13. The University of California Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program and Greenhouse Associates, Inc. Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding scholarly communication: Survey findings from the University of California. 2007. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/userresearch/surveys/2007_CDL_OSC_Survey.pdf.
14. I. Kuchma. Results of the SOAP Survey: A preliminary overview of the situation in EIFL partner countries. Electronic Information for Libraries, 2011. http://www.eifl.net/resources/results-soap-survey-preliminary-overview-situation-eifl-partner-countries.
15. Nokes K.M., Nelson D.A., McDonald M.A., Hacker K., Gosse J., Sanford B., Opel S., Faculty perceptions of how community-engaged research is valued in tenure, promotion, and retention decisions. Clinical and Translational Science, 60 (4):0 259–266, 2013. doi: 10.1111/cts.12077 23919360
16. C. Wolff, A.B. Rod, and R.C. Schonfeld. Ithaka S+R Jisc RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2015. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/17/.
17. Neylon, C. Openness in scholarship: A return to core values? In L. Chan and F. Loizides, editors, Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices, pages 6–17. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing, IOS Press, 2017. http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/46638.
18. L. Chan, D. Cuplinskas, M. Eisen, F. Friend, Y. Genova, J-C. Guédon, M. Hagemann, S. Harnad, R. Johnson, R. Kupryte, M. La Manna, I. Rév, M. Segbert, S. de Souza, P. Suber, and J. Velterop. Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002. http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/.
19. P.O. Brown, D. Cabell, A. Chakravarti, B. Cohen, T. Delamothe, M. Eisen, L. Grivell, J-C. Guédon, R.S. Hawley, R.K. Johnson, M.W. Kirschner, D. Lipman, A.P. Lutzker, E. Marincola, R.J. Roberts, G.M. Rubin, R. Schloegl, V. Siegel, A.D. So, P. Suber, H.E. Varmus, J. Velterop, M.J. Walport, and L. Watson. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, 2003. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm.
20. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 2003. https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration.
21. G. Bueno de la Fuente, Foster Group. What is open science? Introduction. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/content/what-open-science-introduction.
22. Fecher B., Friesike S., Bartling S., Friesike S., Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, pages 17–47. SpringerOpen, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
23. Open Source Initiative. The Open Source Definition, 2007. https://opensource.org/osd.
24. Murray-Rust, P. and Neylon, C. and Pollock, R. and Wilbanks, J. Panton Principles, Principles for open data in science, 2010. http://pantonprinciples.org/.
25. Kansa E.C., Moore S.A., The need to humanize open science. In Issues in Open Research Data, pages 31–58. Ubiquity Press, 2014. doi: 10.5334/ban.c
26. P. Kraker. Open science and the disciplinary culture clash—why is it so hard to reach a consensus? The London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Impact Blog, 2014. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/10/29/open-science-disciplinary-culture-clash/.
27. K. Mayer. From Science 2.0 to Open Science—Turning rhetoric into action? Social Technology Society Social Networking (STCSN) E-Letter, 30 (1), 2015. http://stcsn.ieee.net/e-letter/stcsn-e-letter-vol-3-no-1/from-science-2-0-to-open-science.
28. Greenhow C., Gleason B., Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 450 (3):0 392–402, 2014. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12150
29. Veletsianos G., Kimmons R., Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 130 (4):0 166–189, 2012. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1313
30. Open Knowledge International. The Open Definition. http://opendefinition.org/.
31. Tennant J.P., Waldner F., Jacques D.C., Masuzzo P., Collister L.B., Hartgerink C.H.J., The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: an evidence-based review[version 3; referees: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 5:0 632, 2016. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 27158456
32. Willinsky J., The Access Principle: The Case For Open Access to Research and Scholarship. MIT Press, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106529.
33. Souter D., Towards inclusive knowledge societies: A review of UNESCO's action in implementing the WSIS outcomes. UNESCO, 2010. http://bit.ly/UNESCO_inclusive.
34. Laakso M., Björk B-C., Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 100 (1):0 124, 2012. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124 23088823
35. Y. Gargouri, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr, and S. Harnad. Green and gold open access percentages and growth, by discipline, 2012. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3664. Cited 9 September 2017.
36. Piwowar H., Priem J., Larivière V., Alperin J.P., Matthias L., Norlander B., Farley A., West J., Haustein S., The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles, 2017. Preprint. PeerJ Preprints:e3119v1. Cited 9September2017.
37. Aronson B., Improving online access to medical information for low-income countries. New England Journal of Medicine, 3500 (10):0 966–968, 2004. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048009 14999107
38. RPP Noticias. Científicos ya no pueden acceder a crucial banco de datos por falta de dinero, 2016. http://rpp.pe/ciencia/mas-ciencia/cientificos-ya-no-pueden-acceder-a-crucial-banco-de-datos-por-falta-de-dinero-noticia-1016735.
39. Schiermeier Q., Mega E.R., Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals. Nature, 541:013, 2016. doi: 10.1038/nature.2016.21223 28054621
40. Kingkade T., College textbook prices increasing faster than tuition And inflation. Huffington Post, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.mx/entry/college-textbook-prices-increase_n_240915.
41. R. L. Donaldson, Shen E., and Florida Virtual Campus. 2016 Student Textbook and Course Materials Survey. The Orange Grove, 2016. https://florida.theorangegrove.org/og/items/3a65c507-2510-42d7-814c-ffdefd394b6c/1/.
42. Jaschik S., Can a professor be forced to assign a $180 textbook?Inside Higher Ed, 2015. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/26/dispute-required-math-textbook-escalates-broader-debate-about-costs-and-academic.
43. Hall B.L., Jackson E.T., Tandon R., Fontan J-M., Lall N., Knowledge, democracy and action: Community-university research partnerships in global perspectives. Manchester University Press, 2013.
44. S. Crissinger. A critical take on OER practices: Interrogating commercialization, colonialism, and content. In The Library With The Lead Pipe, 2015. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/a-critical-take-on-oer-practices-interrogating-commercialization-colonialism-and-content/.
45. L. Czerniewicz. Inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and exchange must be confronted head on, 2013. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/04/29/redrawing-the-map-from-access-to-participation/.
46. Silvertown J., A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 240 (9):0 467–471, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 19586682
47. Shapin S., The ivory tower: the history of a figure of speech and its cultural uses. The British Journal for the History of Science, 450 (01):0 1–27, 2012. doi: 10.1017/S0007087412000118
48. Bossu C., Bull D., Brown M., Opening up Down Under: the role of open educational resources in promoting social inclusion in Australia. Distance Education, 330 (2):0 151–164, 2012. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.692050
49. Conole G., Fostering social inclusion through open educational resources (OER). Distance Education, 330 (2):0 131–134, 2012. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.700563
50. Kanwar A., Kodhandaraman B., Umar A., Toward sustainable open education resources: A perspective from the global south. The American Journal of Distance Education, 240 (2):0 65–80, 2010. doi: 10.1080/08923641003696588
51. Kumar M.S.V., Open educational resources in India’s national development. Open Learning, 240 (1):0 77–84, 2009. doi: 10.1080/02680510802627860
52. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentGiving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. OECD Publishing, 2007. https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38654317.pdf.
53. S. Carson. MIT opencourseware 2005 program evaluation findings report. 2006. https://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/global/05_Prog_Eval_Report_Final.pdf.
54. Yuan L., Powell S., MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. JISC and CETIS, 2013. http://publications.cetis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf.
55. Dhanarajan G., Porter D., Open Educational Resources: An Asian Perspective. Commonwealth of Learning and OER Asia, 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/11599/23.
56. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Portal de Estadística Universitaria. http://www.estadistica.unam.mx/series_inst/.
57. Senack, E. and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund and The Student PIRGs. Fixing the broken textbook market: How students respond to high textbook costs and demand alternatives, 2014. http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/fixing-broken-textbook-market.
58. Hilton J., IIIFischer L., Wiley D., William L., Maintaining momentum toward graduation: OER and the course throughput rate. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 170 (6), 2016. Available from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2686/3967.
59. Straumsheim, C. Berkeley will delete online content. Inside Higher Ed, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content.
60. D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence, and C.J. King. Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley, 2010. http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc.
61. The University of British ColumbiaGuide to Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Procedures at UBC, 2016/17. http://www.hr.ubc.ca/faculty-relations/files/SAC-Guide.pdf.
62. Cornell University. University Mission. https://www.cornell.edu/about/mission.cfm.
63. J.P. Alperin. The public impact of Latin America's approach to open access. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2015. https://purl.stanford.edu/jr256tk1194.
64. Young A., Verhulst S., The Global Impact of Open Data: Key Findings from Detailed Case Studies Around the World. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2016. http://www.oreilly.com/data/free/the-global-impact-of-open-data.csp.
65. Earlham Institute. Embracing innovation through technology. http://www.earlham.ac.uk/impact-story-embracing-innovation-through-technology.
66. Murray F., Aghion P., Dewatripont M., Kolev J., Stern S., Of mice and academics: Examining the effect of openness on innovation. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 80 (1):0 212–252, 2016. doi: 10.1257/pol.20140062
67. Office of Biological U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and Environmental Research. Policies on Release of Human Genomic Sequence Data Bermuda-Quality Sequence. Human Genome Project Information Archive. http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/bermuda.shtml.
68. Contreras J.L., Bermuda's legacy: Policy, patents and the design of the genome commons. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 120 (1):0 61–125, 2011. Available from: http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol12/iss1/5.
69. Woelfle M., Olliaro P., Todd M.H., Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry, 3:0 745–748, 2011. doi: 10.1038/nchem.1149 21941234
70. Robertson M.N., Ylioja P.M., Williamson A.E., Woelfle M., Robins M., Badiola K.A., Willis P., Olliaro P., Wells T.N.C., Todd M.H., Open source drug discovery–a limited tutorial. Parasitology, 1410 (01):0 148–157, 2014. doi: 10.1017/S0031182013001121 23985301
71. Gowers T., Nielsen M., Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature, 4610 (7266):0 879–881, 2009. doi: 10.1038/461879a 19829354
72. World Health Organization. Developing global norms for sharing data and results during public health emergencies, 2015. http://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/blueprint_phe_data-share-results/en/.
73. Wellcome Trust. Global scientific community commits to sharing data on Zika, 2016. https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/global-scientific-community-commits-sharing-data-zika.
74. Owens B., Montreal institute going 'open' to accelerate science. Science, 3510 (6271):0 329–329, 2016. doi: 10.1126/science.351.6271.329 26797995
75. Rouleau G., Open Science at an institutional level: an interview with Guy Rouleau. Genome Biology, 180 (1):0 14, 2017. doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1152-z 28109193
76. Love B.J., Do university patents pay off? Evidence from a survey of university inventors in computer science and electrical engineering. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 160 (2):0 285–343, 2014. Available from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol16/iss2/2.
77. W.D. Valdivia. University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, 2013. https://www.brookings.edu/research/university-start-ups-critical-for-improving-technology-transfer/.
78. Open Science CollaborationEstimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 3490 (6251):0 aac4716, 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716 26315443
79. Prinz F., Schlange T., Asadullah K., Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 100 (9):0 712–712, 2011. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1 21892149
80. Begley C.G., Ellis L.M., Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 4830 (7391):0 531–533, 2012. doi: 10.1038/483531a 22460880
81. Baker M., 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533:0 452–454, 2016. doi: 10.1038/533452a 27225100
82. van Noorden R., Sluggish data sharing hampers reproducibility effort. Nature, 2015. doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.17694
83. Yong, E. How reliable are cancer studies? The Atlantic, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-proportion-of-cancer-studies-are-reliable/513485/.
84. Womack R.P., Research data in core journals in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. PLoS ONE, 100 (12):0 e0143460, 2015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143460 26636676
85. L.A. Barba. Reproducibility PI Manifesto. figshare, 2012. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.104539.v1.
86. Barba L.A., The hard road to reproducibility. Science, 3540 (6308):0 142–142, 2016. doi: 10.1126/science.354.6308.142 27846503
87. Munafò M.R., Nosek B.A., Bishop D.V.M., Button K.S., Chambers C.D., du Sert N.P., Simonsohn U., Wagenmakers E-J., Ware J.J., Ioannidis J.P.A., A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 10 (0021):0 1–9, 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021
88. Kaiser J., Cancer studies pass reproducibility test. Science, 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aan7016
89. Center for Open Science. Preregistration Challenge. https://cos.io/prereg/.
90. Wellcome Trust. We now accept preprints in grant applications, 2017. https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/we-now-accept-preprints-grant-applications.
91. National Institutes of Health. Reporting preprints and other interim research products. Notice Number: NOT-OD-17-050, 2017. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-050.html.
92. E.C. McKiernan. Being open as an early career researcher. figshare, 2014. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.954994.v1.
93. A. Goben. A personal open access plan. Hedgehog Librarian, 2012. http://hedgehoglibrarian.com/2012/02/22/a-personal-open-access-plan/.
94. M.A. Smale. Making a Pledge. from the Library of Maura, 2011. https://msmale.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2011/10/23/making-a-pledge/.
95. S. Wheeler. Sharp practice. Learning with 'e's, 2011. http://www.steve-wheeler.co.uk/2011/09/sharp-practice.html.
96. Aleksic J., Alexa A., Attwood T.K., Hong N.C., Dahl M., Davey R., Dinkel H., Förstner K., Grigorov I., Hériché J-K., Lahti L., MacLean D., Markie M.L., Molloy J., Schneider M.V., Scott C., Smith-Unna R., Vieira B.M., The open science peer review oath [version 2; referees: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 3:0 271, 2014. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 25653839
97. A. Holcombe. Stronger Pledges. Open Access Pledge. http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=21.
98. Solomon D.J., Björk B-C., A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 630 (8):0 1485–1495, 2012. doi: 10.1002/asi.22673
99. Morrison H., Salhab J., Calvé-Genest A., Horava T., Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications, 30 (1):0 1–16, 2015. doi: 10.3390/publications3010001
100. Solomon D., Björk B-C., Article processing charges for open access publication—the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. PeerJ, 4:0 e2264, 2016. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2264 27547569
101. The World Bank. Data: Mexico. https://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico.
102. Curb L.A., Abramson C.I., An examination of author-paid charges in science journals. Comprehensive Psychology, 1:0 01–17, 2012. doi: 10.2466/01.17.CP.1.4
103. Alperin J.P., Fischman G., Willinsky J., Open access and scholarly publishing in Latin America: Ten flavours and a few reflections. Liinc em Revista, 40 (2):0 172–185, 2008. doi: 10.18617/liinc.v4i2.269
104. Neylon C., As a researcher…I’m a bit bloody fed up with data management. Science in the Open, 2017. http://cameronneylon.net/blog/as-a-researcher-im-a-bit-bloody-fed-up-with-data-management/.
105. Stodden V., Miguez S., Best practices for computational science: Software infrastructure and environments for reproducible and extensible research. Journal of Open Research Software, 20 (1):0 e21, 2014. doi: 10.5334/jors.ay
106. Eglen S., Marwick B., Halchenko Y., Hanke M., Sufi S., Gleeson P., Silver R.A., Davison A., Lanyon L., Abrams M., Wachtler T., Willshaw D.J., Pouzat C., Poline J-B., Towards standard practices for sharing computer code and programs in neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 200 (6):0 770–773, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nn.4550 28542156
107. Blischak J.D., Davenport E.R., Wilson G., A quick introduction to version control with Git and GitHub. PLoS Comput Biol, 120 (1):0 e1004668, 2016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004668 26785377
108. Ram K., Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science. Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 8:07, 2013. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-8-7 23448176
109. Kluyver T., Ragan-Kelley B., Pérez F., Granger B., Bussonnier M., Frederic J., Kelley K., Hamrick J., Grout J., Corlay S., Ivanov P., Avila D., Abdalla S., Willing C., Jupyter Development TeamLoizides F., Schmidt B., Jupyter notebooks—a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, pages 87–90. 2016. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87
110. CITSADMN Site License Working Group and Conlon, M. A software acquisition proposal. University of Florida, 1994. http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~oits/UFRFC03.pdf.
111. University of Washington, Information Technology. UW-IT’s annual budget: FY 2017. https://www.washington.edu/uwit/2016-partnerships/annual-budget-fy17/.
112. GNU Operating System, Free Software Foundation. What is free software? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html.
113. Young, B. Open source is here to stay. ZDNet, 2000. http://www.zdnet.com/article/open-source-is-here-to-stay/.
114. University College London. UCL vision, aims and values. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/what/vision-aims-values.
115. The University of Alabama. Mission & Objectives. https://www.ua.edu/about/mission.
116. Marrero D.G., Hardwick E.J., Staten L.K., Savaiano D.A., Odell J.D., Comer K.F., Saha C., Promotion and tenure for community-engaged research: An examination of promotion and tenure support for community-engaged research at three universities collaborating through a clinical and translational science award. Clinical and Translational Science, 60 (3):0 204–208, 2013. doi: 10.1111/cts.12061 23751026
117. Otten J.J., Dodson E.A., Fleischhacker S., Siddiqi S., Quinn E.L., Getting research to the policy table: A qualitative study with public health researchers on engaging with policy makers. Preventing Chronic Disease, 12:0140546, 2015. doi: 10.5888/pcd12.140546 25927604
118. Acord S.K., Harley D., Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0. New Media & Society, 150 (3):0 379–397, 2013. doi: 10.1177/1461444812465140
119. DePaul University, Office of Academic Affairs. Mission Statement. https://offices.depaul.edu/oaa/key-initiatives/innovation-through-collaboration/Pages/mission-and-goals.aspx.
120. University of Oxford. Strategic Plan 2013–18. https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/strategic-plan.
121. Soares M.B., Collaborative research in light of the prevailing criteria for promotion and tenure in academia. Genomics, 1060 (4):0 193–195, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2015.07.009 26232606
122. Seipel M.M.O., Assessing publication for tenure. Journal of Social Work Education, 390 (1):0 79–88, 2003.
123. Wren J.D., Kozak K.Z., Johnson K.R., Deakyne S.J., Schilling L.M., Dellavalle R.P., The write position: A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO reports, 80 (11):0 988–991, 2007. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401095 17972896
124. R.C. Schonfeld and R. Housewright. Ithaka S+R Faculty survey 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societies. 2010. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Faculty_Study_2009.pdf.
125. Cheverie J.F., Boettcher J., Buschman J., Digital scholarship in the university tenure and promotion process: A report on the sixth scholarly communication symposium at Georgetown University Library. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 400 (3):0 219–230, 2009. doi: 10.3138/jsp.40.3.219
126. Walker R.L., Sykes L., Hemmelgarn B.R., Quan H., Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment. BMC Medical Education, 100 (1):0 21, 2010. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-21 20214826
127. The Ohio State University, Office of Academic Affairs. Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure: Criteria and Procedures for the Department of Emergency Medicine, 2016. https://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/governance/college-of-medicine/emergency-medicine/Emergency_Medicine_APT_2016-07-16.pdf.
128. Tulane University, School of Medicine. Guidelines for faculty appointments and promotion. http://www2.tulane.edu/som/upload/P_H-Guidelines-06-07.pdf.
129. Brembs B., Button K., Munafò M., Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:0 291, 2013. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 23805088
130. van Dalen H.P., Henkens K., Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. CentER Discussion Paper Series, 2012–003, 2012. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1983205
131. Berg J.M., Bhalla N., Bourne P.E., Chalfie M., Drubin D.G., Fraser J.S., Greider C.W., Hendricks M., Jones C., Kiley R., King S., Kirschner M.W., Krumholz H.M., Lehman R., Leptin M., Pulverer B., Rosenzweig B., Spiro J.E., Stebbins M., Strasser C., Swaminathan S., Turner P., Vale R.D., VijayRaghavan K., Wolberger C., Preprints for the life sciences. Science, 3520 (6288):0 899–901, 2016. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf9133 27199406
132. R. Poynder. The OA Interviews: Bernard Rentier, Rector of the University of Liège. https://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Rentier_Interview.pdf.
133. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., De Rijcke S., Rafols I., The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 5200 (7548):0 429–431, 2015. doi: 10.1038/520429a 25903611
134. Austin A.E., Faculty cultures, faculty values. New directions for institutional research, 19900 (68):0 61–74, 1990. doi: 10.1002/ir.37019906807
135. Boyer E.L., Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton University Press, 1990. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED326149.
136. Boyer E.L., The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 490 (7):0 18–33, 1996. doi: 10.2307/3824459