Open Access Australasia's response to NHMRC consultation: Good Institutional Practice

The inclusion of the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the guide  – as recommended below – could warrant the addition of this definition to this section.

It may be helpful to refer to the UNESCO Recommendations on Open Science in the introduction pointing out Australia’s and NHMRC’s commitment to these principles.

Excellent to see such an inclusive list under “intended audience”. It is very important to call out the breadth of roles that constitute research support staff.

In keeping with value 1.3 Equity, diversity, inclusion and respect for others, value 1.6 could note that openness “wherever possible” includes respecting the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders over data about their communities at all times.

In the section Safe Working Environment – the sentence “encouraging the fusion of traditional knowledge practices with other knowledge practices” seems unclear? What is meant by traditional knowledge practices? Clarify the difference and explain why they should be fused rather than inform one another?

Emphasis on Indigenous/Other Knowledge systems as of equal value and importance and not an add on.

The shift away from a  leadership style based on “high impact” publications to one based on values and openness is essential to changing a research culture that inhibits the adoption of open science practices in its current form. We heartily support this proposition.

Make it rewarding : reward open practices in research and publishing in addition to supervision and mentorship, including in promotion and institutional award processes. 

Make it required – if openness and transparency is to be realised compliance mechanisms with regard to open science practice (as well as reward) could be implemented. Additional KPIs around openness practice?

Require research data and code to be made FAIR, but when relevant to  align with the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty requiring an “open as possible closed as necessary” approach.

Require governance of Indigenous data to accord with the CARE principles and to be “CAREfully FAIR” ie recognise and adopt principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

Mandate the use of tools for transparent record keeping – and require these records to be/remain openly available in accordance with open science practice.

It is essential that open infrastructures such as repositories, publishing platforms and  open software be practically and financially supported, both within individual research institutions and by these institutions and others like NHMRC if the promise of open science is to be actualised.

Institutions should also look at what role they can play to encourage the publication of research that produces negative/null results. The case study on Tessier-Lavigne draws out the pressure to produce and publish favourable results. While changing reward incentives is important, the publishing system also needs to reflect a change and focus on producing quality research rather than being results oriented.

Make it both rewarding and required for training also in use of open repositories and open data storage solutions as well as preprint archives. Offer additional training on retention of IP and copyright by institutions and authors once at the stage of publishing and disseminating results. Additional training in AI literacy and the implications of its use by researchers and publishers.

Encourage supervisors to take the time to discuss the learning outcomes of training that GRs attend

Emphasise the importance of rewarding and recognising open science practices in addition to leadership and mentorship.

Recognition of the diversity of research outputs and of the diversity of ways in which research output can be made openly available, ie. bibliodiversity.

There is mention of DORA and CoARA, the latter of which has not been discussed much in Australia. This section could also encourage inter-institutional dialogue so that uplift can happen across the sector.

This would be a good section to acknowledge the importance of including research support staff both in the discussion of change to research culture and any related communications. Shared services can often provide a lot of training and so it is important they know how changes in research culture impact the information they deliver.

There is a section in this guide about training – I think data on uptake of training would be quite telling about how much staff are proactively engaging with new information being disseminated.

 Openness – open doesn’t necessarily mean accessible. Given this measure is also about transparency, it might be worth looking at data around research/sci communications and efforts made to communicate beyond formal peer reviewed publications. 

Open Access Australasia recognises that addressing the present research culture is an essential prerequisite to the broadscale adoption of open science practices. We applaud that this guide tackles this foundation (“make it possible”) by offering practical actions and solutions to change this research culture.

We note that building into the research culture an emphasis on the potential benefits to be had from institutional collaborations and leveraging consortia style open infrastructure arrangements could be a helpful addition.

We also urge that securing the practical and financial support needed for the necessary infrastructure required to enact open science practice as the norm must happen alongside changing the research culture. 

One practical observation regarding the style of the report is that the structure can be confusing to follow, that there are perhaps too many case studies included, and that the self reflective sections might be collected together for ease of use.

We find this guide thorough, timely and useful and commend NHMRC for its creation.