Centre for Internet and Society

Why Do We Need Open Access to Science?: A Developing Country Perspective

admin — 2008-10-11T09:45:01Z

Prof. Arunachalam's paper presented at the A2k3 conference in Geneva.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/Subbiah%20Arunachalam%20-%20Why%20Do%20We%20Need%20Open%20Access%20to%20Science

Will open access replace costly commercial publishing models?

praskrishna — 2012-02-23T09:12:10Z

Cost of research journals going up while funds available are coming down, writes Vasudha Venugopal in an article published in the Hindu on February 19, 2012.

Technology has inherently changed the way science education is propagated. Digital libraries, wikis, webinars, videoconferences, open access and repositories — all seem to be excellent tools for sharing scientific knowledge.

Download the PDF

But with the escalating cost of research journals and the economic and logistical challenges that often accompany attending a conference, the open access model is increasingly being recognised as an alternative to expensive commercial publishing models.

Consider the situation at, say, a biological sciences research firm in Chennai. At least 16 per cent of its total budget is spent on the subscription of journals; more than 50 per cent of that going to the two largest publishing companies. Experts say the cost of journals is increasing at an average of eight per cent a year. Further, many academics do not consider work to have been adequately shared if it has been merely published in over-priced journals.

Boycott

Incidentally, last week, more than 5,700 researchers started boycotting Elsevier, a leading publisher of science journals, amid growing concerns at cost and accessibility. More than 3,000 academics have signed a petition that claims the publisher charges “exorbitantly high” prices for its journals and criticises its practice of selling journals in ‘bundles,' forcing libraries to buy a large set with many unwanted journals, or none at all.

"Since 1950, the volume of research results started getting too large for the scientific societies, leading to the entry of commercial publishers into the field. The cost per journal and the number of such journals are proliferating, while the funds available are coming down,” says Francis Jayakanth, who has been instrumental in creating an institutional repository, ePrints@IISc, which has more than 32,000 publications by researchers.

India has nearly 53 registered open access repositories that allow users to download and use documents free.

Open access advocates say Indian papers appear in both Indian and foreign journals, roughly in equal proportions, but most Indian journals have a very poor circulation, many of them below 1,500; and most Indian papers appear in low-impact foreign journals. “Most scientists in India are forced to work in a situation of information poverty. Others are unable to access what Indian researchers are doing, leading to low visibility and low use of their work. Thus, Indian work is hardly cited. Both these handicaps can be overcome to a considerable extent if open access is adopted widely, both within and outside the country,” says Subbiah Arunachalam, an open access advocate.

Experts say many U.S. universities, including Princeton, MIT and Harvard, have their own repositories. Institutions in India, too, need to set up open-access repositories to ensure their work is available to the public even if it ends up being published in an expensive journal. Even if these are made available in different repositories, one can still access them all if all the repositories are interoperable.

Trustworthy

The established method for an academic to circulate his work is to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of repute, and the reader, too, places some degree of trust in the quality of the work being presented. So will open access, with the huge volume of papers, change that? “Not at all, open access is not vanity publishing or self-publishing or about publications that scientists expect to be paid for. Since every paper is peer-reviewed, the quality is never compromised,” says Dr. Jayakanth.

Read the article in Hindu. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam has been quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/will-open-access-replace-costly-commercial-publishing-models

What Indian Language Wikipedias can do for Greater Open Access in India

subha — 2016-10-22T04:12:40Z

The number of internet users in India was expected to reach 460 million by 2015, as the growth in the previous year was 49 percent. The total number of users for Hindi content alone reached about 60 million last year.

This was published by Your Story on October 20, 2016.

State of Indian languages on the internet

Based on a study, Internet activist Anivar Aravind mentioned that in 2014, although 89 percent of Indian population used mobile phones, only 10 percent of the population used smartphones (contributing to 13 percent of total mobile users). This means we can safely assume that a large section of online activity in India is through mobile devices ‑ thanks to the declining data charges because of high competition. That said the mobile internet connectivity in rural India is growing at a fast pace and vernacular content plays an important role in this great journey. With over 90 percent of the users being comfortable in their own native languages, websites that are producing content in Indian languages are going to drive this bandwagon.

Why open access is important for Indian languages?

Open access, in a nutshell, would mean research outputs and other educational resources that are free from restriction of access and use. The former includes resources like journals that are not paywalled, and the latter is freedom from copyright restriction. Open access as a movement encourages license migration ‑ a process of migrating from several copyrighted license terms to Creative Commons licenses and several other licenses that provide freedom to use, share and remix. In a country like India where there are only a handful of research journals available in vernacular languages, the need for open content becomes much more important. The more the restricted content, the less will be the access to knowledge. Creating more vernacular content with open licenses is like digging a well in a dessert.

Indian language Wikipedias as open access journals

It’s been almost a decade since most largely spoken Indian languages started having a Wikipedia project of their own. Presently, there are 23 Indian language Wikipedias, including newest entrants like Konkani and Tulu. That said, these projects are growing with more and more encyclopedic content written with a neutral point of view, which any internet user will find useful. Wikipedia is considered as the people’s encyclopedia and hence can have quite contrasting content ‑ some being poor because some volunteer editors lack expertise in high quality articles written by professionals. A great example of creating very high quality content in one particular subject area is Open Textbook of Medicine ‑ an offline encyclopedia consisting of Wikipedia articles related to medicine that was created by a group of dedicated volunteer medical professionals that happened to be Wikipedia editors. There is enormous potential to grow Wikipedia in multiple languages with high quality content.

How to grow open access in Indian languages using Wikipedia as a tool

The list of challenges to grow Wikipedia-like projects with volunteer effort could be endless. And one of the biggest challenges is bringing self-motivated people who are willing to contribute as volunteers. Also, there are many such people who are not aware that they can contribute to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community has created an ecosystem by having several Wikimedia chapters and other affiliates that are run by both volunteers and paid staff ‑ the Wikimedia Foundation, a paid staff-run organisation that is responsible for fundraising, major technological and some community support. In India, Wikimedia India, Centre for Internet and Society’s Access to Knowledge program (CIS-A2K) and Punjabi Wikimedians are three such official affiliates that are working on catalysing the growth of the content and the communities. Where the affiliate Punjabi Wikimedians focuses on Punjabi language (in both Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi scripts), both Wikimedia India and CIS-A2K focus on all the Indian languages. CIS-A2K also specially focuses on five languages; Kannada, Konkani, Marathi, Odia and Telugu. Indian language Wikipedia projects can only grow if people can edit their own language Wikipedias.

With the Open Access Week—a week dedicated for promoting Open Access globally—around the corner with “Open in Action” as the theme of the year, there is no better time for anyone who can read and write in their native Indian language.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/your-story-subhashish-panigrahi-october-20-2016-what-indian-language-wikipedias-can-do-for-greater-open-access-in-india

Leading Up To The GCIP: A Chat With Zakir Thomas

Job Michael Mathew — 2016-01-30T10:54:37Z

With only a few more days to go for the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015 (“Congress”), we will be putting out a number of blog posts as a precursor of things to come. In this first series, Job Michael Mathew approaches some of our keynote speakers for their thoughts on their work areas and contemporary developments in their fields.

Profile: Zakir Thomas is an expert in the field of intellectual property rights, open source innovation, neglected diseases and innovation ecosystem in science and technology in India. He will be giving a keynote address during the inaugural plenary session scheduled for December 15^th.

JMM: How far has the TRIPS regime ensured access to and availability of treatment for neglected diseases?

ZT: TRIPS is an instrument meant to further intellectual property (“IP”) driven innovation. One basic feature of IP driven innovation is that it is market related; thus if the market fails, there is no innovation. There is a whole gamut of areas where innovation is required but does not happen due to lack of a market. The TRIPS regime is meant to address innovation in areas where there is already a market. IP drives innovation in areas that has a market, which will ensure return on investment. In the case of neglected diseases there is no ‘market’ for the innovation drivers to ensure a return on their investment and hence access and availability has been poor in this area. I would say that the TRIPS regime has not dealt with the question of treatment for neglected diseases at all. The fact here is that the TRIPS regime was not meant to ensure access and availability to treatment for neglected diseases.

However it important to look at this question a little closer. There are a lot of areas where innovation has not happened despite the presence of TRIPS-compliant laws. There are countries with stronger IP laws than the US, yet companies have not shifted to those countries. There are many countries in the world today that have TRIPS-complaint IP laws, yet has this resulted in transfer of R&D from the US to local companies in these countries? Even after two decades of TRIPS and links drawn between stronger IP laws and innovation, innovation is confined to a handful of countries. Innovation ecosystem is a complex ecosystem and IP is only one of the factors that have an effect on the ecosystem and not the sole determinant as the current narrative makes it out to be. It is important to challenge the narrative that proclaims that IP drives innovation or that higher IP protection will attract investment and transfer of R&D.

JMM: Given the fact that big pharmaceutical companies are resource-rich to pay hefty sums to people who work with them, how can the open source movement attract the best talent to work for it?

ZT: From my experience in working in this field, I don’t think talent or the lack of it is the real issue. It is important to understand what exactly a pharmaceutical company does in research. In most cases the real innovation, i.e. finding the early stage molecule, which is the core of pharmaceutical innovation, happens in publicly funded academic or research institutions and only in limited cases does it happen within the pharmaceutical company. Once the early stage molecule is discovered then the pharmaceutical companies does some development over these molecules leading up to the clinical trial. There are experts in publicly funded institutions who are willing to work with the open source movement and are in fact working with it. There are Contract Research Organizations who are IP agnostic and deliver quality research to the industry. Talent, therefore, is not difficult to find and is readily available to tap into. Of course, pharmaceutical industry driven drug discovery is a cost-intensive model. Even in the open source model, the costs cannot be brought below a certain level. The open source model will also have to conduct clinical trials and somebody will have to bear these expenses. The difference lies in that fact that the fruits of the innovation will be available to all without the exclusivity of IP attached to it.

JMM: A major concern for the uninitiated will be issues of quality control in an open source drug discovery model. How does open source drug discovery address such concerns?

ZT: To be honest, such a doubt will come from someone not only uninitiated to the model of open source drug discovery but also the process of drug discovery itself. Drug discovery and development is a highly quality controlled work. There are inbuilt regulatory mechanisms which ensure that newly discovered molecules pass certain regulatory standards. We have an independent clinical trial regulatory body called the Drug Controller General, whose experts closely scrutinize all data submitted to it, and only after they are satisfied will they give the nod to go ahead with clinical trials. Further, just because the drug is developed in an open source model doesn’t mean that experts do not closely scrutinize it. Experts, peer reviewers and funders scrutinize the discovery at every single stage and only with the approval of the regulators will things move ahead. Essentially, independent of whether the drug is discovered through the open source or the pharmaceutical model, the kind of regulatory checks and quality controls it goes through will be the same.

JMM: The Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science and Technology are announcing an open access policy as a major victory for the open access movement in the country. What according to you should be the next objective of the open access movement in India?

ZT: Creating a national depository of open access journals which are properly cited and indexed, organized subject-wise and searchable online by all our academic institutions should be the next step. Essentially a well stocked and organized open access library should be accessible to our researchers. India has a National Knowledge Network (NKN) which provides high bandwidth connectivity to academic institutions. This repository should be made accessible over NKN. It is not enough to declare that Departments go open access. It is important to ensure that the all open access resources are available to our researchers we well.

JMM: How far has the open access movement in India translated to output of quality scientific research studies?

ZT: Open access is about access to knowledge. It will ensure that the work you do at your lab is now accessible by people at large. It does not mean that the quality of work you do in your lab improves. But access to knowledge has the potential to improve the quality of your research. Open access allows for the communication of research findings with taxpayers, which will lead to better returns for the taxpayers as the fruits of the tax money spend is available publicly for everyone to access. Whether this availability leads to better quality of scientific research studies is something unquantifiable as of now. So, open access resulting in output of quality scientific research studies is a correlation that I cannot make. Open Access has been recently adopted in India and there is no data available that allows me to make such a correlation.

The idea behind open access is that one makes public one’s work regardless of its quality or other considerations. Now, the question is whether doing so increases quality of output? There is a possibility that following an open access model will result in better review and feedback of works submitted but this is a very long process and there is no data in India to make such a claim.

[1] Job Michael Mathew is an intern at the Centre for Internet and Society. He is currently a student at Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad.

[2] Zakir Thomas was the founding Project Director of Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in India, where he led an open innovation drug discovery programme for tuberculosis (TB). He was also the head of the Director General’s Technical Cell, leading a team which provided technical and policy inputs to CSIR, including intellectual property issues.

He served as the Registrar of Copyrights of Government of India from 2000-2003 and as a Deputy Secretary in the Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Human Resources Development. Professionally, he is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service with over 25 years of experience, currently posted as Commissioner of Income Tax at Delhi. He has worked at the Ministries of Finance, Science and Technology and Human Resources Development, in the fields of intellectual property, science and technology, e-governance and policy formulation.

Zakir holds an M.Sc. in Physics (Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala), LL.B. (Delhi University), and a Masters in Intellectual Property, Commerce and Technology (Franklin Pierce Law Centre, University of New Hampshire in the U.S.)

Check out the blog post on Spicy IP

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-zakir-thomas

Scholarly Communication in the Age of the Commons

sachia — 2011-04-05T04:37:37Z

One-day conference on Open Access Organised by National Aerospace Laboratories (as a part of their Golden Jubilee celebrations), Indian Academy of Sciences and Centre for Internet and Society

Background

Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions) and ensures free availability and unrestricted use.

In today’s knowledge-based society, the advent of the Internet and widespread and easy access to scientific information are facilitating research and innovation. Open Access is not only changing the nature of scholarly communication but even the way research is carried out. Indeed Open Access is the bedrock on which the emerging Global Research Library initiative is being built.

Scientists and scientific institutions in India - some of them, to be precise - have moved up in the value chain in that they access information and disseminate their findings often through barrier-free electronic channels. Out of about 3,900 open access journals, India accounts for 108 titles as seen from the Directory of Open Access Journals. The major Indian publishers of OA journals are Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, MedKnow Publications and National Informatics Centre. According to the Registry of Open Access Repositories there are 40 open access repositories in India including those at Indian Institute of Science, National Aerospace Laboratories, National Institute of Oceanography, Raman Research Institute, National Institute of Technology - Rourkela, and Indian Institutes of Technology. Prof. Samir Brahmachari, Director General of CSIR, has initiated the Open Source Drug Discovery programme as an alternative to the traditional patent-driven model of drug research. Recently CSIR has adopted an open access policy. Indian National Science Academy is one of the early signatories to the Berlin Declaration.

Thus Open Access - both for accessing worldwide information and for making our own research more visible - is not new to India. But one must admit that considering the size of India's research and higher education enterprise what we have achieved so far is utterly inadequate and incommensurate with our ambition to become a knowledge power. We have a long way to go. And the first step is to adopt open access nationwide.

This one-day “Conference on Scholarly Communication in India in the Age of the Commons” is organized to take stock of the current developments in Open Access and to highlight the issues that would need to be addressed to enable a wider access to scientific knowledge and to enhance the visibility of research performed in India.

Date and Time

26 March 2009; 9.30 am - 5.00 pm

Venue

S R Valluri Auditorium, National Aerospace Laboratories, (Old) Airport Road, Bangalore

Speakers

Speakers at the event include:

Prof Leslie Chan, University of Toronto and Bioline International http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~chan/

Prof John Willinsky, Stanford University and Public Knowledge Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Willinsky

Please see the programme below for names of the other speakers.

Contact

Dr I R N Goudar

Scientist ‘G’ and Head, ICAST

National Aerospace Laboratories

Airport Road, Bangalore-560017

Telephone: (+91) 80 2508 6080

Fax: (+91) 80 2526 0862

Email: goudar@nal.res.in

While you can register on the spot, we encourage you to kindly register through e-mail. Please provide name, designation, address, contact telephone number and e-mail address. Participants may make their own arrangements for travel and accommodation.

Programme

9.30 am-10.15 am -- Inaugural session

Welcome by Dr I R N Goudar

About the conference: Prof Subbiah Arunachalam

Talk by Prof D Balasubramanian

Remarks by Dr A R Upadhya

10.15 am-10.45 am -- Tea

10.45 am-11.35 am -- Prof Leslie Chan, University of Toronto and Bioline International

11.35 am-12.25 pm -- Prof John Willinsky, Stanford University and Public Knowledge Project

12.25 pm-1.15 pm -- Dr D K Sahu, MedKnow Publications

1.15 pm-2.15 pm -- Lunch

2.15 pm-2.45 pm -- Mr Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society

2.45 pm-4.15 pm -- Panel discussion

Moderator: Prof P Balaram

Panelists: Subbiah Arunachalam, Leslie Chan, N V Sathyanarayana, A R Upadhya, and John Willinsky

4.15 pm -- Tea

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/scholarly-communication-in-the-age-of-the-commons

Strategic Issues Emerging from Open Access Dialogues - Final Report

sumandro — 2015-10-11T04:39:10Z

A series of discussions - on the Chat Literacy forum of ELDIS and on Twitter - was organised during November 2012 to March 2013 to identify the global challenges in 'Navigating the Complexities of Open Access'. The discussions were facilitated by Eve Gray and Kelsey Wiens, in partnership with The African Commons Project (South Africa) and the Centre for Internet and Society (India), through support from the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex. On behalf of CIS, Sumandro Chattapadhyay co-coordinated and contributed to these discussions.

The final report of the Open Access Dialogues was published by the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, and can be accessed here.

A sub-report summarising the experiences and arguments expressed by the Indian participants in the Dialogues was prepared by Sumandro, which can be read below or downloaded here.

Strategic issues emerging from the comments of Indian participants

1. Lacking OA awareness, even among scholarly communities

Many, if not all, commentators emphasised the unfortunate lack of awareness about the notion and possibilities of Open Access across India, including among the scholarly and/or higher education related communities. Often the notion of Open Access is quite familiar, especially among scholars, but without a clear understanding of its benefits and how to make one's scholarly works openly accessible.

2. Uneven geography of OA success stories

The above point must be read along with strong success stories emerging from Indian OA journals, mostly from science disciplines. A recent study reveals that 970 Indian OA journals are included in the 'Journals Citation Report 2011' (science), and the Impact Factors of these journals are on the rise. This indicates towards a very uneven geography of OA awareness and adoption in India, with the OA agenda being pursued successfully by specific scholarly communities but not translating into widespread support across the higher academia landscape.

3. Global businesses of scholarly works and complicity of Indian researchers

The role of global businesses of scholarly works in impending the Open Access agenda in the India was mentioned by most of the commentators. The publication, and especially distribution, of publicly funded research is dominated by global publication houses. Additionally, the complicity of Indian researchers in reinforcing the culture of exclusive and 'prestigious' journals published by global publishers is also well understood and criticised.

4. Citation Indexes as necessary evil

While the discussants argued against an over-emphasis on Impact Factors in judging a quality and success of journals, especially for IF being biased against new journals, and thus against newly started OA journals. At the same time, measurement of citations remains a crucial way of understanding readership and impact of scholarly works. There was a strong recommendation of article-level metrics as opposed to journal-level ones. Studies were suggested to argue that article-level impact increases with OA journals. Another concern is bibliographic malpractices, including biases against citing works from Indian (or, developing world) scholars and against citing works published in non-'prestigious' journals.

5. Open Access must not only be about access to journals

A strongly expressed opinion was that the OA agenda must move beyond journal publications. The journal-centric approach emphasises the supply side of knowledge but fails to appreciate the demand of knowledge, especially in a country like India where primary and secondary education remain vital challenges. Further, even within higher academic circles, OA agenda must expand into other forms of scholarly works beyond journal essays, such as primary data and other research materials, especially since all such forms are also produced by public funds. Open Access to 'gray literature' (produced by private and non-profit research organisations) is also crucial, as much policy-making tends to be shaped by such works.

6. Open Access and the consumers of knowledge

The commentators emphasised the nature of OA to knowledge as a public good. The OA agenda must address the consumers of knowledge outside the university system, and especially across socio-economic classes. While open university education and participation in MOOC-models of learning are on the rise in India, there is a threat that this digital-centric approach reinforced existing digital divides in access to knowledge.

Policy Suggestions

1.'Mainstreaming' the OA agenda: Instead of locating OA as a separate agenda, it will be useful to 'mainstream' it within larger development/research related funding initiatives by making OA publications of research outcomes a necessary grants condition.

2.OA as the entry point to a broader 'open' agenda: The OA agenda can build upon its existing institutional and governmental acceptance and implementation to promote a broader 'open' agenda, including open sharing of research data, open formats for and sharing of bibliographic data etc.

3.Moving the OA discussion and knowledge organisation beyond higher education communities: Addressing non-university circuits of learning, of both institutional (primary and secondary education) and non-institutional (informal learning groups around MOOC courses) varieties, is a crucial challenge for the OA agenda in the developing world. Another crucial community of potential OA supporters would be the non-governmental and non-profit organisations working in the field of education in particular, and development in general.

4.Removing policy biases against Open Access journals in academic administration: Combined global and local efforts remains important to reshape national academic administration policies to stop discrimination against OA publication of scholarly works, such as higher academic benefit for publication in closed 'prestigious' journals.

5.Encouraging and supporting scholarly communities (often with a disciplinary and/or thematic common ground) to undertake OA knowledge production: Promoting the OA agenda must also adopt a bottom-up strategy in the developing world, and this would require capacity and community building exercises involving local and global scholarly colleagues and enthusiasts gathered around thematic and/or disciplinary focii, as well as institutional and governmental recognition and support.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/strategic-issues-emerging-from-open-access-dialogues-final-report

Open Movement in India (2013-23): The Idea and Its Expressions

soni — 2024-02-13T02:57:29Z

This report identifies some broad patterns that have materialized in the Open Movement in the country in the last decade. The report is based on a reading of the available literature on selected projects and conversations with academicians and advocates of the Open. The rough outline of the Open initiatives is accompanied by reflections on the nature of the Open here and the need to envision it differently from what it currently is.

The report was prepared by Soni Wadhwa, and the visual elements of this study have been sourced by Joseph Francis. CIS’s Access to Knowledge team is grateful to Soni for embarking on the study and making the recommendations. The full report can be read here.

Open, as an idea, has not received systematic attention in India. Openness as a philosophy is rooted in the belief that sharing ideas and resources is healthy for the knowledge economy, especially in contemporary times. This sharing does not take anything away from any entity; rather, it enables collaboration and innovation for the larger social good. With the Internet and digital technology, one can see the faster spread of such innovation across the globe while also allowing for plenty of room for its adaptation to regional contexts. Anchored in the thought and efforts of individuals such as Richard Stallman (1992; 2002; 2006; 2009) and Tim Berners-Lee (Berners Lee, 2004; Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001; Berners-Lee et al 1992; Berners-Lee and Tim, 2010; Berners-Lee, Tim and Hendler, 2001; Berners-Lee, Tim and Shadbollt, 2011; Bizer, Heath and Berners-Lee 2011) who take a view contrary to that of keeping public funded research and innovation locked away under copyright and patent laws, the Open Movement originated in the Global North.

In the West, specifically in the USA, with the support from the institutions such as the Hewlett Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the manifestation of the Open Movement through the push for OER (Open Educational Resources) translated into a greater uptake from educational institutions such as Rice University and the MIT (through MIT OCW – Open CourseWare)(Bliss and Smith, 2017). With prestigious universities offering MOOCs (massive open online courses) through platforms such as edX and Coursera, educational resources have come to be seen as a social good: keeping them available for mass access has been an intentional move towards equal access to quality educational materials. In addition to OER, Open Access (the idea that research funded by public funds need to be made available publicly rather than behind a paywall erected by commercial publishers), as an expression of the Open Movement, has also been present in institutional funding mechanisms in the West, again, especially in the USA. A lot of research emerging out of grants extended to individuals and institutions have space for allocation of funds towards the cost of Open Access publishing for dissemination of results. Several other initiatives such as the Creative Commons, and the Wikimedia Foundation have been working towards making Openness a reality by charting out various projects, pathways, and initiatives to keep knowledge accessible to all for learning as well as collaboration.

In India, the state of the Open Movement is thrown into stark relief by the much longer and much more engaged Western imagination and practice of Openness. Indeed, studying its contours here is equivalent to studying its absences and is therefore very challenging. Here, Open, as an idea, has come via the West and still seems to be struggling to be defined and accepted as an ideal to strive towards. It is an alien concept, deeply misunderstood by the stakeholders who control sharing of knowledge resources: policy makers, legislators, leaders of research and institutions, and researchers and academicians in general.

To suggest another example, a pilot survey of Indian faculty members’ attitudes towards use of Open Knowledge sources such as Wikipedia in Indian classrooms reveals that faculty members are very suspicious and skeptical of such sources. They see it as a source of misinformation and therefore, as unreliable.What gets missed is the idea that the content on these sources is not merely for consumption of information and knowledge but are also platforms for knowledge creation and collaboration. In contrast to the two scenarios of OER and Open Access mentioned above, India does not show a long history of organized effort towards making information and knowledge accessible to all, not just through earmarking funds or mechanisms for making publicly funded research available in the public domain via Open Access, but through nurturing a culture of the Open as the default mode of dissemination.

What, then, are we to make of the direction in which the Open Movement is headed in India? Is it possible to shape its trajectory in India? Is it possible to ascertain the ways in which the ideas or benefits of the Open can be made to resonate with the Indian educational and research scenario? Can Indian educators and researchers afford to stay out of the Open ecosystem? What alternative modes of innovation do they champion? These are the questions that this study of the Open Movement in India in the last decade (2013-2023) seeks to explore.

The study is not an exhaustive one: it looks at only some examples that engage with the idea of the Open. The selective nature of the study is informed by two rationales. One, an all-encompassing review would be impossible given the constraints on time and resources: indeed, such a review would be the task of a full-fledged tracking project (which is one of the futures that this report suggests at the end). Two, given that Open does not have a clear pathway or a central, strategic vision to drive it as a movement, the selection of projects themselves is a symptom of the disjointed ways in which the idea of Open struggles to take shape or survive in India.

The year 2013 has been chosen as a starting point for this exploration because it was the year the Wikimedia Foundation extended a grant to the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, to work with various Wikipedia communities in India towards the growth of the Open ecosystem in India. This last decade then is of grave importance to the CIS because it helps the organization reflect on their own work vis-a-vis that of other Open advocates CIS’s work, since then, is available on its website through details of its initiatives via its Access to Knowledge and Openness Programmes (see, for instance, their work on bridging gender gap on Indian Wikimedia communities, apart from a host of other training and advocacy initiatives here). This study is an aid to survey the idea and expressions of the Open as a broader movement and thus help CIS reflect on new directions and strategies to be pursued in the near future, to begin with.

However, there is more to the year 2013 than the happenstance of the grant to CIS per se: indeed, one can spot other organized efforts emerging in the Indian ecosystem since then. NPTEL (National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning), which was established in 2003, began to offer MOOCs on its platform in 2014. Coincidentally, 2013 was also the year the Bichitra Project (an online variorum of the work of the Indian Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore), funded by the Ministry of Culture, went live. Together, the international foray into the Indian Open Movement and the governmental gravitas to strive towards making education and the literature of a great Indian author) accessible provide the rationale for this study’s focus on the examination of the nature of championing for the cause of the Open, its successes, failures, and potential for its growth in the next decade.

The approach or methodology to explore answers to these questions involved: analysis of primary as well as secondary research available on the different initiatives in India; interactions with experts working in the Open domain in India including some Indian academicians, especially on the discussion of Open Access which impacts their publishing record, and in turn, impacts their career advancement. The reading and the conversations supplemented each other in the process of investigation: the existing literature provided facts through texts (blogs, papers, documentation on websites and so on) while the interactions opened up more nuances of intersections through perspectives that do not always make it to the static texts.

Any study on the Open Movement in India owes a huge debt to Arul George Scaria’s gargantuan Open Science India Report (2019). At over 350 pages, it is a detailed study of Open Access projects and also includes a survey conducted among academic fraternity. It also offers concrete suggestions to strengthen access in research. It is remarkable for the larger view it takes of access to include access for persons with disabilities and access in terms of language, suggesting that research should also be accessible in Indian languages, and also in jargon-free English for wider audiences. Apart from Scaria’s study, there are journalistic pieces about Open Data in India, given the relevance it has for governance.

This current study does not aspire to be monumental like Scaria’s. However, it is hoped that its relevance to the ongoing conversations about openness would be noted at at least two levels. One, between 2019 (when Scaria’s report was published) and 2023 (the end point of this study), socioeconomic changes such as COVID-19 and the resulting remote work, one expects, have highlighted the significance of openness. For instance, given the serious constraints it posed for travel, a lot of commercial publishers kept their resources open so that further research, within medicine and outside, could keep happening. Thus, it becomes imperative to understand if the Indian ecosystem displayed any stronger endeavor towards openness. To anticipate a couple of suggestions discussed in the report below, certain things such as Indian researchers’ apathy or disdain for Open Access has not quite changed in the span of these four years. However, Government of India’s open initiatives such as Anuvadini and Bhashini around tools for navigating and producing content in Indian languages have started to appear.

Two, Scaria’s study subsumed all knowledge under “science”: in other words, science, in his report, is a metonym for knowledge. This current study, in being inclusive of humanities and the arts, especially as relevant to Open GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums), engages with knowledge or movement in general irrespective of its disciplinary boundaries.

With that statement on where this report is situated, some notes about its structure are in order. This study begins with an overview of the legal and policy environment in India. It then moves on to explore the nature of Open projects in India. There are many ways to organize the narrative around Openness, with the domain wise bifurcation of the different aspects of the Open (The OPEN Movements, 2023). In contrast, this goes on to organize the projects around positionalities, rather than the domains. That is, the different projects and initiatives are narrativised as:

Public funded projects: These are endeavors emerging from funds provided by the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Culture and distributed via grants to Higher Education Institutes in India, especially the IITs. They stand out as one category in that they are characterized by:

The vision to provide basic infrastructure of education and archival material in the public domain
The capacity to think and execute in terms of massive impact and scale
A wide scope for aiming higher in terms of innovation, approach, and access

Volunteer undertakings: These are projects undertaken by non governmental organizations such as the Sanchaya Foundation, SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre) and FOSSUnited characterized by:

A niche focus on a language or a domain or an audience
A preoccupation with developing a community rather than delivering an output
A qualitative aspect to engagement and documentation, as opposed to impact in terms of numbers

Within volunteer undertakings, the role of philanthropic foundations is very briefly touched upon. There are entities such as the SRTT (Sir Ratan Tata Trust) and SDTT (Sir Dorabji Tata Trust) that supported the cause of the Open in the initial stages via their investment in the larger educational and cultural cause. These foundations also seem to have discontinued their efforts in the long term perhaps given the scope of work involved. In addition to philanthropic foundations, mention is also made of international projects. The international Open Knowledge projects in India involve the Wikimedia Foundation and the Mozilla Foundation that have funded various initiatives in India and have continued to stay invested in the larger vision as well as execution of Openness through their grants.

The discussion of the above mentioned types of projects is followed by an examination of the attitudes of academicians teaching at Higher Education Institutes towards Open Access as a specific niche within the Open Movement. Conversation with faculty members in different institutions reveals that Open as an idea is not quite clear to the academia, or at least occupies a space of dissonance: while it is desired as an ideal, it is very strongly constrained by the judgments of fellow peers and employing institutions. In contrast, conversations with experts in Open Access reveals that Open Access deserves a much stronger effort: not just to push for policy changes but also to decolonize Indian academia.

The study concludes with some threads that can be pursued from the projects the Open Movement in India has witnessed in the last decade. These points of engagement could become points of reflection for further initiatives in the next decade or two.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-movement-in-india-idea-and-its-expressions

A2K3 Panel XI: Open Access to Science and Research

sunil — 2011-08-18T05:07:56Z

Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam participated in the third Access to Knowledge hosted by The Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School between September 8-10, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference held at the Geneva International Conference Centre brought together hundreds of decision-makers and experts on global knowledge to discuss the urgent need for policy reforms.

Original Article on A2K3 website

Download Subbiah Arunachalam's Paper

Audio file of Session on Open Access to Science and Research (Ogg, MP3)

Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of unnecessary copyright and licensing restrictions. Made possible by the internet and author consent, OA supports wider and faster access to knowledge. This panel featured Leslie Chan, of the University of Toronto; Subbiah Arunachalam of the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and Global Knowledge Partnership; Eve Gray of the Centre for Educational Technology, UCT; and DK Sahu of Medknow Publications Pvt. Ltd. Peter Suber from the Yale Information Society Project and SPARC moderated this panel.

It’s a distant dream for most kinds of literature, where authors are unwilling to give up the revenue they currently earn from publishers. But it’s growing quickly for scholarly journal articles, where journals don’t pay for articles and authors write for impact, not for money. The result is a revolutionary opportunity to accelerate research and share knowledge. OA is especially important for researchers and medical practitioners in developing countries, where access to knowledge has been sharply reduced by four decades of fast-rising journal prices.

This panel will examine what universities and governments can do to promote OA, with a special focus on medical research and health information. Among the models discussed will be peer-reviewed OA journals, OA repositories, the WHO’s Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), and the new policy from the U.S. National Institutes of Health requiring NIH-funded researchers to deposit their peer-reviewed manuscripts in an OA repository.

The questions to be addressed will include:

How do access barriers slow research in developing countries? How does OA remove those barriers?
What can universities do to promote OA?
What can governments, and public funding agencies, do to promote OA?
What special challenges do developing countries face in providing OA?
What are some concrete examples of successful OA policies and projects in developing countries?
Why is OA a critical issue for policy-makers concerned with public health, scientific innovation, and higher education?
How does OA accelerate the advance and spread of knowledge in medicine as well as in other disciplines?
How can OA promote the work of researchers in developing and transitional countries, both as readers and as authors?

PETER SUBER

OA literature is digital, online, free of charge, free of needless copyright
OA is compatible with peer review, copyright, revenue and profit, print, preservation, prestige
3622 peer-reviewed OA journals, 1220 OA repositories, 22 university OA mandates (15 countries), 27 funding agencies OA mandates (14 countries)
Part of the problem: journal prices have risen 4 times faser than inflation since mid-1980s. Indian institute of science is the best funded research library in india providing access to 10600 serials.
Harvard has 98990
Yale has 73900
Average ARL library = 50,566
U of Witwatersrand = 29,309
U of Malawi = 17000 ejournals, 95 print
The case for OA is especially strong for publicly funded research, medical research, research from developing countries

SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM

Why do we needopen access to science?
Science as Knowledge commons
Created by researchers, a communal activity, science is about sharing, internet has opened new opportunities
Primary goal of science is the creation of new knowledge for the benefit of humanity
Emergence of open access – seeks to restore knowledge commons to creators. Movement, like everything else, is uneven
Physicists vs. chemists
UK, Netherlands and USA – have had many more successes
Brazil – doing very well – but China and India are not doing so well with open access
Restore the knowledge commons is to the community
This movement is like any other movement which is uneven
Developments in India

3.1% papers in chemical abstracts
30,000 papers a year indexed in SCI
Problems of Access and Visibility

New Developments:

Consortia – able to provide a lot of journals
open courseware
arXiv

Problems: papers that are published are put in inaccessible journals, and people in global South laboratories would be unable to access this knowledge. The Government gives the money but the research then ends up flying out
The policy front:

Individual efforts
National Knowledge Commission has recommended OA
Number of institutional repositories
Need advocacy and training programmes
Action missing from key players

Some individuals are doing a great job and putting all their materials online
Medical information and developing countries

No nation can afford to be without access to S&T research capacity
Neglected diseases are not a priority for pharmaceutical companies
HINARI – any country that has per capita less than $1000 is eligible

DK SAHU

Infectious diseases (chikungunya goes Italian)
Non-infectious diseases (india becoming global hub for diabetes)
Industry effects (how safe are clinical trials)
Several examples (such as MedKnow, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine) of free access to no-fee journals.
A journal from India has the most visits from London
A journal called International Journal of Shoulder Surgery but visitors are from Melbourne
More original research articles, 40+ articles in 2005 vs. 160+ articles in 2008 in IJU, more issues per year for journals, check on scientific misconduct, international recognition (11 journals in SCI in 2 years)
Going online increases citations – this is an open access advantage
Scientific output of new economies: medicine
Open access publishing is not alone sufficient – there are disappearing journals. Commercial publishers are taking over, there is a lack of continuity, non-interoperability/archiving
20-80 phenomenon (majority of journals are not OA)
Local journals are not preferred (high IF journals)

LESLIE CHAN

Role of Universities and Researchers
You need citations in order to advance in academia – if your papers get picked up and ripple throughout the research arena. What about policy impact?
“Impact factor” is evil. Open access was meant to counter the tyranny of impact factor, so OA journals should not try to battle it out in this arena.
Issues involve “big science” and “lost science”, research literature as infrastructure, integrating the gold and green roads to open access.
Institutional repositories and open access journals
There’s a lot of Big Science that costs a lot of money (like LHC)
But we have another big hole – the 10-90Gap. 10% of the global health research spending is allocated to diseases affecting 90% of the population
The G8 countries account for 85% of most cited articles indexed in ISI
The other 126 countries account for 2.5%
How much of these journals are relevant in terms of content?
We are operating with a dominant model of knowledge dissemination from the Center to the Periphery
We end up having “lost science” in the developing world because of that knowledge
Perpetuate the cycle of knowledge poverty in this way
African countries need to have in place appropriate mechanisms and infrastructure for training and exploitation of knowledge. This will enable them to make meaningful evidence based policy that pertains to local needs
Researchers in developing countries ranked access to subscription-based journals as one of their most pressing problems
HINARI: health sciences

108 countries, 1043 institutions, 5000 journals
Collaboration of >45 publishers: free or reduced-cost access to journals for developing countries
Others: eIFL.net, AGORA: agricultural sciences, OERE: environmental sciences, PERI
Dissemination through information philanthropy. http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/lcp/1001/lcp100109.html

Open access: the solution to the “lost science”
Two routes to Open Access (OA) – open access journals and respositories
African health sciences: two years ago there was a n article published in this journal and authors found that over 50% of these drugs were substandard or fake. This got the local newspaper, and then BBC, and then other researchers started looking at it
Open Access repositories:
Institutionally-based (universities, etc) or subject-based (e.g. PubMet Central, arXiv.org)
Collect copies of articles published by the institutions researchers
Researchers themselves deposit knowledge
Benefits for authors (research output instantly accessible for all (higher impact)
Research output of international research community accessible to author
Partnerships/collaborative projects develop as a result
Career prospects advanced – publications noted by authorities
Opportunities for new research discoveries, data mining etc
Alternative impact assessment
Benefits for funding bodies: what has been discovered with our financial support? Was it a good investment?
Researchers have a moral and intellectual obligation to ensure that their research is accessible
Universities share a common goal and public mission advancement of knowledge for the betterment of human kind
Open access is key to the MDG

EVE GRAY

When we talk about open access, we talk about change and change delivery.
It’s not just intellectual property and copyright issues, but values, cultures, systems, practices, everything that underlie the process moving towards scientific research
We faced the biggest problem in facing change – we’ve seen a massive overhaul, of transformative reports, of leveraging the country into a different direction. Undoing the damage of apartheid and colonialism
What is meant by international? What is meant by local?
African knowledge for Africa: we need to rejuvenate, regenerate our own knowledge
SA: first heart transplant in the world. Have their own vaccines. Operate as a leading scientific country
Growing international competitiveness – publication is perceived as a matter of journal articles in international journals. Little or no support for publication in nationally-based publications
Much research output in grey literature, not easily findable or accessible
The Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 2001
Research has to address the burning economic issues of a country
Things are changing…slowly
Support for open access publications
What needs to be done – open access journals are necessary.
Changing values and promotion systems – we have to somehow pick up on the vision of that vibrant African dance movement, translate this feeling
Providing support for publication efforts
Expand the range of publication outputs
Ensuring the social impact of research
There is a huge amount of research being pumped out and being printed out by NGOs
Great literature is almost inaccessible in universities
Could not access African journals – no access from their own countries or neighboring countries
Electric Book Works has manuals for health-care workers – manuals are very high-quality, out of University of Cape Town
Often forgotten that science information is necessary to trickle down, if everything is online, we can get things to trickle down
Harvard said: it is our duty to disseminate our research. Stanford: Caroline Handy – when you publish research, research for community use is part of the duty

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/a2k3-panel-xi-open-access-to-science-and-research

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research Adopts an Open Access Policy

nehaa — 2013-09-30T15:03:04Z

In this blogpost, Nehaa Chaudhari discusses the newly adopted Open Access Policy of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

Earlier this month, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) adopted an Open Access Policy. Inter alia, this policy requires each ICAR institute to set up an Open Access Institutional Repository (OAIR), with the ICAR to set up a central harvester to harvest the meta data and full text of all the records from the Open Access (OA) repositories so set up. What is interesting from the IPR perspective is that the meta-data and other information of these repositories is copyrighted with the ICAR and has been licensed for research and academic purposes, for using, re-using and sharing. Commercial and other reuse would require the written permission of the ICAR. In a nod to the increasing importance of social media, ICAR’s Open Access Policy encourages its institutes to share their works on public repositories and social networking sites, besides adopting the mandate to have all publications, including its journals placed under Open Access. What might be harder to realize, however, is the publication of their research by scientists and other researchers across ICAR institutes or elsewhere, with publishers that allow self archiving Open Access Institutional Repositories. The ICAR Open Access Policy is available here.

In May, earlier this year, the ICAR had released a draft version of this policy, inviting comments. CIS’ comments had lauded the Policy as being comprehensive, detailed, and as being a positive step in the right direction, and had suggested some possible changes to the same.

It is observed that the adopted Open Access Policy (OAP) differs from the Draft Policy (DP) in certain respects, some of which are a cause for concern, whereas a few others expand the scope of the OAP. First, while the OAP requires that Institutional Repositories be established; the requirement contained in the DP to use Free and Open Source Software which was OAI-MHP compliant has been removed. Given that this is an endeavour to foster openness, requiring the use of Open Source Software was definitely a welcome step sought to be adopted by the ICAR, and its elimination renders the OAP lacking in the spirit of openness to its greatest realizable extent. Further, compliance with OAI-MHP would have ensured interoperability, as noted by us in our comments to the DP, and a failure to utilize this would reduce the accessibility and impact of archived materials. Second, the OAP requires that authors of scholarly articles deposit both, preprints and post-prints of their papers accepted for publication in the OAIR. This is a departure from the position in the DP, which required only preprints be deposited. Given that there is likely to be a difference in content and form of the article between the preprints and post-prints (which are after peer review), the inclusion of both preprints and post-prints in the OAIR is seen to be a beneficial move. Third, the period of embargo while signing copyright agreements with publishers had been envisaged to be six months in the DP, whereas the OAP extends the same to twelve months. It is felt that scientific writing is likely to be time sensitive, and twelve months might be an inordinate delay for its availability in the public domain, possibly reducing its applicability and relevance. Therefore, it is suggested that the earlier embargo period of six months might be the better alternative between the two. Fourth, the OAP incorporates an End Note, that was absent in the DP, which stipulates the time period of three years for compliance with the Open Access initiative, and recognizes the OAP as the first stage of a larger process. Both, the time period for compliance, and the recognition that the adoption of the OAP is but the first stage, are appreciated.

In sum, the OAP of the ICAR, while addressing some of the issues associated openness does leave room for desirability. Besides the suggestions that we had made earlier, other concerns include those reflected in this blog post, particularly regarding the departure from the DP in certain specific instances. Nonetheless, the adoption of the OAP by the ICAR is a welcome move- one that would hopefully be followed by other Government agencies such as the Department of Atomic Energy, the University Grants Commission, the Department of Biotechnology, etc.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/icar-adopts-open-access-policy

CIS' Comments on the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-08-22T15:46:45Z

In July 2014, the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India released a draft Open Access Policy. CIS participated in discussions along with experts brought on board by the Drafting Committee to develop and review the open access policy. As a follow-up, CIS prepared comments to the draft Policy. This post makes available CIS' comments to the draft Policy.

The Policy was drafted after multiple rounds of consultation with Ministry officials, eminent academics and experts with prior experience of drafting open-access policies, and CIS. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam along with the Open Access Policy Committee led the discussions. The draft Policy may be accessed here. You may access CIS' detailed post on its previous work on the draft Policy here. The comments provided by CIS follow.

Click here to download a pdf version of the comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS ON THE

PROPOSED OPEN ACCESS POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY AND DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE

THE CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, INDIA

I. PRELIMINARY

1. This submission presents preliminary clause-by-clause comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) on the Proposed Open Access Policy (“the Policy”) of the Department of Biotechnology (“DBT”) and Department of Science (“DST”).

2. This submission is based on the draft document for an open access policy by the DBT/DST. The draft document may be accessed on the website of the DBT.^¹

3. CIS commends the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to the release of its open access policy. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of the discussion during the framing of the Policy; and to provide this clause-by-clause submission, in furtherance of the feedback process continuing from the aforesaid draft Policy.

II. OVERVIEW

4. The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organization engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness.^² This clause-by-clause submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on them.

III. CLAUSE-BY-CLAUSE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS

5. “An important function of DBT/DST is to support basic, translational and applied scientific research through the creation of suitable infrastructure, by providing funding to individual scientists, institutions and start-ups, and through any other means deemed necessary.”

5.1. CIS has observed the superior standard of scientific research and development performed at DST/DBT^³, and the steps taken to create high quality infrastructure by providing direct and indirect funding to several individual scientists, institutions and start-ups.

5.2. CIS strongly supports DBT/DST’s endeavour to extend the benefits of scientific research to the public produced by the persons in the foregoing comment by creating an open access policy.

5.3. CIS believes that the creation of an open access policy will advance the “creation of suitable infrastructure” by DBT/DST. Further, academic literature argues that open access works have a greater impact than works that are not freely available^⁴ and the public ought to benefit from research funded by the taxpayers’ money.^⁵

6. “Since all funds disbursed by DBT/DST are public funds, it is important that the information and knowledge generated through the use of these funds are made publicly available as soon as possible.”

6.1. The Policy proposes usage of the phrase “made publicly available.”

6.2. It is submitted that the phrase “made publicly available” does not sufficiently convey or establish the specific rights of the public with regard to the use of the information and knowledge generated at DBT/DST.

6.3. Under Indian Copyright law^⁶, the Government is the first owner of research “made or published under the control or direction” of any of its department or public undertaking in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Therefore, the Government is the owner of the knowledge and information generated at DBT/DST.^⁷ The author by virtue of section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, however, retains the following rights in the publication:

a. Identification right or attribution right;

b. Right to maintain integrity in the work; and

c. Right to prevent destruction of the work.

These rights are collectively known as the author’s moral rights. They remain with the author even after assignment of the copyright or first ownership vesting with the Government. Whereas, the Policy permits unfettered access to research, there are limitations on further use of the work placed on third parties by virtue of the aforementioned rights.

6.4. CIS, therefore, in support of maintaining precision of the Policy recommends use of the phrase “made publicly available as soon as possible, subject to limitations prescribed under Indian law.”

6.5. CIS strongly supports the Policy’s rationale to make all knowledge openly accessible because it is produced by public funding. The rationale also aligns with academic literature advocating that the public ought to benefit from research funded by the taxpayers’ money.^⁸

7. “Research funded by DBT/DST results in new ideas and knowledge. However, DBT/DST will not underwrite article processing charges levied by some journals.”

7.1. CIS observes that while a majority of open access publications may not charge subscription or other access fees, they usually cover their operating expenses through other sources by levying processing fees paid by or on behalf of authors for submission to or publication in the journal.^⁹

7.2. CIS believes that the Policy should not cause detriment to persons performing research under DBT/DST, safeguard each person’s interest and career advancement. DBT/DST must create suitable infrastructure to accommodate prevalent practices and ensure the best support for its researchers.

7.3. CIS, therefore, suggests the need to establish a durable mechanism for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which other institutions would not be expected to provide funds.^¹⁰

7.4. The following methods may be elected to further the aforementioned comment:

a. DST/DBT may insert a provision to factor Article Processing Charges into the researcher’s grant; or

b. DST/DBT may establish an OA Publishing Fund. Funding may emerge from potential sources such as the institution al research division responsible with tracking and managing grant funding.

c. DST/DBT may purchase an institutional membership with OA publishers. Several major OA publishers discount their processing charges if an author is affiliated with an institution that has a membership.^¹¹

8. “The DBT/DST affirms the principle that the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, should be considered in making future funding decisions. DBT/DST does not recommend the use of journal impact factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.”

8.1. CIS strongly believes that the policy successfully creates a level playing field for assessment of quality of publications by making the title of the journal irrelevant.

8.2. CIS observes that the particular clause uses “title of the journal” to imply that the title is irrelevant as a factor to judge the merit of the work; whereas in the following sentence uses “DBT/DST does not recommend the use of journal impact factors” as a factor to assess quality of the work. The synonymous use creates an impression that “journal impact factor” is similar to “title of the journal”, which is a specious representation.

8.3. CIS submits that “journal impact factor” is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal, and is only one of the many methods of calculating quality of a publication.^¹²

8.4. CIS suggests that the clause may be amended as follows, insofar as the preceding comments are concerned:

“The DBT/DST affirms the principle that the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, should be considered in making future funding decisions. DBT/DST does not recommend the use of journal impact factors either, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.”

8.5. Further, CIS submits that open access is in a nascent stage in Indian academia, and a person performing research under DBT/DST may lose external benefits by adhering to this clause. In reality, open access journals are yet to cultivate the high quality readership that certain subscription based journals enjoy. The clause prematurely puts a burden on researchers to not publish in subscription based journals enjoying a stellar reputation. Further, mere posting in online repositories will not ensure that the research will be successfully read and critiqued by other members of the academia.

8.6. CIS believes that DBT/DST should provide sufficient infrastructure and freedom to allow researchers to publish by a method of their choice, and not put unnecessary restrictions on the same.

9. “The DBT/DST believe/s that maximizing the distribution of these publications by providing free online access by depositing them in a gratis open access repository is the most effective way of ensuring that the research it funds can be accessed, read and built upon. This, in turn, will foster a richer research culture.”

9.1. CIS strongly agrees with DBT/DST’s method of disseminating research. The method is in harmony with the principles of open access since it provides free online access by depositing manuscripts in an open access repository.

9.2. CIS submits that the clause may include depositing full-text, metadata and supplementary materials in addition to the paper, in consonance with Clause 12 of this submission.

10. “Grantees can make their papers open-access by publishing in an open-access journal or, if they choose to publish in a subscription journal, by posting the final accepted manuscript to an online repository.”

10.1. The clause indicates that papers may be made open access via two routes, firstly, publishing the paper in an open-access journal, and secondly, publishing the paper in a subscription journal. Publishing the paper in a subscription journal entails the grantee to also post the final manuscript to an online repository.

10.2. CIS strongly supports the Policy’s direction to grantees to deposit “the final accepted manuscript to an online repository” upon adoption of the second route.

10.3. However, CIS believes that to ensure that ends of open access completely meet; the papers should be mandatorily deposited in online repositories which are freely accessible to the public i.e. following the Green OA route completely.

10.4. To strengthen foregoing comment, CIS strongly suggests establishment of a central online repository under the aegis of DST/DBT. This will guarantee open access to the manuscript in the unfortunate case of the institutional repository failing or delaying in tying up with other institutional repositories and the central repository.

10.4. It is submitted that the clause may be accordingly amended as follows^¹³:

“Grantees can make their papers open-access by publishing in an open-access journal and posting the final manuscript to a central online repository, or by publishing in a subscription journal and posting the final accepted manuscript i.e. the pre-print version to the central online repository. A preprint is any version of the paper prior to peer-review and publication, usually the version submitted to a journal.”

What should be deposited?

11. “The final accepted manuscript (after refereeing, revision, etc.) resulting from research projects fully or partially funded by DBT/DST or performed using infrastructure built with the support of DBT/DST and to appear in peer-reviewed professional journals. This also includes review articles, both invited and author initiated, for those who received funding from DBT/DST during that period.”

11.1. It is submitted that the clause fails to declare the applicability of the Policy to non-peer reviewed works, inter alia, doctoral dissertations.

11.2. CIS observed that the DBT offers post-graduate programs, including the DBT Postdoctoral Fellowship (DBT- PDF) programme and Post-Graduate programs, inter alia.^¹⁴

11.3. CIS supports the extension of the policy to works produced under all programs at DBT/DST (mentioned in the foregoing comment) to increase the efficacy of the Policy and to fulfil greatest dissemination of public funded research.

12. “The full-text of the paper and metadata should be deposited. Supplementary materials should be made available along with the publication. At the end of the full-text the acknowledgement should carry the grant number.”

12.1. CIS strongly supports the deposit of metadata, full-text of the paper to be made available along with other supplementary materials.

12.2. This clause rightly seeks supplementary material to ensure holistic access to the research.

12.3. CIS believes that DST/DBT should ensure that the aforementioned material is deposited in a machine readable format thereby permitting accurate search across the open access infrastructure and supporting interoperability. This will lead to a high degree of openness and foster a more rigorous academic culture.

12.4. In furtherance of the preceding comment, CIS submits that DBT/DST may use Digital Object Identifiers (“DOI”) to create persistent citations of publications available online. DOI ensures interoperability across systems and accurate linking of all material in relation to a publication. OECD has successfully implemented the system in its library system, namely, the OECD iLibrary.^¹⁵

12.4. CIS encourages DBT/DST to develop a more detailed policy on issues affecting the infrastructure required to successfully implement open access at it.

13. “Papers resulting from funds received from the fiscal year 2012-13 onwards are required to be deposited. Authors are strongly urged to also deposit final accepted manuscripts from funding received in earlier years.”

13.1. CIS strongly agrees with the scheme of depositing papers.

13.2. It is submitted that this clause will dispel ambiguity for requirement of depositing papers published prior to 2012.

Where to deposit?

14. “The manuscript should be deposited in the grantee’s own institution’s interoperable institutional repository (IR). If the institution does not yet have an IR of its own, then the paper should be deposited in the central repository, which will be created by DBT/DST.”

14.1. CIS strongly supports depositing papers in the aforementioned repositories.

14.2. It is submitted that the manuscript may be mandatorily be deposited in a central online repository (as suggested in the preceding comments), in addition to the grantee’s own institution’s interoperable institutional repository.^¹⁶ This will guarantee open access to the manuscript in the unfortunate case of the institutional repository failing or delaying in tying up with other institutional repositories and the central online repository.

When to deposit?

15. “Deposits should be made within one week of acceptance by the journal. However, if the journal insists on an embargo, the material should still be deposited, but the repository will keep the deposited papers non-OA and only make it fully OA at the end of the embargo period.²Suggest that the period of embargo not be greater than one year.”

15.1. CIS strongly supports the time-frame provided for depositing the paper, and the subsequent clause for keeping the paper “dark OA” in the case of an embargo placed on the paper by the publisher.

15.2. CIS suggests that the sentence “Suggest that the period of embargo not be greater than one year” be re-framed to reflect a conclusive position of the DST/DBT.

15.3. CIS submits that the clause may be amended as follows:

“Deposits should be made within one week of acceptance by the journal. However, if the journal insists on an embargo, the material should still be deposited, but the repository will keep the deposited papers non-OA and only make it fully OA at the end of the embargo period. The embargo should operate for a maximum period of one year.”

Who should deposit?

16. “This policy applies to individual scientists/institutions who have directly received ad-hoc funding or other support/benefits/infrastructure from DBT/DST as well as to scientists working at DBT/DST-aided autonomous institutions who benefit directly or indirectly from the infrastructure and core funding provided by DBT/DST.”

16.1. CIS strongly supports the inclusion of scientists and researchers into the scope of the Policy.

16.2. It is submitted that extending the scope of the Policy to apply to direct beneficiaries as well as indirect beneficiaries of DBT/DST funding/infrastructure shall ensure open access to a large amount of invaluable research.

16.3. The clause may be amended as follows:

“This policy applies to individual scientists/researchers/institutions who have directly received ad-hoc funding or other support/benefits/infrastructure from DBT/DST as well as to scientists/researchers working at DBT/DST-aided autonomous institutions who benefit directly or indirectly from the infrastructure and core funding provided by DBT/DST.”

17. “The principal investigator (PI) or someone authorized by the PI, or anyone authorized by the head of the institution where the work is carried out (such as the librarian), can deposit the papers. Both the PI and the head of the institution will be responsible for timely deposit of the paper.”

17.1. CIS supports the process chalked out to deposit the papers.

17.2. It is submitted that a formal procedure shall ensure efficient and timely deposit of the papers.

Depositing in a repository is mandatory

18. “Unless the deposit ID is quoted in the project report as well as in future proposals for funding, the proposals will not be considered.

Unless the deposit ID is quoted in the project report as well as in future proposals for funding, the proposals will not be considered.

In the rare case where the PI or head of the institution has some valid reasons for not complying with these requirements they should give a suitable explanation in the final report.

For research carried out in institutions under the administrative control of DBT/DST:

Authors of papers that will have no such deposit ID shall not be considered for promotion/appointment/ award/Fellowship/Research Grant.”

18.1. CIS supports the procedure to ensure mandatory deposits in a repository.

18.2. It is submitted that creating unique deposit IDs shall ensure that the PI or head of the institution oversees the process of making a paper open access more efficiently. Further, the clause incentivises authors to gain a deposit ID by depositing their papers in a repository, thereby maximizing open access.

How to deposit?

19. “In case of IRs, the IR administrator (and his/her team) will deposit the material on behalf of the authors. If one wants to deposit the material in the central repository, the author (or one of the authors in case of many) should forward the material to the administrator of the central repository. Those who want to self-archive in an IR may obtain the credentials from the administrators.”

19.1. The clause prescribes the methods prescribed in the Policy to deposit a paper.

19.2. However, CIS believes that depositing papers in the Central repository should be mandatory, since tie-ups with the institutional repositories may fail or get delayed. The Policy should aim at reducing administrative barriers in interest of making papers open access in the least amount of time.

Copyright

20. “In case the scientist produces research as part of her employment with a government body, the copyright vests in the government body, unless otherwise agreed upon to the contrary. Therefore, if the copyright continues to vest in the Government, transfer of rights would have to be by the Government, or by the scientist after prior permission from the Government. If the research has been produced by the scientist in the course of her employment with any institution, copyrights vests in the institution concerned, unless otherwise agreed upon to the contrary. The institution should retain the right to make the articles freely available gratis, whether the journal is open- access or subscription-based.”

20.1. CIS strongly supports the Policy in regard to informing the author about their ownership rights in the research.

20.2. CIS strongly supports a legal arrangement whereby the author is transferred complete copyright in his/her work; and the Government retains a non-exclusive, irrevocable and perpetual licence to disseminate the work publicly for the purposes of this Policy.

20.3. In furtherance of the preceding comment, the clause may be amended as follows:

“In case the scientist/researcher produces research as part of her employment with a government body, the copyright legally vests in the government body, unless otherwise agreed upon to the contrary. In the interest of the authors, the Government will transfer copyright in the work to the author, subject to reservation of certain rights. The Government should retain the right to reproduction of works, to issue copies of the works freely available gratis, whether the journal is open- access or subscription-based.”

21. “The DBT/DST recommend/s that all authors receiving funds from DBT/DST should, at the time of returning the copyright transfer form, inform the publisher that they would retain the right to place the full-text of the final author version in the institution’s IR and DBT/DST Central. This can be achieved by attaching to the copyright transfer agreement the DBT/DST author addendum.”

21.1. CIS strongly supports the pre-condition to be placed by the authors before the publisher before permitting publication of their papers.

21.2. It is submitted that retaining the right to deposit papers in the appropriate repositories shall ensure open access to research produced by the authors, and place a legal obligation on the publisher to honour the principle of open access by virtue of the copyright transfer agreement.

IV. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

22. The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed Open Access Policy of the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and commends the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India for its initiative in seeking inputs from the stakeholders.

23. To that end, reiterating its commitment to the values of access to knowledge, openness, freedom of information, protection of general public interest and safeguarding various stakeholders’ interests and rights, the Centre for Internet and Society presents the following concluding observations:

a. That the Policy uses the phrase “made publicly available as soon as possible, subject to limitations prescribed under Indian laws” to adequately convey its purposes.

b. That the Policy may create various mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which the respective institutions would not be expected to provide funds. The mechanisms are as follows:

(i) DST/DBT may insert a provision to factor Article Processing Charges into the researcher’s grant; or

(ii) DST/DBT may establish an OA Publishing Fund. Funding may emerge from potential sources such as the institutional research division responsible with tracking and managing grant funding.

(iii) DST/DBT may purchase an institutional membership with OA publishers.

c. That the Policy should clearly distinguish between journal impact factors and title of the journal in respect of assessing the quality of the publication

d. That to ensure that ends of open access completely meet; the papers should be mandatorily deposited in a central online repository (established by DBT/DST) which is freely accessible to the public i.e. following the Green OA route in toto.

e. That non- peer reviewed works produced at DBT/DST, in addition to peer reviewed works also be deposited by the authors and therefore be included in the appropriate clause.

f. That to ensure that the full-text, meta data and supplementary material is deposited in a machine readable format thereby permitting accurate search across the open access infrastructure; The policy may develop a more rigorous plan for creating adequate infrastructure to ensure interoperability.

g. That the Policy may consider using DOI to establish a robust infrastructure.

h. That the manuscript may be mandatorily deposited a central online repository, in addition to the grantee’s own institution’s interoperable institutional repository to ensure that ends of open access are met.

i. That the copyright should vest with the author and the Government may retain rights to reproduction of the work in order to issue free copies of the work to the public.

j. That certain sentences be suitably modified, as discussed in the preceding sections of these comments.

k. That the Policy fails to establish a target timeline to achieve the objectives and setting up of required infrastructure, thereby rendering the collaborative obligations and duties of various stakeholders undefined. The Policy may insert a clause for the same as follows:

“Targets of the DST-DBT Open Access Policy Implementation (broadly):

Conclude the final terms and conditions of the Policy by <insert date>.
Create a central online repository for authors to submit their material by <insert date>.¹⁷
Encourage institutions to create respective institutional repositories.
Create a website with a user-friendly interface to enable access to the public by <insert date>”

That the Policy fails to address the remedies for non-compliance of its terms and condtitions by any party i.e Government, institution, researcher/scientist. A clause may be inserted as follows:

“Compliance

Researcher/scientist

1. In the event of the researcher/scientist entering into an agreement with a journal publisher, which stipulates unreasonable conditions on the accessiblity, thereby being incompatible with the Policy, the terms of the Policy shall have an overriding effect with regard to making the material publicly accessible.

Institution

2. The insititution shall faciliate and assist the author in depositing the required material in the central online repository.

Government

3. The Government shall enter into a copyright transfer agreement with the author contemporaneously alongwith the conclusion of the employment agreement, and agree to transfer the copyright to the author whilst reserving a non-exclusive, irrevocable and perputal right of reproduction and dissemination of the material deposited. In the absence/violation of a copyright transfer agreement, the Policy grants the researcher/scientist the copyright in the material so authored.”

24. The Centre for Internet and Society would be willing discuss these submissions with the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India; and supplement these with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing an open access policy for the DBT/DST.

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society

Nehaa Chaudhari

Anubha Sinha

August 19, 2014

1See “DBT-DST Open Access Policy” available at <http://dbt india.nic.in/docs/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy.pdf> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

2See www.cis-india.org (last accessed August 11, 2014) for details about CIS’ work.

3See “Annual Report 2012-13”, Ministry of Science and Technology, available at http://www.dst.gov.in/about_us/ar12-13/annual-report-2012-13.pdf (last accessed August 11, 2014).

4See ‘Do Open access articles have a greater research impact?’, Kristine Antelman available at <http://eprints.rclis.org/5463/1/do_open_access_CRL.pdf> (last accessed August 5, 2014).

5 See “Academic knowledge, Open access and Democracy”, available at http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/media/5454/open-access.pdf (last accessed August 11, 2014)

6Copyright Act, 1957.

7Section 2(k) of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

8See “Academic knowledge, Open access and Democracy”, available at http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/media/5454/open-access.pdf (last accessed August 11, 2014)

9See “Compact for Open access publishing Equity”, available at <http://www.oacompact.org/compact/>(last accessed August 10,2014)

10ibid.

11See “Funding open access journal publishing”, Christine Fruin, Fred Rascoe, available at <http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/5/240> (last accessed August 10, 2014)

12 See “Impact factors: arbiter of excellence?”, Martin Frank, available at < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC141180/#n102> (last accessed August 14, 2014)

13 See “Open Access Overview”, Peter Suber, available at <http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm> (last accessed August 14, 2014).

14See “Human Resource Development: Program”, available at <http://dbtindia.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=16> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

15 See "We Need Publishing Standards for Datasets and Data Tables", Green T, available at < http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.40/2010/wp.8.e.pdf> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

16See “CORE: Three Access Levels to Underpin Open Access”, available at <http://www.dlib.org/dli b/november12/knoth/11knoth.html> (last accessed August 11, 2014).

17See “Streamlined Manual Deposit Progress” available at <https://wiki.library.ucsf.edu/display/OAPI/Streamlined+Manual+Deposit+Progress> (last accessed August 4, 2014)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy

Report on the 'Open Access to Academic Knowledge' workshop

thomas — 2012-01-08T10:57:30Z

On Wednesday the 2nd of November, during Open Access Week, the Indian Institute of Science in conjunction with the Centre for Internet and Society held a workshop on Open Access at the National Centre for Science Information, in Bangalore.

The purpose of the event was to discuss open-access (OA) among research institutions in Bangalore. A great mixture of institutions were represented - some which already had OA archives, and others which did not. The hope was to have an unstructured and open dialogue about various open-access questions, and to loosely follow an open-space technology format.

Copyright and plagiarism
Before the meeting had officially started, a debate began on the question of whether OA increases plagiarism. There were some first-hand accounts of work being made OA and then copied by third-parties, in some cases for commercial purposes. This seemed like a concern for those thinking about setting up a repository, but the counter-point was offered that plagiarism might be reduced with OA because the work is more visible, and thus copying is more visible also.

A speech by Francis Jayakanth
Then we introduced ourselves and had a speech from Dr Francis Jayakanth (recent recipient of the EPT Award) on some Open Access ideas. Afterwards we opened for group discussion. Various attendants mentioned the importance Dr Jayakanth's speech for understanding the issues.

The benefit of Open Access is increased recognition
Several participants noted that most academic literature is available via inter-library loan (albeit more slowly than OA). The real benefit was seen to be not getting literature and ideas into the institution, but increasing the visibility of the institution to those outside.

The problem of motivating academics
Another common theme was a reluctance from academics to upload work once a repository was established. It was said that OA journals need to increase their impact factor in order to encourage usage, and that academics need to be more aware of all the resources available and the personal career benefits of using OA repositories.

Topics of discussion for next time
After the event there was an opportunity to describe some of things that we might discuss next time. One participant suggested we talk more about the National Open Access Policy and its future. Another suggested topic was more explanation from institutions which do have repositories on the best way to establish one, and what issues to expect. A final point that may be included next time is preservation - how to make sure that OA repositories are backwards compatible and equipped to store information over the long term.

Conclusions
Attendance was fantastic, and we must thank Sridhar Gutam for his help. At the end of the meeting one of the attendants declared they would establish a repository within six months. Those who came were:

Indian Institute of Horticulture Research
Dr. Leela Sahijram
Dr. Dr. Akella Vani
Mr. S Thippeswamy
Dr. Chithiraichelvan

National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences
Dr. HS Siddamallaiah

Raman Research Institute
Dr. BM Meera
Ms. Vrinda J Benegal

Indian Institute of Astrophysics
Dr. Christina Birdie

National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects
Dr. Kumud Tyagi
Dr. Ankita Gupta
Mrs. M Pratheepa

National Aerospace Laboratories
Dr. Poornima Narayana
Ms. V Indrani
Mr. BS Shivaram

National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Mr. Sivasankaramakrishnan

Indian Institute of Science
Ms. Maheswari
Dr. Francis Jayakanth

Centre for Internet and Society
Mr. Royson Velankanni
Mr. Tom Dane
also attending was Mr Giridhar Khasnis, a freelance writer.

The meeting was held within the Indian Institute of Science, in Bangalore.

We recorded the meeting, and you can listen to it here:

Open Access workshop at the Indian Institute of Science by Cis_India on Mixcloud

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/report-on-the-open-access-to-academic-knowledge-workshop

Open access to government data on the cards

praskrishna — 2012-03-26T07:31:48Z

The way has been cleared for public access to the data collected by Union government ministries and departments, with official approval being accorded to the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP). T Ramachandran's article was published in the Hindu on March 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

Following its recent approval by the Union Cabinet, the policy has been notified and is in the process of being gazetted, said R. Siva Kumar, CEO of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and head of the Natural Resources Data Management System, Department of Science and Technology.

The use of open data as a tool for promoting governmental transparency and efficiency has been gaining ground in some parts of the world. An Open Government Partnership was launched last year by the United States and seven other governments. Forty-three other governments have joined the partnership, which has endorsed an Open Government Declaration, expressing a commitment to better “efforts to systematically collect and publish data on government spending and performance for essential public services and activities.” It acknowledges the ‘right' of citizens to seek information on governmental activities.

India has not joined the partnership, but is collaborating with the U.S. in developing an open source version of software for a data portal.

The NDSAP states that at least five ‘high value' data sets should be uploaded to a newly created portal, data.gov.in, in three months of the notification of the policy. Uploading of the remaining data sets should be completed within a year.

The Department of Science and Technology will co-ordinate the effort and create the portal through the National Informatics Centre. The Department of Information Technology will work out the implementation guidelines, including those related to technology and data standards.

Welcoming the approval for the NDSAP, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, said the removal of “a few good aspects” in an earlier draft of the policy — such as linkage with Sections 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act that specify the kinds of information exempt from disclosure by the authorities — had weakened it “even further.” “None of the criticisms the CIS had sent in as part of the feedback requested on the draft have been addressed,” he said.

The NDSAP seeks “to provide an enabling provision and platform for providing proactive and open access to the data generated through public funds available with various departments/organisations of the government of India.”

However, the Ministries and Departments can draw up, within six months of the notification of the policy, a negative list of data-sets that will not be shared, subject to periodic review by an ‘oversight committee.'

The policy envisages three types of access to data: open, registered and restricted. Access to data in the open category will be “easy, timely, user-friendly and web-based without any process of registration/authorisation.” But data in the registered access category will be accessible “only through a prescribed process of registration/authorisation by respective departments/organisations” and available to “recognised institutions/organisations/public users, through defined procedures.” Data categorised as restricted will be made available only “through and under authorisation.”

The policy also provides for pricing, with the Ministries and Departments being asked to formulate their norms for data in the registered and restricted access categories within three months of the notification of the policy.

Read the original published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-access-to-govt-data

Sumandro C - Open Access Dialogues - Strategic Issues Emerging from the Comments of Indian Participants

sumandro — 2015-10-11T04:34:19Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/sumandro-c-open-access-dialogues-2013

OSOD 2013: International Workshop on Open Science and Open Data

praskrishna — 2013-10-22T11:02:49Z

Nehaa Chaudhari was a panelist at the International Workshop on Open Science and Open Data, 2013, held on October 07, 2013 at the Indian Statistical Institute. She gave a presentation on "Government Copyright and the Open Access Conundrum"

Parts of this presentation draw from Pranesh Prakash's views on Government Copyright. Special thanks to Bhairav Acharya for his valuable inputs and feedback.

Documentation Research and Training Centre, Indian Statistical Institute along with Creative Commons USA held this workshop. The main objective of this workshop was to bring together international experts, practitioners and advocates of Open Access to information to discuss and contemplate on key issues contributing to Open Science. The workshop also aimed to serve as a platform for institutions, academicians, scientists and researchers interested in Open Science to exchange thoughts and processes 'How To' create Open content within legal framework.

Key Speakers

Puneet Kishor (Policy Coordinator for Science and Data, Creative Commons)
ARD Prasad (DRTC, Indian Statistical Institute, India)
Devika P. Madalli (DRTC, Indian Statistical Institute, India)
Giridhar Manepalli (CNRI, USA)
Usha Munshi (Indian Institute of Public Administartion, India)
Subbiah Arunachalam (Information Scientist, India)
Sridhar Parishetty (Centre for Inclusive Governance, Bangalore)
Nehaa Chaudhari (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
R. Prabhakar (India Biodiversity Portal, Bangalore)
Nisha Thompson (Arghyam)
Yashas Shetty (Srishti, Centre For Experimental Media Arts, Bangalore)

Read the agenda here
Download Nehaa's presentation titled Government Accessibility and Copyright Conundrum here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/international-workshop-open-science-and-open-data

SoI’s Open Series Maps Fails to Implement Public Sharing of Govt Data

sumandro — 2017-05-04T12:19:01Z

Although it has made the topographic maps or the Open Series Maps available to general public, Survey of India’s (SoI) Nakshe portal will have to go through a variety of litmus test, as the initiative fails to implement the mandates of public sharing of government data using open standards and open license as put forward by the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012, says Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, The Centre for Internet and Society. This interview was published by Geospatial World on May 02, 2017.

Cross-posted from Geospatial World.

What are your views on the Nakshe Portal initiative from Survey of India?

It is a most welcome initiative by the Survey of India to realize the mandate of the National Map Policy (NMP) 2005 to publicly distribute “Open Series Maps of scales larger than 1:1 million”. The Survey of India has also drawn from and implemented the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) 2012 to make available the shareable and non-sensitive Open Series Maps documents without any necessary fees to access and use them.

The initiative, however, fails to achieve the goal of of public sharing of government data using open standards and open license as put forward by the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012. This substantively raises the barrier to access the Open Series Maps data and reduces its possibilities of reuse, especially for commercial innovation, in a very serious way. This undermining of the open data agenda is not only a concern for the Nakshe portal in particular, but also sets a dangerous precedent for future open government data initiatives in India.

What is your view on the data provided and its usability?

The Nakshe portal has created several barriers to access and use of the Open Series Maps data, all of which are in violation of the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012:

NDSAP 2012 mandates that shareable and non-sensitive government data (such as Open Series Maps) are made public through the data.gov.in portal created under the guidance of the NDSAP 2012. Survey of India may of course decide to publish the Open Series Maps data on the Nakshe portal along with on the data.gov.in portal. Publishing of the data only through the Nakshe portal not only violates the mandate of NDSAP 2012, they make such data much less discoverable.
NDSAP 2012 allows for “registered access” to open government data. That is, it allows for data to be shared only with users who have registered with the data publishing portal. Making registration only possible via Aadhaar number, however, significantly limits the number of users who can access this data. For example, non-Indian researchers form an important potential sub-section of users of Open Series Maps but they will not be able to access the data. The website neither has a privacy policy that clarifies how these submitted Aadhaar numbers will be stored, protected, and shared (if at all) by the Survey of India.
NMP 2005 instructs Survey of India to “allow a user to add value to the maps obtained (either in analogue or digital formats) and prepare his own value-added maps”. The Government Open Data License has been recently notified under NDSAP 2012 to guide permitted uses of open government data in India.

The very restricted approach to permitted end-uses of Open Series Maps by the Survey of India neither follow the NMP instruction, nor adopt the Government Open Data License. Data available from Nakshe portal cannot be exported (which is technically an absurd demand due to globally distributed nature of servers), commercialized, or altered. This creates a most serious barrier to using the Open Series Maps data available via the Nakshe portal.
The Nakshe portal has published geospatial data in PDF format. This is a clear violation of open data practices globally and the NDSAP Implementation Guidelines more specifically, which states that open geospatial data standards, like GML and KML, should be used).

Does this fall in line with the larger government aim of having open and accessible data? If not why?

In a nutshell, the Open Series Maps data being published on the Nakshe portal is neither open (as it does not use open standards to share the data and does not share the data under an open licenses) nor universally accessible (due to the requirement for registration via Aadhaar number).

What improvements do you suggest in the approach of SoI about the portal?

I have listed four major conflicts that the Nakshe portal has with the directives and guidelines offered by the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012. I sincerely hope that the Survey of India and the Department of Science and Technology will address them soon, as they significantly limit the ability of users to access and use the Open Series Maps data.

These changes will make the Open Series Maps data open, and ensure that the data can be accessed and innovated with by various stakeholders.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-india-open-series-maps-fails-to-implement-public-sharing-of-govt-data