Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, August 25, 2022: Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research

This memorandum provides policy guidance to federal agencies with research and development expenditures on updating their public access policies. In accordance with this memorandum, OSTP recommends that federal agencies, to the extent consistent with applicable law: 1. Update their public access policies as soon as possible, and no later than December 31, 2025, to make publications and their supporting data resulting from federally funded research publicly accessible without an embargo on their free and public release; 2. Establish transparent procedures that ensure scientific and research integrity is maintained in public access policies; and, 3. Coordinate with OSTP to ensure equitable delivery of federally funded research results and data. Includes background and policy principles, lessons learned from COVID-19, updates to policy guidance on increasing equitable access to Federally funded research results including peer-reviewed scholarly publications and scientific data, ensuring scientific and research integrity in agency public access policies, public access plan coordination among federal agencies, general provisions, and taking next steps together

Community Forum on the 2022 OSTP Public Access Policy Guidance [presentation slides]

Included: ● Public access background and context ● Summary of the 2022 OSTP Memorandum ● Clarification about the scope of the 2022 OSTP Memorandum ● Timeline for agency adoption of the 2022 OSTP Memorandum ● Agency perspectives: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) ● Questions and answer

Frequently Asked Questions: 2022 Public Access Policy Guidance

Includes a list of frequently asked questions and answers for the 2022 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Public Access Policy guidance, including answering questions such as What is meant by public access to federally funded research? and What impact will the policy guidance have on specific business models for scholarly publishing

Climate Change: State of Knowledge

This brief report describes that the Earth's climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The buildup of greenhouse gases-primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons-is changing the radiation balance of the planet. The basic heat-trapping property of these greenhouse gases is essentially undisputed. However, there is considerable scientific uncertainty about exactly how and when the Earth's climate will respond to enhanced greenhouse gases. The direct effects of climate change will include changes in temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, and sea level. Such changes could have adverse effects on ecological systems, human health, and socio-economic sectors

How Does Citizen Science "Do" Governance? Reflections from the DITOs Project

Citizen science (CS) is increasingly becoming a focal point for public policy to provide data for decision-making and to widen access to science. Yet beyond these two understandings, CS engages with political processes in a number of other ways. To develop a more nuanced understanding of governance in relation to CS, this paper brings together theoretical analysis by social science researchers and reflections from CS practice. It draws on concepts from Science and Technology Studies and political sciences as well as examples from the "Doing-It-Together Science" (DITOs) project. The paper develops a heuristic of how CS feeds into, is affected by, forms part of, and exercises governance. These four governance modes are (1) Source of information for policy-making, (2) object of research policy, (3) policy instrument, and (4) socio-technical governance. Our analysis suggests that these four dimensions represent different conceptions of how science and technology governance takes place that have not yet been articulated in the CS literature. By reflecting on the DITOs project, the paper shows how this heuristic can enrich CS. Benefits include project organisers better communicating their work and impacts. In its conclusion, the paper argues that focusing on the complexity of governance relations opens up new ways of doing CS regarding engagement methodologies and evaluation. The paper recommends foregrounding the broad range of governance impacts of CS and reflecting on them in cooperation between researchers and practitioners

Content-based and Algorithmic Classifications of Journals: Perspectives on the Dynamics of Scientific Communication and Indexer Effects

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix -based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index- can be decomposed by indexers and/or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glaenzel & Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. The consequent indexer effects are significant in sparse areas of the matrix more than in denser ones. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally

Type III Secretion Is Essential for the Rapidly Fatal Diarrheal Disease Caused by Non-O1, Non-O139 Vibrio cholerae

Cholera is a severe diarrheal disease typically caused by O1 serogroup strains of Vibrio cholerae. The pathogenicity of all pandemic V. cholerae O1 strains relies on two critical virulence factors: cholera toxin, a potent enterotoxin, and toxin coregulated pilus (TCP), an intestinal colonization factor. However, certain non-O1, non-O139 V. cholerae strains, such as AM-19226, do not produce cholera toxin or TCP, yet they still cause severe diarrhea. The molecular basis for the pathogenicity of non-O1, non-O139 V. cholerae has not been extensively characterized, but many of these strains encode related type III secretion systems (TTSSs). Here, we used infant rabbits to assess the contribution of the TTSS to non-O1, non-O139 V. cholerae pathogenicity. We found that all animals infected with wild-type AM-19226 developed severe diarrhea even more rapidly than rabbits infected with V. cholerae O1. Unlike V. cholerae O1 strains, which do not damage the intestinal epithelium in rabbits or humans, AM-19226 caused marked disruptions of the epithelial surface in the rabbit small intestine. TTSS proved to be essential for AM-19226 virulence in infant rabbits; an AM-19226 derivative deficient for TTSS did not elicit diarrhea, colonize the intestine, or induce pathological changes in the intestine. Deletion of either one of the two previously identified or two newly identified AM-19226 TTSS effectors reduced but did not eliminate AM-19226 pathogenicity, suggesting that at least four effectors contribute to this strain’s virulence. In aggregate, our results suggest that the TTSS-dependent virulence in non-O1, non-O139 V. cholerae represents a new type of diarrheagenic mechanism

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research