Open Science Infrastructure: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:53, 22 February 2024

Revision as of 01:38, 23 February 2024

Line 28:

The conceptual definition of open science infrastructures has been largely influenced by the analysis of [[Elinor Ostrom]] on the [[commons]] and more specifically on the [[knowledge commons]]. In accordance with Ostrom, [[Cameron Neylon]] understates that open infrastructures are not only characterized by the management of a pool of common resources but also by the elaboration of common governance and norms.<ref>{{harvnb|Neylon|2017|p=7}}</ref> The economic theory of the commons make it possible to expand beyond the scope of limited scope of scholar associations toward large scale community-led initiatives: "Ostrom's work (…) provides a template (…) to make the transition from a local ''club'' to a community-wide infrastructure."<ref>{{harvnb|Neylon|2017|p=7-8}}</ref> Open science infrastructure tend to favor a non-for profit, publicly-funded model with strong involvement from scientific communities, which disassociate them from privately-owned closed infrastructures: "open infrastructures are often scholar-led and run by non-profit organisations, making them mission-driven instead of profit-driven."<ref>{{harvnb|Kraker|2021|p=2}}</ref> This status aims to ensure the autonomy of the infratructure and prevent their incorporation into commercial infrastructure.<ref>{{harvnb|Future of scholarly publishing|2019}}</ref> It has wide range implications on the way the organization is managed: "the differences between commercial services and non-profit services permeated almost every aspect of their responses to their environment".<ref>{{harvnb|Fecher et al.|2021|p=505}}</ref>

Open science infrastructures are not only a more specific subset of scientific infrastructures and cyberinfrastructures but may also include actors that would not fall into this definition. "Open access publication platforms" such as [[Scielo]], [[OpenEdition.org|OpenEdition]] or the [[Open Library of Humanities]] are considered an integral part of open science infrastructures in the UNESCO definition<ref name=UNESCO/> and in several literature review<ref>{{harvnb|Lewis|2020|p=6}}</ref> and policy reports,<ref>{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=8}}</ref> whereas they were usually considered as a separate entities in the policy debate on cyberinfrastructure and e-infrastructures.<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Dacos|2013}}</ref> In the 2010 report of the European Commission on e-infrastructure, scientific publishing plaforms are "not e-Infrastructures but closely related to it".<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Role of e-InfrastructureeResearch2020|2010|p=222}}</ref>

Open science infrastructures may also incorporate additional values and ethical principles. Samuel Moore has theorized a form of ''care-full scholarly commons'' that does not exist yet but would incorporate latent forms of open science infrastructure and communities: "In addition to sharing resources with other projects, commoning also requires commoners to adopt an outwardly-focused, generous attitude to other commons projects, redirecting their labour away from proprietary."<ref>{{harvnb|Moore|2019|p=183}}</ref> In 2018, Okune et al. introduced a similar concept of "inclusive knowledge infrastructures" that "deliberately allow for multiple forms of participation amongst a diverse set of actors (…) and seek to redress power relations within a given context."<ref>{{harvnb|Okune et al.|2018|p=3}}</ref>

Line 67:

The development of digital infrastructure for scientific publication was largely undertaken by private companies. In 1963, Eugene Garfield created the [[Institute for Scientific Information]] that aimed to transform the projects initially envisioned with Lederberg into a profitable business. The [[Science Citation Index]] relied on a computational processing of citation data. It had a massive and lasting influence on the structuration of global scientific publication in the last decades of the 20th century, as its most important metrics, the Journal Impact Factor, "ultimately came to provide the metric tool needed to structure a competitive market among journal.<ref>{{harvnb|Future of scholarly publishing|2019|p=15}}</ref> Garfield also successfully launched ''Current Contents'', a periodic compilation of scientific abstracts that acted as a simplified commercial version of the central deposit envisioned within SCITEL. Rather than being replaced by a centralized information system, leading scientific publishers have been able to develop their own information infrastructure that ultimately reinforced their business position. By the end of the 1960s, the dutch publisher [[Elsevier]] and the german publisher [[Springer Publishing|Springer]] have started to computarize their internal data, as well as the management of the journal reviews.<ref>{{harvnb|Andriesse|2008|p=189}}</ref>

Until the advent of the web, the landscape of scientific infrastructures remained fragmented.<ref>{{harvnb|Campbell-Kelly|Garcia-Swartz|2013}}</ref> Projects, and communities relied on their own unconnected networks at a national or institutional level: "the Internet was nearly invisible in Europe because people there were pursuing a separate set of network protocols".<ref>{{harvnb|Berners-Lee|Fischetti|2008|p=17}}</ref> The birthing place of the World Wide Web, the CERN, had its own version of Internet, CERN-Net and also supported its own protocol for e-mail exchange.<ref>{{harvnb|Berners-Lee|Fischetti|2008|p=18}}</ref> The European Space Agency used its own iteration of the RECON system also used by NASA engineers (ESRO/RECON).<ref>{{harvnb|Bourne|Hahn|2003|p=304}}</ref> The insulated scientific infrastructures could hardly be connected before the advent of the web. Communication between scientific infrastructures was not only challenging across space, but also across time. Whenever a communication protocol was no longer maintained, the data and knowledge it disseminated was likely to disappear as well: "the relationship between historical research and computing has been durably affected by aborted projects, data loss and unrecoverable formats".<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Dacos|2013}}</ref>

=== The Web Revolution (1990–1995) ===

The [[World Wide Web]] was originally framed as an open scientific infrastructure. The project was inspired by [[ENQUIRE]], an information management software commissioned to [[Tim Berners-Lee]] by the [[CERN]] for the specific needs of high energy physics. The structure of ENQUIRE was closer to an internal web of data: it connected "nodes" that "could refer to a person, a software module, etc. and that could be interlined with various relations such as made, include, describes and so forth".<ref>{{harvnb|Hogan|2014|p=20}}</ref> While it "facilitated some random linkage between information" Enquire was not able to "facilitate the collaboration that was desired for in the international high-energy physics research community".<ref>{{harvnb|Bygrave|Bing|2009|p=30}}</ref> Like any significant computing scientific infrastructure before the 1990s, the development of ENQUIRE was ultimately impeded by the lack of interoperability and the complexity of managing network communications: "although Enquire provided a way to link documents and databases, and hypertext provided a common format in which to display them, there was still the problem of getting different computers with different operating systems to communicate with each other".<ref>{{harvnb|Berners-Lee|Fischetti|2008|p=17}}</ref>

Sharing of data and data documentation was a major focus in the initial communication of the World Wide Web when the project was first unveiled in August 1991 : "The WWW project was started to allow high energy physicists to share data, news, and documentation. We are very interested in spreading the web to other areas, and having gateway servers for other data".<ref>Tim {{sfn|Berners-Lee, “[https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1991/08/art-6484.txt Qualifiers on Hypertext Links]”, mail sent on August, 6 |1991 to the alt.hypertext</ref> }}

The web rapidly superseded pre-existing online infrastructure, even when they included more advanced computing features. From 1991 to 1994, users of the [[Worm Community System]], a major biology database on worms, switched to the Web and Gopher. While the Web did not include many advanced functions for data retrieval and collaboration, it was easily accessible. Conversely, the ''Worm Community System'' could only be browsed on specific terminals shared across scientific institutions: "To take on board the custom-designed, powerful WCS (with its convenient interface) is to suffer inconvenience at the intersection of work habits, computer use, and lab resources (…) The World-Wide Web, on the other hand, can be accessed from a broad variety of terminals and connections, and Internet computer support is readily available at most academic institutions and through relatively inexpensive commercial services.<ref>{{harvnb|Star|Ruhleder|1996|p=131}}</ref>"

Line 83:

{{Main|Cyberinfrastructure|e-Science}}

The development of the World-Wide Web had rendered numerous pre-existing scientific infrastructure obsolete. It also lifted numerous restrictions and obstacles to online contribution and network management that made it possible to attempt more ambitious project. By the end of the 1990s, the creation of public scientific computing infrastructure became a major policy issue.{{sfn|Borgman|2007|p=21}} The first wave of web-based scientific projects in the 1990s and the early 2000s revealed critical issues of sustainability. As funding was allocated on a specific time period, critical databases, online tools or publishing platforms could hardly be maintained;{{sfn|Dacos|2013}} and project managers were faced with a ''valley of death'' "between grant funding and ongoing operational funding".{{sfn|Skinner|2019|p=6}}.

Several competing terms appeared to fill this need. In the United States, the ''cyber-infrastructure'' was used in a scientific context by a US National Science Foundation (NSF) blue-ribbon committee in 2003: "The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infrastructure based upon distributed computer, information and communication technology. If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy."<ref>{{harvnb|Atkins|2003|p=5}}</ref> E-infrastructure or e-science were used in a similar meaning in the United Kingdom and European countries.

Thanks to "sizable investments",<ref name = "eccles">{{harvnb|Eccles et al.|2009}}</ref> major national and international infrastructures have been incepted from the initial policy discussion in the early 2000s to the economic crisis of 2007-2008, such as the [[Open Science Grid]], [[BioGRID]], the [[Jisc|JISC]], {{ill|DARIAH|WD=Q49103279}} or the [[Project Bamboo]].<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Dacos|2013}}</ref><ref>{{harvnbsfn|Role of e-InfrastructureeResearch2020|2010|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}}</ref> Specialized free software for scientific publishing like [[Open Journal Systems]] became available after 2000. This development entailed a significant expansion of non-commercial open access journals by facilitating the creation and the administration of journal website and the digital conversion of existing journals.<ref>{{harvnbsfn|OABosman Diamondet Studyal.|2021|p=93}}</ref> Among the non-commercial journals registered to the Directory of Open Access Journals, the number of annual creation has gone from 100 by the end of the 1990s to 800 around 2010, and not evolved significantly since then.<ref name="OA Diamond Study 2021 30">{{harvnbsfn|OABosman Diamondet Studyal.|2021|p=30}}</ref>

By 2010, infrastructure are "no longer in infancy" and yet "they are also not yet fully mature".<ref name = "eccles"/> While the development of the web solved a large range of technical issues regarding network management, building scientific infrastructure remained challenging. Governance, communication across all involved stakeholders, and strategical divergences were major factors of success or failure. One of the first major infrastructure for the humanities and the social science, the [[Project Bamboo]] was ultimately unable to achieve its ambitious aims: "From the early planning workshops to the [[Mellon Foundation]]’s rejection of the project’s final proposal attempt, Bamboo was dogged by its reluctance and/or inability to concretely define itself".<ref>{{harvnb|Dombrowski|2014|p=334}}</ref> This lack of clarity was further aggravated by recurring communication missteps between the project initiators and the community it aimed to serve. "The community had spoken and made it clear that continuing to emphasize [[Service-oriented architecture]] would alienate the very members of the community Bamboo was intended to benefit most: the scholars themselves".<ref>{{harvnb|Dombrowski|2014|p=329}}</ref> Budgets cuts following the economic crisis of 2007-2008 underlined the fragility of ambitious infrastructure plans relying on a significant recurring funds.<ref>{{harvnb|Dombrowski|2014|p=331}}</ref>

Line 105:

{{Quote|Over the past decade, we have made real progress to further ensure the availability of data that supports research claims. This work is far from complete. We believe that data about the research process itself deserves exactly the same level of respect and care. The scholarly community does not own or control most of this information. For example, we could have built or taken on the infrastructure to collect bibliographic data and citations but that task was left to private enterprise.<ref name="principles_2015"/>}}

Since 2015 these principles have become the most influential definition of Open Science Infrastructures and been endorsed by leading infrastructures such as Crossref,<ref>[https://www.crossref.org/blog/crossrefs-board-votes-to-adopt-the-principles-of-open-scholarly-infrastructure/{{sfn|Bilder|2020}} Crossref’sOpenCitations{{sfn|Di Board votes to adopt the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure]</ref> OpenCitations<ref>[https://opencitations.wordpress.com/Giambattista|2021/08/09/opencitations-compliance-with-the-principles-of-open-scholarly-infrastructure/ OpenCitations’ compliance with the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure]</ref>}} or Data Dryad<ref>[https://blog.datadryad.org/2020/12/08/dryads-commitment-to-the-principles-of-open-scholarly-infrastructure/{{sfn|The Dryad’sDryad Commitment to the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure]</ref>Team|2020}} and has become a commmon basis for the institutional evaluation of existing open infrastructures.<ref name="ficarra_21">{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=21}}</ref> The main focus of the ''Principles'' is to build "trustworthy institutions" with significant committments in terms of governance, financial sustainability and technical efficiency sot that it can be durably relied on by scientific communities.<ref>{{harvnb|Neylon|2017|p=7}}</ref>

By 2021, public services and infrastructures for research have largely endorsed open science as an integral part of their activity and identity: "open science is the dominant discourse to which new online services for research refer."<ref>{{harvnb|Fecher et al.|2021|p=505}}</ref> According to the 2021 Roadmap of the {{ill|European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures|WD=Q2623454}} (ESFRI), major legacy infrastructures in Europe have embraced open science principles. "Most of the Research Infrastructures on the ESFRI Roadmap are at the forefront of Open Science movement and make important contributions to the digital transformation by transforming the whole research process according to the Open Science paradigm."<ref name="ESFRI_159">{{harvnb|ESFRI Roadmap|2021|p=159}}</ref> Examples of extensive data sharing programs include the [[European Social Survey]] (in social science), [[ECRIN ERIC]] (for clinical data) or the [[Cherenkov Telescope Array]] (in Astronomy).<ref name="ESFRI_159"/>

Line 114:

== Organization of open infrastructures ==

Most of the landscape reports on Open Infrastructure have been undertaken in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in Latin America. For Europe, the main sources include the SPARC report from 2020,<ref>{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020}}</ref> the OPERAS report on social science and humanities infrastructure<ref>{{harvnbsfn|FutureAvanço ofet Scholarly Communicational.|2021}}</ref> as well as the 2019 report of Katherine Skinner (that also extends to a few North American infrastructures).{{sfn|Skinner|2019|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}} International studies include European Commission 2010 report on The Role of E-Infrastructure which mostly receive input from Europe, South America and North America.<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Role of e-InfrastructureeResearch2020|2010|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}}</ref>

These reports underline that important open science infrastructures may be already existing and yet remain invisible to funders and scientific policies: "alternative practices and projects exist inside and outside Europe, but these projects are almost invisible to the eyes of the public authorities".<ref>{{harvnb|Mounier|2018|p=305}}</ref>

Line 150:

[[File:Disciplines in open science infrastructure.png|thumb|Distribution of disciplines among the infrastructures surveyed by the SPARC report ''Scoping the Open Science Infrastructure Landscape in Europe'']]

Open Science Infrastructures benefit to diverse disciplines and scientific communities. In 2020, 72% of the european infrastructures surveyed by Sparc Europe claim to support all disciplines. The social sciences and the humanities are the most mentioned disciplines, which is partly attributed to the fact that the survey was "distributed widely by the [[OPERAS]] network".<ref>{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=19}}</ref> In 2010, the infrastructures supporting the social sciences and the humanities were much less prevalent and most of the uses cases came from "biosciences, [[High Energy Physics]] and other fields of physics, earth and environmental sciences, computer science, astronomy and astrophysics".<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Role of e-InfrastructureeResearch2020|2010|p=106}}</ref>.

=== Economics ===

Many Open Science Infrastructure run "at a relatively low cost" as small infrastructures are an important part of the open science ecosystem.<ref name="ficarra_35">{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=35}}</ref> In 2020, 21 out of 53 surveyed European infrastructures "report spending less than €50,000".<ref name="ficarra_35"/> Consequently, more than 75% of surveyed European infrastructures are run by small teams of 5 FTEs or less.<ref>{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=41}}</ref> The size of the infrastructure and the extent of its funding is far from always proportional to the critical service it offers: "some of the most heavily used services make ends meet with a tiny core team of two to five people."<ref>{{harvnb|Kraker|2021|p=3}}</ref> Volunteer contributions are significant as well with is both "a strength and weakness to an OSI’s sustainability".<ref name="ficarra_35"/> The landscape of open science infrastructures is therefore rather close to the ideals of a "decentralised network of small projects" envisioned by theoricians of the scholarly commons.<ref>{{harvnb|Moore|2019|p=176}}</ref> A very large majority of open science infrastructure are non-commercial<ref name="ficarra_48"/> and collaborations or financial support from the private sector remain very limited.<ref name="ficarra_45"/>

Overall, European infrastructures were financially sustainable in 2020<ref>{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=51}}</ref> which contrasts with the situation ten years prior: in 2010, European infrastructures had much less visibility: they usually lacked "a long-term perspective" and struggled "with securing the funding for more than 5 years".<ref>{{harvnbsfn|Role of e-InfrastructureeResearch2020|2010|p=103}}</ref> In 2020, European infrastructures frequently relies on grants from National funds and from the European Commission.<ref name="ficarra_45">{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=45}}</ref> Without theses grants, most of theses actors would "could only remain viable for less than a year".<ref name="ficarra_48">{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=48}}</ref> Yet, one quarter of surveyed European infrastructures was not supported by any grants and subventions and used either alternative means of incomes or voluntary contributions.<ref name="ficarra_35"/> As they can be "difficult to define adequately", open science infrastructures can be overlooked by funding bodies, which "contributes to the challenge of securing funding".<ref>{{harvnb|Neylon|2017|p=1}}</ref>

== References ==

Line 175:

* {{Cite report| ref={{harvid|Courant et al.|2006}}|publisher = American Council of Learned Societie| pages = 51| last1= Courant| first1= Paul N.| last2 =Fraser| first2= Sarah E.| last3= Goodchild| first3= Michael F.| last4= Hedstrom| first4= Margaret| last5= Henry| first5= Charles| last6= Kaufmann| first6= Peter B.| last7= McGann| first7= Jerome| last8= Rosenzweig| first8= Roy| last9= Unsworth| first9= John| last10= Zuckerman| first10= Bruce| title = Our cultural commonwealth. The report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences| date = 2006}}

*{{Cite report| ref={{harvid|Edwards et al.|2006}}|last1= Edwards| first1= Paul N.| last2= Jackson| first2= Steven J.| last3= Bowker| first3= Geoffrey C.| last4= Knobel| first4= Cory Philip| title = Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design| accessdate = 2022-01-04| date = January 2007| hdl=2027.42/49353 | url = http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/49353}}

* {{Cite report |last=Lewis| first=David W.| title=Mapping Scholarly Communication Infrastructure: A Bibliographic Scan of Digital Scholarly Communication Infrastructure| date=May 2020| ___location=Atlanta, GeorgiaGA| publisher=Educopia Institute| url=https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handleserver/1805api/22819core/bitstreams/cee09afc-db34-42f5-840b-be44338ed691/content| accessdate=2021-12-12}}

*{{Cite report| refauthor={{harvid|Role of e-Infrastructure|2010}}((eResearch2020))| publisher = European Commission| title = The role of e-Infrastructures in the creation of global virtual research communities| ___location = Brussels| date = 2010|url = https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/edf0fed4-c01a-454b-8a9e-34f602b00100}}

* {{Cite report |ref={{harvid|Operas Landscape Study|2017}}| publisher = OPERAS| title = Landscape Study on Open Access Publishing| series = Design for Open Access Publications in European Research Areas for Social Sciences and Humanities| date = 2017}}

* {{Cite report| last1= Chodacki| first1= John| last2= Cruse| first2= Patricia| last3= Lin| first3= Jennifer| last4= Neylon| first4= Cameron| last5= Pattinson| first5= Damian| last6= Strasser| first6= Carly| title = Supporting Research Communications: a guide| accessdate = 2021-12-11| date = 2018-04-05| url = https://zenodo.org/record/3524663}}

*{{Cite report |ref={{harvid|Aspesi et al.|2019}}| publisher = LIS Scholarship Archive| last1= Aspesi| first1= Claudio| last2= Allen| first2= Nicole Starr| last3= Crow| first3= Raym| last4= Daugherty| first4= Shawn| last5= Joseph| first5= Heather| last6= McArthur| first6= Joseph| last7= Shockey| first7= Nick| title = SPARC Landscape Analysis: The Changing Academic Publishing Industry – Implications for Academic Institutions| accessdate = 2022-01-05| date = 2019-04-03| url = https://osf.io/preprints/lissa/58yhb/}}

* {{Cite journalreport| type=Paper| ref={{harvid|Ross-Hellauer et al.|2020}} | last1= Ross-Hellauer| first1= Tony| last2= Fecher| first2= Benedikt| last3= Shearer| first3= Kathleen| last4= Rodrigues| first4= Eloy| title = Pubfair: a framework for sustainable, distributed, open science publishing services| accessdate = 2021-12-12| date = 2019-09-03| publisher=Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)| url = https://apo.org.au/nodesites/257281default/files/resource-files/2019-09/apo-nid257281.pdf| accessdate = 2021-12-12}}

* {{Cite report |ref={{harvid|Future of scholarly publishing|2019}}| publisher = Publications Office| last = European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation.| title = Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: report of the Expert Group to the European Commission| accessdate = 2021-12-12| date = 2019| doi = 10.2777/836532| url = https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/836532}}

* {{Cite report| publisher = Simon Fraser University| last1= Maxwell| first1= John W.| last2= Hanson| first2= Eric| last3= Desai| first3= Leena| last4= Tiampo| first4= Carmen| last5= O'Donnell| first5= Kim| last6= Ketheeswaran| first6= Avvai| last7= Sun| first7= Melody| last8= Walter| first8= Emma| last9= Michelle| first9= Ellen| title = Mind the Gap| accessdate = 2021-12-12| date = 2019| url = https://mindthegap.pubpub.org/}}

* {{Cite report | publisher = Educopia Institute| last = Skinner| first = Katherine| title = Mapping the Scholarly Communication Landscape: 2019 Census| date = 2019| s2cid= 201314019| ___location=Atlanta, 201314019GA| publisher=Educopia Institute |url=https://educopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Census2019_EducopiaPublications.pdf}}

* {{Cite report |ref={{harvid|Ficarra et al.|2020}}| last1= Ficarra| first1= Victoria| last2= Fosci| first2= Mattia| last3= Chiarelli| first3= Andrea| last4= Kramer| first4= Bianca| last5= Proudman| first5= Vanessa| title = Scoping the Open Science Infrastructure Landscape in Europe| accessdate = 2021-10-31| date = 2020-10-30| url = https://zenodo.org/record/4159838}}

*{{Cite report |type=Paper |ref={{harvid|OABosman Diamondet Studyal.|2021}}| last1= Bosman| first1= Jeroen| last2= Frantsvåg| first2= Jan Erik| last3= Kramer| first3= Bianca| last4= Langlais| first4= Pierre-Carl| last5= Proudman| first5= Vanessa| title = OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings| date = 2021-03-09| url=https://zenodo.org/record/4558704| accessdate=2021-07-10| doi=10.5281/zenodo.4558704| doi-access=free}}

* {{Cite report |ref={{harvid|FutureAvanço ofet Scholarly Communicational.|2021}}| publisher = Operas| last1= Avanço, Karla| last2= Balula, Ana| last3= Błaszczyńska, Marta| last4= Buchner, Anna| last5= Caliman, Lorena| last6= Clivaz, Claire| last7= Costa, Carlos| last8= Franczak, Mateusz| last9= Gatti, Rupert| last10= Giglia, Elena| last11= Gingold, Arnaud| last12= Jarmelo, Susana| last13= Padez, Maria João| last14= Leão, Delfim| last15= Maryl, Maciej| last16= Melinščak Zlodi, Iva| last17= Mojsak, Kajetan| last18= Morka, Agata| last19= Mosterd, Tom| last20= Nury, Elisa| last21= Plag, Cornelia| last22= Schafer, Valérie| last23= Silva, Mickael| last24= Stojanovski, Jadranka| last25= Szleszyński, Bartłomiej| last26= Szulińska, Agnieszka| last27= Tóth-Czifra, Erzsébet| last28= Wciślik, Piotr| last29= Wieneke, Lars| title = Future of Scholarly Communication. Forging an inclusive and innovative research infrastructure for scholarly communication in Social Sciences and Humanities| accessdate = 2021-12-12| date = 2021-06-29| url = https://zenodo.org/record/5017705}}

*{{Cite journalreport| type=Paper| ref={{harvid|Brembs et al.|2021}}| last1= Brembs| first1= Björn| last2= Förstner| first2= Konrad| last3= Goedicke| first3= Michael| last4= Konrad| first4= Uwe| last5= Wannemacher| first5= Klaus| last6= Kett| first6= Jürgen| title = Plan I - Towards a sustainable research information infrastructure| date = 2021-01-21| doi=10.5281/zenodo.4454640 | url doi-access= https://zenodo.org/record/4454640| accessdate = 2022-01-11free}}

*{{Cite report| ref={{harvid|ESFRI Roadmap|2021}}| publisher = ESFRI| last = ESFRI| title = ESFRI Roadmap| date = 2021 | url = https://roadmap2021.esfri.eu/media/1295/esfri-roadmap-2021.pdf}}

Line 194 ⟶ 196:

* {{Cite book | publisher = MIT Press| isbn = 978-0-262-02619-2| last = Borgman| first = Christine L.| title = Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet| ___location = Cambridge, MA, USA| date = 2007-10-12}}

*{{Cite book | publisher = Paw Prints| isbn = 978-1-4395-0036-1| last1= Berners-Lee| first1= Tim| last2= Fischetti| first2= Mark| title = Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor| date = 2008-06-26}}

* {{Cite book | publisher = Brill| isbn = 978-90-04-17084-1| last = Andriesse| first = Cornelis D.| title = Dutch Messengers: A History of Science Publishing, 1930–1980| ___location = Leiden ; Boston| date = 2008-09-15}}

*{{Cite book | publisher = OUP Oxford| isbn = 978-0-19-956113-1| last1= Bygrave| first1= Lee A.| last2= Bing| first2= Jon| title = Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions| date = 2009-01-22}}

*{{Cite book | publisher = IOS Press| isbn = 978-1-61499-383-4| last = Hogan| first = A.| title = Reasoning Techniques for the Web of Data| date = 2014-04-09}}

Line 210 ⟶ 212:

* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.1007/s10723-010-9176-6| issn = 1572-9184| volume = 9| issue = 2| pages = 201–218| last1= Altunay| first1= Mine| last2= Avery| first2= Paul| last3= Blackburn| first3= Kent| last4= Bockelman| first4= Brian| last5= Ernst| first5= Michael| last6= Fraser| first6= Dan| last7= Quick| first7= Robert| last8= Gardner| first8= Robert| last9= Goasguen| first9= Sebastien| last10= Levshina| first10= Tanya| last11= Livny| first11= Miron| last12= McGee| first12= John| last13= Olson| first13= Doug| last14= Pordes| first14= Ruth| last15= Potekhin| first15= Maxim| last16= Rana| first16= Abhishek| last17= Roy| first17= Alain| last18= Sehgal| first18= Chander| last19= Sfiligoi| first19= Igor| last20= Wuerthwein| first20= Frank| last21= The Open Science Grid Executive Board| title = A Science Driven Production Cyberinfrastructure—the Open Science Grid| journal = Journal of Grid Computing| accessdate = 2021-12-22| date = 2011-06-01| osti = 1975710| s2cid = 1636510| url = https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-010-9176-6}}

* {{Cite journal | doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001691| issn = 1545-7885| volume = 11| issue = 10| pages = –1001691| last = Neylon| first = Cameron| title = Architecting the Future of Research Communication: Building the Models and Analytics for an Open Access Future| journal = PLOS Biology| date = 2013-10-22| doi-access = free| pmid = 24167448| pmc = 3805469}}

* {{Cite book | publisher = Peter Lang| pages = 29–41| editor = Frédéric Clavert |editor2=Serge Noiret| last = Dacos| first = Marin| title = L'histoire contemporaine à l'ère contemporain| chapter = Cyberclio : vers une cyberinfrastructure au cœur de la discipline historique| ___location = Bruxelles,; Bern,; Berlin,; Frankfurt am Main,; New York,; Oxford,; Wien| date = 2013| language=fr| trans-title=Contemporary History in the Digital Age| trans-chapter=Cyberclio. Towards a Cyberinfrastructure at the heart of the historical discipline| url=https://www.academia.edu/4558796/Clavert_Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_and_Noiret_Serge_dir_eds_Lhistoire_contemporaine_%C3%A0_l%C3%A8re_num%C3%A9rique_Contemporary_History_in_the_Digital_Age_Bruxelles_Bern_Berlin_Frankfurt_am_Main_New_York_Oxford_Wien_Peter_Lang_2013}}

*{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1057/jit.2013.4| issn = 0268-3962| volume = 28| issue = 1| pages = 18–33| last1= Campbell-Kelly| first1= Martin| last2= Garcia-Swartz| first2= Daniel D| title = The History of the Internet: The Missing Narratives| journal = Journal of Information Technology| accessdate = 2022-01-04| date = 2013| s2cid = 41013| url = http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1057/jit.2013.4}}

* {{Cite journal | last = Dombrowski| first = Quinn| title = What Ever Happened to Project Bamboo?| journal = Literary and Linguistic Computing| volume = 29 | issue = 3| accessdate = 2021-12-22| date = 2014-06-16| pages = 326–339| doi = 10.1093/llc/fqu026| url = https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6jq660tm}}

Line 225 ⟶ 227:

*{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1002/leap.1194| issn = 1741-4857| volume = 31| issue = S1| pages = 299–305| last = Mounier| first = Pierre| title = 'Publication favela' or bibliodiversity? Open access publishing viewed from a European perspective| journal = Learned Publishing| accessdate = 2022-01-09| date = 2018| url = https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/leap.1194}}

*{{Cite journal |doi = 10.5334/kula.7| issn = 2398-4112| volume = 1| pages = 3| last = Neylon| first = Cameron| title = Sustaining Scholarly Infrastructures through Collective Action: The Lessons that Olson can Teach us| journal = KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies| accessdate = 2022-01-09| date = 2017-12-27| doi-access=free | url = https://kula.uvic.ca/index.php/kula/article/view/120}}

* {{Cite journal| ref={{harvid|Ross-Hellauer et al.|2020}} | last1= Ross-Hellauer| first1= Tony| last2= Fecher| first2= Benedikt| last3= Shearer| first3= Kathleen| last4= Rodrigues| first4= Eloy| title = Pubfair: a framework for sustainable, distributed, open science publishing services| accessdate = 2021-12-12| date = 2019-09-03| url = https://apo.org.au/node/257281}}

* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.1177/0306312718772086| issn = 0306-3127| volume = 48| issue = 2| pages = 171–203| last = Mirowski| first = Philip| title = The future(s) of open science| journal = Social Studies of Science| accessdate = 2021-10-31| date = 2018-04-01| pmid = 29726809| s2cid = 19210925| url = https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086}}

*{{Cite journal |last=Moore|first=Samuel A.|date=2020 |title=Revisiting "the 1990s debutante": Scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24306 |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology|language=en|volume=71|issue=7|pages=856–866|doi=10.1002/asi.24306|s2cid=159267010|issn=2330-1643}}

*{{Cite journal| ref={{harvid|Brembs et al.|2021}}|last1= Brembs| first1= Björn| last2= Förstner| first2= Konrad| last3= Goedicke| first3= Michael| last4= Konrad| first4= Uwe| last5= Wannemacher| first5= Klaus| last6= Kett| first6= Jürgen| title = Plan I - Towards a sustainable research information infrastructure| date = 2021-01-21| doi=10.5281/zenodo.4454640 | url = https://zenodo.org/record/4454640| accessdate = 2022-01-11}}

* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.1093/joc/jqz052| issn = 0021-9916| volume = 71| issue = 1| pages = 1–26| last1= Dienlin| first1= Tobias| last2= Johannes| first2= Niklas| last3= Bowman| first3= Nicholas David| last4= Masur| first4= Philipp K.| last5= Engesser| first5= Sven| last6= Kümpel| first6= Anna Sophie| last7= Lukito| first7= Josephine| last8= Bier| first8= Lindsey M| last9= Zhang| first9= Renwen| last10= Johnson| first10= Benjamin K.| last11= Huskey| first11= Richard| last12= Schneider| first12= Frank M.| last13= Breuer| first13= Johannes| last14= Parry| first14= Douglas A.| last15= Vermeulen| first15= Ivar| last16= Fisher| first16= Jacob T.| last17= Banks| first17= Jaime| last18= Weber| first18= René| last19= Ellis| first19= David A| last20= Smits| first20= Tim| last21= Ivory| first21= James D| last22= Trepte| first22= Sabine| last23= McEwan| first23= Bree| last24= Rinke| first24= Eike Mark| last25= Neubaum| first25= German| last26= Winter| first26= Stephan| last27= Carpenter| first27= Christopher J.| last28= Krämer| first28= Nicole| last29= Utz| first29= Sonja| last30= Unkel| first30= Julian| last31= Wang| first31= Xiaohui| last32= Davidson| first32= Brittany I.| last33= Kim| first33= Nuri| last34= Won| first34= Andrea Stevenson| last35= Domahidi| first35= Emese| last36= Lewis| first36= Neil A.| last37= de Vreese| first37= Claes| title = An Agenda for Open Science in Communication| journal = Journal of Communication| date = February 2021| hdl = 10919/99938| hdl-access = free}}

* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.7771/2380-176X.8409| issn = 2380-176X| volume = 31| issue = 5| last = Vandegrift| first = Micah| title = The Golden Age of the Green Ecosystem: A Color-BlindPerspective on Repositories| journal = Against the Grain| accessdate = 2021-12-12| date = 2021-03-01| s2cid = 233797804| url = https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg/vol31/iss5/9| doi-access = free}}

Line 245:

=== Other resources ===

* {{cite mailing list |last=Berners-Lee |first=Tim |date=August 6, 1991 |title=Qualifiers on Hypertext Links... |mailing-list=alt.hypertext |url=https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1991/08/art-6484.txt}}

* {{Cite web| title = » The end of the journal? What has changed, what stayed the same?| accessdate = 2021-10-31| url = http://cameronneylon.net/blog/the-end-of-the-journal-what-has-changed-what-stayed-the-same/}}

* {{Cite web| last = Guédon| first = Jean-Claude| title = Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind| work = BOAI| accessdate = 2021-12-12| url = https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai15/open-access-toward-the-internet-of-the-mind/| accessdate=2021-12-12}}

* {{cite web |last=Bilder |first=Geoffrey |date=2020-12-02 |url=https://www.crossref.org/blog/crossrefs-board-votes-to-adopt-the-principles-of-open-scholarly-infrastructure/ |title=Crossref’s Board votes to adopt the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure |website=Blog |publisher=Crossref}}

* {{cite web |last=Di Giambattista |first=Chiara |date=2021-08-09 |url=https://opencitations.wordpress.com/2021/08/09/opencitations-compliance-with-the-principles-of-open-scholarly-infrastructure/ |title=OpenCitations’ compliance with the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure |website=OpenCitations blog}}

* {{cite web |author=The Dryad Team |date=2020-12-08 |url=https://blog.datadryad.org/2020/12/08/dryads-commitment-to-the-principles-of-open-scholarly-infrastructure/ |title=Dryad’s Commitment to the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure |website=Dryad news}}

{{refend}}