Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: doi, hdl updated in citation with #oabot. |
→Standards and technologies: dab fix |
||
Line 133:
Maintaining open standards is one of the main challenge identified by leading European open infrastructures, as it implies choosing among competing standards in some case, as well as ensuring that the standards are correctly updated and accessibile through APIs or other endpoints.<ref name="ficarra_23" /> Two third of the respondents have undertaken an evaluation of their technological environment during the past year, to ensure that key components have not become obsolete.<ref name="Ficarra_29">{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=29}}</ref> As a consequence of this sustained efforts, most open infrastructure complies with the new established standards of open science, such as FAIR data or [[Plan S]].<ref name="Ficarra_29" />
Open science infrastructures preferably integrate standards from other open science infrastructures. Among European infrastructures: "The most commonly cited systems – and thus essential infrastructure for many – are [[ORCID]], [[Crossref]], [[DOAJ]], [[BASE (search engine)|BASE]], [[OpenAIRE]], [[Altmetric]], and [[Datacite]], most of which are not-for-profit".<ref>{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=50}}</ref> [[Google Scholar]] is the first mentioned commercial service, while Scopus, the leading proprietary academic search engine developed by [[Elsevier]], is one of least quoted leading service.<ref name="Ficarra_31">{{harvnb|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=31}}</ref> Open science infrastructure are then part of an emerging "truly interoperable Open Science commons" that hold the premise of "researcher-centric, low-cost, innovative, and interoperable tools for research, superior to the present, largely closed system."<ref>{{harvnb|Ross-Hellauer et al.|2020|p=13}}</ref>
Infrastructures are frequently dependent on choices made by external stakeholders, especially scientific publishers: they "do not themselves decide on
| |||