More from TU:Librarian

TU: Librarian

Monthly (and personal) observations from TU Delft Library Director Wilma van Wezenbeek

Moving up.

My weblog has been moved and has a new url. Find the latest weblog post here!

Trying to make the best out of it

Three months have passed in 2018, three hectic months, where I combined two roles. Besides being Library Director at TU Delft, I also started as Program Manager Open Access at the VSNU.
In the past weeks we launched the 3rd E-zine, concluded some negotiations, and are preparing for the renegotiations with Elsevier. It is a lot of (extra) work, which I of course expected and accepted, because this is a nice time to be heavily involved in the transition to a world where open access is the default.

I cannot agree more with Richard Poynder, who in his latest blog describes the necessity to have not only accessibility and affordability, but also transparency in the open access deals. And as one of his “well-intentioned people” I must admit that our Dutch approach is bringing us (a lot of) open access, but is not yet solving all these parameters, and surely not at once.

After my “100 days” period, I would like to make some observations. The first is one I also made last year when I was main author of the National Plan Open Science in the Netherlands. I wrote about the compromise we had to make, given the time constraint, by making the writing process open in a limited way. Not exactly the “open” I normally have in mind when talking about transparency.

Another observation relates to the issues VSNU brings up in its E-zine. “..the road to open access may require a number of different routes..” or “VSNU will develop an application of the right to open access as referred to in the Copyright Act (Taverne Amendment, clause included in 2015)”, and “An open infrastructure for open access appears to offer a suitable solution in this regard..”. The examples of research(ers) in charge that are given, are also indicative. ScholarlyHub, SciPost and the upcoming EU publishing platform (here is the tender that was recently published) are put in the spotlight.

The VSNU roadmap to open access was launched on 7 March 2018.

Finally, in the article my colleague Library Director of the University of Amsterdam (Maria Heijne) and I wrote we forecast next steps and conclusions: “Even so, the results should be seen not as the end point, but as part of a full trajectory, because eventually we want to unlock the ‘library license budgets’ and use them for new promising initiatives, such as LingOA, OLH and Knowledge Unlatched .. Other elements of this trajectory are discussions with the smaller publishing houses, and attention to disciplines with output other than mainly journal articles or that face problems in the transition period.”

So all-in-all we can and will only continue in what we have been doing so far, and that is collaborating with colleagues from abroad (e.g. in the EUA working groups) or teaming up with the current Spring “Compact” clients and keeping our principles on top of the table. In our road the coming years we intend to get in negotiations with open access publishers, to arrange “green” open access for disciplines which the current publication deals fail to cover, and we will investigate what the publication platforms bring “into the equation”.

The coming weeks (months, if necessary) we will be opening up as much information as possible of the recently closed deals on, hopefully providing a lot of answers the community has about the Springer and OUP ones. The news about these deals was spread very quickly after we agreed that there is mutual ground (because it is essential our research community is informed). However, contract details still need to be settled. In every contract settlement we add lessons learned. That can be issues related to text and data mining, the upcoming GDPR, workflow improvement, reporting requirements and obviously disclosure of the financial paragraph (and that is in fact a negotiation in itself). To give an idea, our first Springer “Compact” contract was signed almost 10 months after reaching our outline agreement.

Concluding with something I also took with me from the writing process of last year. “Beware of that demon called ‘Changing The World’” (a quote by Marty Rubin). We are no heroes, we are no villains, we try to make the best of it.

We need bridges. Lots of them.

Digging into open science again at the 5th edition of the international open science congress, and strangely enough the first time I attended. As of January this year I also took up the role of Program Manager open access at the VSNU, and for me open access and open science are really connected. The focus of this congress was mainly on research data (management), FAIR data, and open science strategies or policies.

The presentations will be made available online, so there is no need to go through them all, but there are a few things I would like to highlight.

Starting with Georg Schütte, State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) from Germany. I liked his three questions, i.e., are we (1) strategic, (2) fast and (3) relevant enough? Wolfram Horstmann gave his view on things later on. He wondered whether open science could learn from open access. Open access is now becoming “structural”, and that is after 25 years of working on the topic. Does this mean that open science can come “fast”? Then it took us some time to understand what open access actually fixed (the problem of access to scientific literature). For Wolfram, Director Göttingen State and University Library (Germany), it is not yet evident what problem open science fixes. He recommended to see open science as something you voluntarily get involved in, as a local process, and claimed that it needs time to develop the appropriate reward system, that it has a cost, is cultural, and will blossom if we bridge the last mile.

There was also some food for thought about being FAIR. Not that this was questioned by Sarah Jones, but she brought some appetite into the discussion. The Associate Director of the Digital Curation Centre from the University of Glasgow (UK) explained that there is amongst researchers a lot of confusion about what fair is, and that we should be careful, in explaining this, not to disconnect the researcher (in relation to our terminology, dedication and thoroughness). One of her messages was to bridge the high-over open science advocacy and the down-to-earth research data management issues. This connection with the researcher or the researcher community came back several times, questioning whether looking for this connection is not just an excuse to slow down our actions. Or how we could reframe or simplify our vocabulary, because the words we use distance our scientists from us.

Another bridge to pass would be the one between disciplines. Simon Hodson, Executive Director from CODATA, talked about this. Just take nanomaterials. The way you look at them or describe them depends on your perspective. Is this from food science, ceramics, chemistry or e.g. medicine? All those disciplines articulate properties differently. So it is important to reach agreed vocabularies and standards. We should realize that if we already have many challenges to share data within disciplines, how do we do this across disciplines?

Presenting how Europe is leading open science was brought to us by different presenters. There was Jean-Claude Burgelman, from the European Commission, focusing on the timeline of actions in relation to the European Open Science Cloud, and Juan Bicarregui, coordinator of the EOSC pilot project. The EOSC pilot is a pilot but it will not build the ESOC. This year seems to be a pretty important one, where November should be the month in which the EOSC governance will be presented. Also Simon Hodson, chair of the EC expert group on FAIR data, talked about the expected deliverables of his group. They are working on a FAIR data action plan. FAIR remains key, and other elements such as reliability, ethical issues, connectedness or licensing, will be looked upon, without changing the acronym. They want FAIR to be achieved in a broader ecosystem. Another EC-supported initiative that was presented was by Karel Luyben, former rector of the Delft University of Technology and member of the Open science policy platform. He talked about the GO FAIR initiative, and showed the audience the nice Personal Health Train clip.

Birgit Schmidt took me to the Ballhaus. At RDA Berlin there will be a female night here. Great fun!

Open science would not be covered completely if there would be no reference to citizen science, rewarding, research integrity, software sustainability, open access, educational resources and skills. It would be difficult to address these fully in two days. However, acknowledgement of the intellectual contribution at several phases was mentioned, as well as the CReDiT initiative. Emily Sena, from the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh (UK), encouraged scientists to have more continued professional development. Her case was that preclinical research would benefit from open science. She asked for more neutral and negative results (“publish what does not work”) to be published.

And citizen science was being addressed by the President of the Leibniz Association – organizer of this conference – Matthias Kleiner. The Leibniz Association has in its mission that science should be in and for society. Examples of citizen science can be found on the “Burgerschaffenwissen platform”. Kleiner referred to the collaboration between the Zoo institute and “stadtreinigung”. The institute wanted to examine wild life in the city, and the early workers of the city were able to spot these. I would say that they found another useful bridge.

Open science – our way forward

After ending 2017 with open, indeed I also start with open. And with a good reason. On 12 January 2018 we said goodbye to our TU Delft Rector Magnificus Karel Luyben, first with a symposium and later at our university’s Dies Natalis (foundation day). The theme of both events was open science, and I had the honor to be part of the preparations and the events.

In the morning I interviewed Karel (starting at 1:08) about the TU Delft open science approach. In the afternoon I reflected (starting at 00:37) on the morning symposium and made a bridge to the foundation day lecturer Geert-Jan Houben.

In Delft we now enter the 4th year of our open science programme. We make our research and education as open as possible, and as closed as necessary. We have many tools to realize this, varying from an open access policy, an open access fund, supporting open access journals and books, research data stewards at our faculties and a community for open source software.

For our research data stewards: The beginning of 2018 will see the data stewardship project moving at full speed. Data stewards at all eight faculties will carry out outreach, training and advisory work to the research community. This will happen in parallel with developing research data policies for each faculty. In December 2017 we got the approval to expand the data steward programme, and we will now move from 0,5 to 1 fte per faculty, for a two-year period (after the first “round” is finished). After that two-year period, it will be the faculties’ responsibility to determine how they wish to continue with data stewardship.

May the Open Science Force be with you! Our TU Delft “Meet the services” team, under guidance by Najiba Abdellaoui, Karin Clavel and Anke Versteeg, were present in the pop-up Dome. 

Acknowledging the importance of open science at an early stage, brought Delft the open science force that on 12 January 2018 was expressed in a lively lunch session “meet the services”. The goodiebag at the end of the meeting contained coupons for a consultation for either open education, copyright, or a data management plan consultation. Other goodies were the possibility to record a knowledge clip, to publish an open textbook in a day, to make use of open source software (via a day’s training), to make use of our data refinement fund or to become a data champion. Of course the invite to the Open education Global event was included, as well as the request to share your open science experiences with us (and then you might be interviewed for the open science course we developed for PhD’s).

How will this all contribute to the impact we as university want to make for a better society? That is the subtitle of the new strategic framework TU Delft also launched on 12 January 2018. Is open science a catalyst for this? In Delft we believe so.

Just de Leeuwe created this wonderful open access movie for the “meeting the services” event.

Ending 2017 with Open

On 5 december I attended the London Information Info. Mainly because I promised to speak about the National Plan Open Science (more or less the same talk as I had at Visby). There were a few observations I made walking around at the not-so-crowded venue that I would like to share in this blog.

Ziyad Marar of Sage Publishing referred to a FOO Camp they organize together with O’Reilly and Facebook – the first social sciences FOO camp connecting social scientists with data scientists. Sage obviously moves from an interest to content to an interest in tooling for researchers. Their mission is “by social scientists for social scientists”. They question themselves how they can become more supportive of research.

In the panel “whose research is it anyway” I particpated together with amongst others Phil Jones (from Digital Science) and Sybil Wong (Sparrho). An interesting part of the discussion was brought up by Phil. We should realize that journals are still mainly connected to the vertical colons university faculties once were. With the societal challenges research is more grouped into multidisciplinary coalitions and the traditional journals do not fit here. (Note that in one of the parallel vendor sessions Springer Nature talked about their Grand Challenges Program.) Sybil told us that the target group she worked with (early career researchers) often were frustrated by the fact that research was put into cages, where they preferred to work in the open and share. Her contribution in relation to the discussion about traditional journals was also interesting. She mentioned that these journals have a limited aims&scope and are often very biased within their peer review community: new research always needs to fit in. That was a reason for her to appreciate the way peer review is done at PloS – where quality focuses on methodology, and less on the “content”. The panel session was in fact on the topic of ownership. We all felt that this would become less important, or as an Elsevier representative said: “we are moving from copyright&ownership to credit&control”. The question that remained was that if ownership is not something you get a return on investment on, what is the economic value in future (for the scholarly publisher)? Interestingly we all agreed that the role of libraries as guardians of metadata remains or even expands.

I found this “christmas tree of barrels” at the tube stations in London. At TU Delft Library we have a homemade christmas tree of books this year!

After an intermezzo by Alfred Rolington (Cyber security intelligence) about the 4th digital revolution, who asked us all to be far more aware of the social consequences in this revolution than we have been before, the open science / open future session started. Rosalind Smyth (from UCL Institute of Child Health) has been involved in Open access for quite some time (she served for 10 years at the PLoS Board). Her institute will be the first academic institute adopting the open research platform. She is convinced she will seduce her researchers to use it, but she will not keep her academics from publishing in Nature. The platform is fast, inclusive, open, reproducible and transparent, contains living articles and open peer review. Hannah Hope from Wellcome Trust also expanded on their open research platform. The first results show that new opportunities are fully used now (with software notes and datasets in the top 5).

Enough interesting stuff there to be happy I got there on a one-day visit. Fiona Bradley (RLUK) mentioned a detail that I shared with more people last week, i.e., that more and more people only get to Internet via Facebook nowadays. But perhaps even better to refer here to the paper Erin C. McKiernan recently published in PloS Biology on the “open” university. I still have to take time to read this more thoroughly. She touches on so many relevant things a researcher, an institute, or a funder can do to be open (and probaly also a Library director in Delft). And reminds us on the why of having open scholarship: to be more inclusionary, to increase the societal impact of your research; to accelerate the pace of discovery and addressing the reproducibility crisis. She gives good examples where research has been shared, and she outlines her own personal pledge:

As an open scholar, I pledge to:

  1. edit and review only for open access journals,
  2. publish only in open access journals,
  3. openly share my working manuscripts as preprints,
  4. openly share my code and data under version control,
  5. openly share my electronic laboratory notebooks,
  6. sign my manuscript reviews,
  7. preferentially assign openly licensed materials in my classes,
  8. create openly licensed teaching materials,
  9. ask my professional societies to support open scholarship,
  10. speak out in support of open scholarship.

A perfect example to follow!

Better data, better decisions

I first thought that this was my fourth RDA Plenary, but I think it was my fifth, from Göteborg, Dublin, Paris, Amsterdam, now to Montreal.

RDA is not a normal conference, with a division between plenary lectures and parallel sessions in blocks of thematic topics. No, it is all about birds-of-a-feather sessions, interest groups or working groups, depending on the status (approved of) and maturity of the group. You need to select what groups or sessions to attend, surely if you are not personally involved in one of these groups.

Is open science starting a revolution? I went to the museum of fine arts to see what happened in the sixties.

That is why the morning session of the second day (I missed the first day because of the DataCite Board Meeting, and a meet-up with Stephanie Gagnon from University of Montreal) was useful for me. It was a quick overview of working groups, being in the middle or at the end of their 18-month period. I bring a few things home to @tudelftlibrary colleagues, e.g.

  • Datacubes, dataarrays – is that something we are working with? For me these were new words, but I am of course not a datalibrarian.
  • Take a look at
  • Materials Resource Registries (to make it easier to find and share resources about materials science). Examples at
    Note that the software can easily be used for other disciplines. Of course this draws my interest, being a materials science engineer myself.
  • David Wilcox with his research data repository interoperability group is looking for adopters.
  • Anne E Thessen is improving the metadata schema so that curation history can easily be found, and curators can get credit, and valuable work does not need to be repeated (but can be found).

After the Library session (where I presented our RISE self-assessment on behalf of our own Library Research Data Services group), I attended the Make Data Count BOF session. A lot of our colleagues from DataCite were there. Interesting and useful work, i.e., to develop a hub for all data level metrics, so that usage tracking is made easier, throughout all research communities. The first draft COUNTER Code of Practice for Research Data has been created and is open for comments. I invite everybody to give their input to this valuable work.

On the third and last day I attended the interest group on education and training for research data handling. There was an overview of available courses and training for support staff on research data handling, or for engaging or guiding the researchers. It was obvious by the eight or some brief talks that there is so much out there, that our own proposal (from Ellen Verbakel @tudelftlibrary together with Irina Kuchina @EIFL) to create a data supporter curriculum, that is based on the research life cycle, seems wise. We want to define the learning goals and competences for the data supporter. The idea is to develop a more unified education, where all the current and present education and training on handling of research data is taken into account. And by the way a tip for ourselves, we should not bypass the Library Carpentry efforts, because here real hands-on work is being stimulated. After reviewing the content of existing courses, we would like to identify and describe the modules missing in these courses. After that we will need to define what modules are mandatory in a course for data supporters. We will also consider the thought of bringing in different levels, a question asked at the workshop. Perhaps I should consider doing a Library carpenter training myself!?

The theme of the conference was “better data, better decisions”. 100% true of course, the better we describe and maintain the data we preserve, the better findable, interoperable and reusable they are, and by doing so every user, also the data producer, can make better decisions.
I mentioned my meeting with Stephanie Gagnon. Talking about better data and better decisions. I read about the big deal cancellations in this blog, and our license manager Marina Lebedeva contacted Stephanie. Being in Montreal was too much of a coincidence, and it was very nice to talk to her. Going through her presentation says it all. From downloads, citations and mentions you can end up with essential journals per discipline for your institute, and that should be the basis of your negotiations. We promised to stay in touch, to enter open access in the equation in Canada/Montreal. Montreal has a good press at the moment in relation to open science, so I am pretty hopeful we will be able to join forces.

Libraries: Are we neutral or brutal?

The past weeks I attended two events related to open science. The first one was in Lisbon, Portugal, and was a RISE high-level workshop on “Research careers and the European funding system: How to make open science a reality”. The second one was in Visby, Gotland, Sweden, and was a seminar on open science, where I gave a brief outline of what we have been and are doing in The Netherlands in relation to open science.

When I prepared my statements for the first workshop (where I participated in two panels) I created another acronym: FECS (if you say it, one might hear “facts”); i.e., we should be able to offer our researchers Flexibility, Evidence, Consistency and Support. In relation to open research data, I argued that it is important to provide relevant and to-the-point support. At our TU Delft Library we have developed an open science training for PhD’s, so we help our researchers doing the right thing. We understand that there is no obvious solution for all research; you have to take into account that the scientific processes are different per discipline. Flexibility is key – at TU Delft we incentivize the culture of sharing data by the following approach: we say that the lowest level of sharing your data would be within your own research group. To do this takes already management of your data and proper stewardship. Once you have done that, you have created the basis for further opening up if possible and relevant, with our mantra: “as open as possible, as closed if necessary”. Evidence for reuse of research data is not so easy to obtain, but needed to set good examples. At 4TU.Centre for Research Data we have collected case studies to inspire other researchers. Consistency lies at the level of the departmental heads and executives. We are not just talking about open access to publications (articles, books, reports) or research data, we are (at least at the universities) opening up our primary processes and campuses, work or materials that have been provided with public money.
The leaders in research organisations in general should be aware that a change is needed at different levels. To mention just a few things that passed along:

  • Research integrity is perhaps more important (relevant to think about) for mid- or senior researchers
  • Research organisations should give their staff time to think
  • Choose your research (grant) evaluators carefully
  • Open science should be embedded in current practices and codes of conduct, not being or leading to its own criteria (guidelines)

There was so much we wanted to address in Lisbon. In the active part of the workshop on the second day I really liked the ambition for the subgroup I participated in: “enabling researchers to share components of their research as early as possible”.

The Champalimaud Centre of the Unknown really lives open science. All citizens may visit the open areas of the Clinical Centre, and the patients can choose the place for their treatment (e.g. for chemotherapy).

The Almedalen festivities are often free to participate in, and take place on surprising locations. A nice mixture of private – public – politics. And in the evening: parties!

The open science seminar in an open place (garden) in Sweden is difficult to report from for me. My talk was in English, but everything else was in Swedish. However, I think that the Swedish Library Association (they co-organised it with the Organisation for Science and Public) appreciated the contribution I made. It is essential that we are moving along in the same direction in Europe, so that we continue to make progress in open science. We need other countries, apart from The Netherlands, to be daring and sharing as well. Brutality (in the good sense of the word) is something we librarians sometimes need to learn a bit. Now that the Chairpersons of the universities are involved in the Dutch negotiations with the bigger Publishers, we see that this is rewarding to do. I liked the discussions I had with the SLA staff. The SLA is a member organisation for all libraries, including research, public and special libraries. At the Almedalen meeting the SLA clarifies the role and position of libraries for the politicians, who walk around and participate in panels. I always say that the Library offers neutral ground, so that other people can have debates and take their positions. That is why Studium Generale fits very well in our Library.  (Secretary General at SLA) wondered whether that was not too naïve: Librarians are also knowledgeable, can verify facts, and people can trust and rely on their library, does that make us neutral? During our discussion however we concluded that both positions are true. All libraries should be educating (or helping) their patrons so that they can make their own balanced decision and formulate their own opinion, based on trusted material – that is what we are doing, and should be doing, and it is a very important task. However, to bring this about so that others understand this role, requires some brutality.

After I wrote this blogpost, I noted that the bottle I took with me (I collect beer bottles) was from the Brutal Brewery – such a coincidence!


Evaluation. Another open science perspective.

Finally I had some time to read two reports related to open science, one from the European Commission Expert Group on Altmetrics, and a lengthier one from the RISE High Level Group. It is not my intention to summarize these reports in full, but merely to reflect on some parts I found interesting. Mind you that my focus these weeks is on finding tools or actions that can help in the 3rd line of our national plan open science, i.e. “Recognition of and rewards for researchers”, so I have been reading with some “bias”.

Part 1

The report “Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science” ends with 12 recommendations, including the set-up of a European Forum for next-generation metrics. There were also five headlines provided at the end:

  1. An open science system should be grounded in a mix of expert judgement, quantitative and qualitative measures.
  2. Transparency and accuracy are crucial.
  3. Make better use of existing metrics for open science.
  4. Next generation metrics should be underpinned by an open, transparent and linked data infrastructure.
  5. Measure what matters.

And a denser summary could be: Metrics: use them responsibly, and use numbers together with a qualitative assessment.

From the altmetrics report: “Figure 2 – The basket of metrics for the evaluation of science (Haustein, 2015).”

This report perhaps does not add that many new insights, but offers a good overview of what has been done, the pros and cons of altmetrics, and gives a prospect for what needs to be done. Remarkable however that only nineteen responses were received on the Call for Evidence last summer.

Part 2

The RISE report can be downloaded, and also be purchased as a print book – it covers 228 pages (with a long list of references, and some useful case studies at the end), and reading it on my laptop in the train back from Hannover was not optimal. However, I picked up a few things.

The chapters and paragraphs were written by (groups of) individual members – the full report has not been endorsed by the whole RISE group. There is however “The Mallorca declaration on open science”.  Also here five “headlines” capitalize on achieving open science:

  1. Remove the barriers that extreme competition for limited resources create for Open Science.
  2. Implement Open Access publishing where publication is part of the continuum of research.
  3. Establish competence and confidence in the practice of Open Data.
  4. Ensure research integrity.
  5. A cohesive European approach.

Ad 1.

I invited Megan Carey at a CESAER Workshop on Open Access we organized in Bruxelles early in February (you can find the presentation she gave here). Megan is member of the RISE Group, so I was curious to read her contribution.  She indeed grasped my attention by stating: “True progress on Open Science in Europe will require rethinking the way research is funded and researchers are rewarded, in order to address the underlying forces that currently act to discourage Open Science. Longterm policy changes must directly address and remove the current barriers to Open Science practice. Such actions could fundamentally change research culture – simultaneously improving conditions for researchers, promoting excellence, and encouraging openness.” A few suggestions she made are the need for a relative shift of funds away from largescale collaborative projects towards PI-driven funding schemes; and more generally, that the granting schemes should undergo an overall simplification. Ultimately, there is a need to support a move towards funding centred on “people, not projects,” the approach of several world leading funding organizations. The latter claim is also reflected on a simplified drawing created by the “authors”.

From the RISE report: “Figure OI.3: New dynamics of innovation.”

Ad 3.

In the paragraph on open data, written by Ian Mulvany, I liked the rules (Goodman et al., 2014) Mulvany referred to. These rules are already from 2014, but never brought to me like this. As Mulvany puts it: “Were all of these rules to be adhered to by all researchers, we would have as good an Open Data ecosystem as we could wish for.”

The challenge “Competence in working with data” is addressed by the three rules:

  • Rule 1. Love Your Data, and Help Others Love It, Too;
  • Rule 3. Conduct Science with a Particular Level of Reuse in Mind; and
  • Rule 4. Publish Workflow as Context.

The challenge “Appropriate infrastructure for open data” is addressed by the following four rules:

  • Rule 2. Share your data online with a Permanent identifier;
  • Rule 5. Link Your Data to Your Publications as Often as Possible;
  • Rule 6. Publish Your Code (Even the small bits); and Rule 8. Foster and use data repositories.

Challenge three: “Creating a supporting culture for openness” addresses the three remaining rules:

  • Rule 7. State How You Want to Get Credit;
  • Rule 9. Reward Colleagues Who Share Their Data Properly; and
  • Rule 10. Be a Booster for Data Science.

And here my “bias” is being rewarded after all, because this last challenge and the related rules are about “how we can ensure that the correct incentives are in place to support the sharing of open data”.

Part 3

I noticed that in the RISE report recommendations are “all-over” being given to the “green road” of open access, i.e., “The RISE Open Science Group strongly endorses the use of the Green Open Access/ self-archiving model as the most immediate solution for Open Access publication.” In the part written in the Mallorca declaration this is a bit more specified and for me better understandable, and put in context: “The success of Open Science will depend on Open Access publishing having sufficient resources to implement a fair and transparent evaluation process and to ensure the quality, reproducibility and integrity of published research. Posting on recognized pre-print servers, data publishing platforms and self-archiving on shared platforms (‘Green Open Access’) provide useful complementary solutions for immediate pre-publication sharing of Open Science research.”

And then to end with a sidestep –recently I contributed to the Open Education Consortium Year of Open blog with a perspective on open science. Reading with this “bias” as I did (well not fully) with these two reports, is again enriching my perspective. Am I reading this as Library director, as DataCite member, as participant in the Dutch “big deal” negotiations, or as writer of the national plan open science?

Regardless of my own perspective, a very nice overview of the first National Open Science Day on 29 May 2017 was created by Mark van Huystee: just get inspired by all these perspectives!

Drawing made by Mark van Huystee, 29 May 2017. Part of the opensketching weblog “What does open science means to you?”


A brain day in the Library

Be inspired. That’s what we like to achieve for our students, teachers and researchers. Or whoever passing by or visiting our Library. This is pretty simple these four weeks. Our Library is filled with brain activities, as part of the university celebrating her 175 years of existence. The theme chosen for the university festivities is “Technology for Life”, and many events are being organized that form part of this celebration.

The mission of the Library is to enable knowledge to flow freely. It is a place to study, learn and be inspired. During the ‘Explore your Brain’ weeks students, staff and the general public can find out how to get the most out of their brain, with or without technology.

In our Library we help you to “Explore your Brain”. We have a 3D floor image of the brain, workshops and lectures, movies to watch all day, mind games to play, a digital shower (as of March 16), innovative study spaces, special music and much more. We have composed brain boxes for primary schools (and 20 schools have signed up for these) and Library staff can get small steps to keep fit during working hours. Our coffeecorner Coffee-star will also offer some brain ”stimulating” food. Four brain captains from Library staff and their teams have worked very hard together to make this happen, alongside all other work, and I think that this is perhaps even the best result out of this.

All pictures taken on Brain day 2 ( 14 March 2017).

In our university news paper another twist on this topic was recently presented. The university research fields mapped as if it were a brain.  The role of the Library in this Aida visualization tool, as explained in this article, is part of a Pecha Kucha session our colleague Dirk-Jan Ligtenbelt will present on 16 March 2017. A Pecha Kucha session about the future of the Library.

As I explained earlier “we cannot predict the future. We should continue to do relevant work, dare to innovate, and move forward …”. Working together with faculty staff on this work and organizing a stimulating Brain programme is moving us forward. Great!

Making open science the new reality

The National Plan Open Science has been presented, and the National Platform Open Science and website have been launched, as we had planned for, on 9 February 2017. It was great to have been able to play a part in this.

Perhaps the most difficult thing for me was finding the balance between being the neutral writer (because the Plan is a joint effort, and expresses the ambitions of the responsible coalitions, not mine) and the Librarian with an opinion (which I obviously have).

We have delivered fourteen concrete ambitions related to 100% open access for scientific publications (created via public funding) per 2020; optimal reuse of research data; implementing a broader view on the way research and researchers are assessed and rewarded; and promoting and supporting open science.

It was great that all Parties involved created responsible coalitions per ambition, and the collectivity that is needed for this, is perhaps one of the major achievements during the creation of this Plan. I said it before “I am, because we are”.


I like to share in this weblog just a few of the things that came along, but were too difficult to grasp at this moment, or were not big enough to make it into an ambition:

  • Could we give credit to researchers who start new research based on existing research data (and thus stimulate reuse)?
  • How could we stimulate researchers to cite data(sets) as part of their reference lists?
  • What would it mean if we would say: “if we invest in science, it needs to be open science”?
  • An event for researchers to present all available infrastructure and tools is one thing, but do not forget to involve administrators and managers, and also those working in HR, Finance and ICT.
  • All articles submitted are first routed to the research library > here the open access policy of the journal selected is checked, taken care of the right sort of license, and the final version after publishing is stored in the institutional repository. Is that a crazy thought?

Take some time to read our National Plan, and have a look at our website. Let us know if you have ideas, comments, or would like to participate in the Platform. We need each other to make open science the new reality.


There are many people I could thank, but these are the most important ones: our wonderful writing team!

© 2011 TU Delft