Retracted research

 The study published in Nature, a leading international journal, has taken the academic world by storm.

The study published in Nature, a leading international journal, has taken the academic world by storm. Richard Van Noorden’s analysis based on the database of Retraction Watch, one media organisation, and other journals reveals record retraction of scientific papers from research journals ~ more than 10,000 papers in 2023, a 2.5 fold spike from the preceding year.

Ironically or fortunately, 8,000 of those papers had exclusively been from journals owned by Hindawi, a subsidiary of Wiley. The analysis also evinces that the retraction rate has trebled in the last decade. In India, the incidence and number of retractions have increased manifold since 2010 ~ from 595 papers between 2017- 19 to 1550 during 2020-22, or a 2.5 fold jump. India holds the 3rd rank in the world. Specifically from older IITs, many scientific papers had been retracted, for reasons like plagiarism of text and article and duplication of papers.

Two IIT (School of Mines) scientists have had 50 papers retracted. India has the dubious distinction of publishing the highest number of predatory journals ~ Madhya Pradesh tops the states ~ and resultant research papers. Predatory journals, otherwise a cottage industry, are a different genre without an editorial board and peer review system and publish almost anything for a hefty publication fee.

Moreover, shadow agencies, commonly known as paper mills or manuscript mills, are doing thriving business in India. Retraction is the outcome of the process where editors or external experts raise critical questions about the underlying idea, dataset, experiment and findings of research papers, for which the published papers cannot be relied upon. Being the last resort, retraction is invoked when the integrity and veracity of the paper come under the hammer.

Retraction Watch enlists 109 reasons for retraction, like errors in data collection or classification, fabrication or manipulation of data, oversight of research protocol, plagiarism, simultaneous publication, fake peer review and ethical or other misconduct. Though the boundary between acceptable human error and intentional misconduct is rather tenuous, it is unequivocal that deliberate fudging is responsible for more than threefourths of retractions.

The whopping numbers and alarming increase in retraction rates are pushing scientific academia to an epochal juncture. The phenomenon points to the overwhelming sweep and hold of sham science all around, belittles public trust in scientific research and shrouds and misleads the trajectory of knowledge and even public policy.

The fake research papers are stretching the credibility of research to a screeching, if not crushing point. Bogus publications are vindicating an international publishing scandal. The ominous and appalling eventuality points to overpowering problems for the future trajectory of science per se. What is exposed now is, ironically, the tip of the malpractice iceberg. The retraction figures habitually exclude conference papers, books, and above all, social science papers; otherwise, the aggregate would have swelled.

Flagging is relatively easy for scientific papers, as these are based on a specific or verifiable dataset, experiment or laboratory test. However, the detection process seems messy for social science papers, where replication is almost impossible. Papers dealing with survey data and critical or theoretical discourse can, at the most, be subject to plagiarism and multiple submission tests. The phenomenon of deception and misconduct is obviously much more extensive and multifaceted.

With the publication of fraudulent papers, the damage is already done and not much could be done to undo their fallouts, particularly in action-oriented research, except naming and sharing the authors and publishers. The influence or impact of fake research lingers on due to a long time lag ~ 9.5 months being the median of retraction. By the time the retraction decision is taken, the studies might have been extensively cited, used as the premise of many other genuine research studies or guided technology and public policy.

The large observational study in Lancet concluded that hydroxychloroquine was responsible for more deaths and heart related complications among Covid-19 patients. Accordingly, the WHO stopped clinical trials of the drug. However, subsequent investigation uncovered inconsistencies in the database of “Surgisphere,” the base of the study, and the paper was retracted. Similarly, laboratory studies indicated that the anti-parasite Ivermectin is the magic drug for treating Covid-19 patients.

Later on, these studies were found to have committed clear evidence of fraud. Retraction does not necessarily imply that the study will disappear altogether from circulation and use. Studies found that 90 per cent of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. For the print version of the studies, a retraction notice in a subsequent issue of the journal remains the only viable option. Yet, not everyone can keep up with such notification.

The digital version of the papers may conveniently be preceded by a retraction notification. But that step is not always evinced: onehalf of the retracted research papers on Covid-19 are still available in full-text without retraction notices. From an alternative perspective, the insistence is that the increasing rate of retraction is heartening as it demonstrates the concerted efforts and improving skills of the journal editors and watchdog agencies. Surely, more and more detections are due to the initiatives and surveillance by many stakeholders.

And variegated methodologies are being employed ~ analysis of the manuscript content, identification of softwaregenerated “tortured phases” designed to skirt plagiarism probes, screening of citation patterns and scrutiny of problematic papers. The newer method factors in the combination of authors that is likely to flag bought-in authorship. Nonetheless, it is equally explicit that more and more academics are resorting to spurious means. Estimates attest that the retraction rates are outstripping the number of research papers or that the rates are inversely proportionate to the increase in publications.

The journal publishers tend to be in a quandary as to how to detect pseudo research papers or how to reinforce their filtering mechanisms. For decades, the peer review process has served as the gold standard for determining the validity or authenticity of submitted manuscripts. The review is intended to examine and assess the quality and accuracy of the method employed, the analysis and the findings of the study by the subject experts. The review process ~ either concealing or disclosing the identity of the authors and reviewers ~ filters out the poor quality papers or ensures improvement with suggested modifications.

The appraisal report of the reviewers is the basis on which journal editors make final decisions. However, exponential retractions substantiate the deficiencies ingrained in the review system. It is more often hobbled by inconsistencies, loopholes, systemic manipulation and vulnerability. The review process is not yet organized, or infallible. As JT Torres puts it, the reviewers are professionals, but peer review is not a profession as yet.

The review process is susceptible to compromise or scheming. Occasionally it may be a namesake; otherwise, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine would not have published the article “Contemporary Value Assessment of Marxist Ideology under the Context of Deep Learning.” The special issues of journals, owned by the Hindawi Group, were manipulated by way of selective guest editors and reviewers which eventually led to the retraction of 8,000 research papers in 2023.

AMAL MANDAL

The Statesman, 27/02/24

Unveiling the 5 Challenges of Researching in India

 The advancement of both a student’s abilities as well as the cause of education relies on scholarly research. At various levels of education, students involved in research are constantly honing a variety of future ready skills, while also achieving significant breakthroughs. Research thrives when scientists can devote their time and energy to solving problems. India presents a promising landscape of research and when Indian researchers can strike the delicate balance between teaching, administrative tasks, and their core research, they are able to achieve outstanding scientific outcomes. Like any other genre of work, research in India also presents labyrinthine challenges waiting to be conquered. In this article, we explore the multifaceted complexities that researchers encounter in their pursuit of scientific excellence and examine the steps needed to elevate the research ecosystem in India.

• Cultivating a supportive ecosystem

A flourishing research ecosystem thrives on funding opportunities, infrastructure, and a critical mass of expertise. Enhancing the quantum of allocation of research funds through government grants, which is the primary support for Indian researchers albeit competitive to secure, can result in proliferation of more ideas coming to life. To avoid delays in research, an early start is recommended, especially when reaching out to foreign companies for equipment, software, and technical services. Since technical support and repair services for imported equipment are time-consuming, once these stumbling blocks are overcome by building domestic supply chain and local manufacturing, research can be pursued smoothly. Enabling research exposure at undergraduate level can motivate more youngsters to pursue research as a career.

• Focusing on Positive Funding Balance

The essence of research lies in its contribution to society's betterment. Practical solutions derived from research endeavors typically emerge as the culmination of efforts spanning fundamental and applied stages, alongside engineering development across various Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Striking the right equilibrium among these facets - fundamental exploration, application-driven research, and technological advancement - is pivotal in nurturing a sustainable innovation pipeline. This holistic approach ensures the creation of impactful solutions to address grand challenges.

Notably, contemporary trends in funded projects exhibit a significant drive toward supporting initiatives with the potential for commercial translation into products or services. While this direction fosters practicality, it's essential to remember that preserving space for fundamental research is equally vital. This positive synergy among various research dimensions fosters a vibrant and holistic research ecosystem.

• Enhancing the Evaluation System

Researchers are driven by their desire to translate their discoveries into meaningful social contributions. However, a hurdle arises when the researcher’s credibility is assessed primarily through metrics tied to publications rather than real-world impact generated. To better align with the broader goal of social impact, there’s a growing need for a refined metric that accurately gauges the extent of positive change. Shifting the balance to assign greater importance to impact will catalyze research endeavors that drive meaningful transformations in society.

• Building Trust

Scientists often prioritize delving into the fundamental aspects of a problem, and publishing their observations, sometimes sidelining the application of their findings. However, recognizing the value of impactful outcomes, researchers can make significant contributions by formulating research proposals that address pressing societal needs. By bridging this gap between fundamental exploration and real-world innovation, the innovation pipeline gains momentum, revitalizing the confidence of grant agencies in research proposals with a focus on fundamental aspects. Subsequently, funding agencies will show greater appetite for risk and support novel, ‘high-risk-high-reward’ ideas that pave the way for groundbreaking discoveries.

• Nurturing Collaboration and Entrepreneurship

To ensure the sustainable growth of research laboratories, scientists often dedicate their energies to securing grants, sometimes overshadowing the potential of commercializing outcomes through patents and technology transfers to industry. However, a more sustainable approach emerges through embracing entrepreneurship and collaborative innovation. In the modern research landscape, interdisciplinary efforts have become paramount, with collaboration of engineers with physicists, chemists, biologists, and material scientists propelling progress. A shift from solely competitive mindset to a cooperative one, will fuel sustained advancement and nurture an environment where researchers can achieve greater breakthroughs together.

Dr. Amruta R Behera

Source: The Telegraph, 9/09/23

6 Tips to Ace Your Dissertation Paper: An expert step-by-step guide

 In an increasingly globalised world, shaped and controlled by rampant digital technology and market forces, abundant misinformation over data and confusion about what to choose for ourselves has become very prominent. The present education system is in search of ways to inculcate analytical skills in our learners. The ability to look at things from different positions and perspectives will be a much sought-after skill in the future. Writing is always an act of harnessing more clarity, and as such, writing a dissertation paper can be one such way to prepare our learners for the future.

Importance of dissertation writing

Dissertations are vital not just for the creation and dissemination of new knowledge but also to keep oneself updated about the chosen field of study. It is a double-edged tool in the sense that it provides an in-depth awareness of a particular topic and enables researchers to find problems, while also enabling them to problematise the present context and look at something from different perspectives. For example, Sir Isaac Newton’s famous dictum, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”, points to the insights he gathered from the existing knowledge system.

Dissertations are useful to analyse the present situation and offer a better framework or tool to understand the challenges faced by society, nation(s), or international establishments. Let’s take a look at six essential tips to ace your dissertations:

1. Start with a Question

I always say that questions are seeds of life. They are vital to our understanding of the phenomena around us. A good question leads to creative activity, frameworks for generations to follow, providing impetus to society and nation, even the global world. A perfect example could be the discovery of gravitational law. It was always there but no one knew of it until Thomas Newton discovered it for the world by questioning the fall of the apple. Questions must precede any human activity, and dissertations as well. They need to connect with the dissertation analysis in mind for new possibilities and findings.

2. Identifying a topic

One must have a purpose behind writing a dissertation. A lack of purpose will make it increasingly difficult to identify a topic, find materials, and establish facts, not to mention the challenge faced in framing a working hypothesis for the dissertation. One must never go for a broad dissertation topic; it must be precise and new. It always works better if the dissertation topic matches the researcher’s interests to avoid the push-and-pull play during the writing work. Identification of a topic leads to analysing reviews of available research work on that topic, visualising the pathway that one has tread, thus helping any researcher to arrive at a hypothesis and proceed with the journey of dissertation writing. The best way to identify a topic is to problematise the available findings.

3. Introduction and Hypothesis

Treat the introduction part of the dissertation as a window that offers your audience an opportunity to see what the work has to offer. Hence, it must clearly mention aims, objectives, and research questions, leading to the establishment of a hypothesis towards the end.

A hypothesis is a research statement, also known as visaya (statement) in the Indian knowledge system. In simple words, a statement must qualify to serve as a hypothesis to be tested through research in the dissertation. The caveat is not to draw too many hypotheses in any dissertation, which then runs the risk of formulating unconvincing and opposite arguments to the established hypothesis. The analysis of the research work must remain singularly focussed on the hypothesis, thus establishing the provenance of the data used. Hence, it is advisable to keep a check on validating/invaliding outcomes.

Also, it is advisable to specify the relevance of the hypothesis–in what ways it differs from the existing scholarship, and its contributions to societal context, if any. Good dissertations must make an appeal to the audience with convincing arguments. It is always more welcoming if the dissertation is done keeping others’ needs in mind, and not as an individual exercise.

4. Literature Review

This is the most crucial part of any dissertation work. The literature review is an exhaustive exercise and may lead to a sense of complacency. While it is important to research old works on the chosen topic, it is equally important to keep a track of the latest available research work. Many dissertations seem to suffer from this problem and end up offering arguments which have already been advanced, may be beaten to death, and thus end up as unoriginal dissertations. The literature review helps us to identify unresolved questions, establishing the newness of our work, and hence it is like a canvas on which the dissertation could offer innovative insights. Make use of it. Therefore, this section must demonstrate convincing arguments in a balanced way. A neutral voice is vital to avoid any display of prejudices and preconceived notions.

5. Methodology

The methodology is a concise explanation of frameworks and pathways that the dissertation will work on and follow to establish the provenance of the hypothesis. The term methodology has its genesis in the Greek word, methodos, a compound of meta-hodos, which means “journey after”. Hence, the methodology section in the dissertation must focus on using available data, resources, and theories to build new ones. The basic idea of methodology is to help one get across. The methodology must always remain in conversation with the dissertation hypothesis, while also pointing out the relevance of the chosen methodology.

6. Conclusion

Dissertations need to have a conclusion to establish the results of the findings. The conclusion section must be short, precise and to the point, not resulting in several findings. It must establish the provenance of the research question/hypothesis. The section must follow with a Bibliography, and all the citations should go here to avoid any charges of plagiarism.

About the author: Om Prakash Dwivedi is presently a Visiting Researcher at Linnaeus University, Sweden.

Source: The Telegraph, 17/11/22

Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR) Guidelines

 Department of Science and Technology recently released the Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR) Guidelines.

What is the need to introduce SSR guidelines?

India has taken great strides in the advancement of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI). However, there is an inadequate transfer of scientific knowledge to society. There is a need for greater integration of science and technology with society in today’s age. In this regard, the 104th session of the Indian Science Congress held in 2017 also stressed the need to introduce SSR guidelines.

SSR guidelines aim to ensure greater integration of S&T with society at all levels. SSR is based on the moral obligation of scientists to give back the benefits of science to society. Thus, SSR will be the convergence of scientific knowledge and social conscience.

The guidelines will bridge the following gaps: science-society (passing on the benefits of science to meet public needs), science-science (creating an atmosphere to share ideas), and society-science (working with the public to identify their needs and developing appropriate solutions).

Who are the stakeholders?

The SSR guidelines involve four categories of stakeholders:

1. Beneficiaries (any community group or individuals),
2. Implementers (educational and scientific institutions),
3. Assessors (internal or external),
4. Supporters (funds provided by government, individuals, or any other agencies).

Thus, SSR guidelines create an ecosystem with a two-way engagement between science and society.

What are the other highlights?

An Anchor Scientific Institution (ASI) will be identified in every district of India, which will map the issues faced by a society that requires immediate scientific solutions and establish links with the implementers of the area. A national digital portal will connect all the ASIs and State Science and Technology Council (SSTCs).

The knowledge institutions should prepare their SSR implementation plan. Every scientist in the country is expected to contribute at least 10 working days annually towards SSR activities for which there will be weightage in their annual performance evaluation.

Right to Research (“R2R”): An Independent Right with an Imposed Dependence in Copyright Law?

 Lokesh Vyas writes in with a post pondering the existence of a ‘right to research’ (r2r) in India. The query around r2r in general is not a new one – see for example Appadurai’s widely cited 2006 paper by the same name, or SPARC’s Coalition formed back in 2009. Lokesh attempts to find grounding for it in Indian law through the current post. He is an LLM Candidate (IP and Technology) at American University Washington College of Law (AUWCL), InfoJustice Fellow at PIJIP, and Arodhum Scholar, 2021. He graduated from the Institute of Law Nirma University, Ahmedabad in 2021

Right to Research (“R2R”): An Independent Right with an Imposed Dependence in Copyright Law?

Lokesh Vyas

Several academics and activists in some other parts of the world are discussing a ‘Right to Research’ (“R2R”) (American University’s PIJIP – my current institution is doing one such plethoric project in the light of international copyright laws) which is indeed needed to combat covid-created calamities (e.g. read Prof Sean Flynn’s paper). However, I wonder whether India is witnessing similar discussions. Undoubtedly, issues around research (including access, inequitable participation, excessive pricing) are not novel in India. In recent times, we’ve seen it come up during the DU Photocopy battle as well as in the Sci-Hub controversy (read Nikhil’s three-part post (Part I, Part II, Part III). However, a full-fledged discussion around whether a ‘Right to Research’ exists in India, whether it be internal, or external to Copyright laws seems largely absent.

If we imagine what an R2R could be, it need not necessarily stem from copyright law, nor does it appear to be only limited to people’s right to access research material. Scope-wise, it’s not necessarily limited to researchers, even if they are the ones who are obviously affected by it. Rather, I will attempt to frame it as a constitutional right with a strong footing in international human rights law. I argue that R2R can have four possible premises – 1.) a right under the constitution 2.) a user right under copyright law. 3.) privilege under copyright law. 4.) an exception under copyright law. I specifically support the first (constitutional right) and the third (privilege under copyright, in terms of Hohfeld taxonomy) premises. (Per Hohfeld Taxonomy, if ‘right’ to research is regarded as a privilege, no duty will lie in the users and no-right will exist in copyright holders.)

I divide the post into two main parts – the first part argues that ‘research’, although provided for in Indian Copyright law, runs on the premise of a baseless assumption of access by users, making it an incomplete and impractical user right. The second part highlights the constitutional and international law framework of R2R and attempts to establish its existence outside copyright law. 

(Note: 1. This post is limited to ‘research’, but it may be an interesting thought exercise to consider other fair dealing activities as a privilege. 2. Since the topic requires a full-fledged research paper with detailed arguments, the post only touches upon the constitutional and international law aspects to show that there is a strong logico-legal case worth investigating, for the R2R in India.) 

India’s Presumed-Access Research Right!

Section 14 of Indian Copyright law provides an exhaustive list of rights owned by the copyright holders, with a disclaimer that they are “subject to the provisions of this Act”. One relevant provision in this regard is Section 52 which reads ‘​​Certain acts not to be an infringement of copyright’. Specifically, Section 52(1)(a)(i) that reads “a fair dealing with a literary, .. for the purposes of— 1[(i) Private use including research”, is relevant for researchers. A conjoint reading of Section 14 and Section 52(1)(a)(i) suggests that copyrights cannot be an impediment for private research (although there is an arguable case for its expansion to public research, see comments here). However, this does not happen in reality, because access, which is a prerequisite for research, is controlled by copyright owners. It is worth noting that although copyright holders control the access of the works’, this control of access does not come from Section 14. Given Section 16 which restricts the interpretation of copyrights to the statute, Section 14’s interpretation cannot be expanded beyond the literal framings within the statute. 

[Separately, if rights conferred under the Copyright Act ARE SUBJECT to other provisions including Section 52 which lays down non-infringing activities, then why should research be regarded as an exception to copyright (for e.g. See Para 19, here) and not vice versa!]

One way to control access, (though not as a right) comes from Section 65A (read more here), dealing with technological protection measures (TPM), which are covered by the concept of paracopyright (see also here). But as per the statute, TPMs can be circumvented for ‘a purpose not expressly prohibited by the Act’, taking us back to Section 52(1)(a)(i). Regardless of how benign the idea was to make it adaptable to Section 52, circumventing a TPM demands technical expertise which cannot be always expected from a researcher. In simple words, Copyright Act, 1957 permission allowing access  to research works protected by TPMs works only if one is a technically able researcher.

Doesn’t this look like a scenario where access is either assumed or overlooked? Worse, if research is a right under copyright law, regardless of how impractical it is, it would most likely be shown (and seen) to be pitted against copyright holders because rights/interests in the same statute are often thought to require a ‘balance’, i.e. treated as opposing forces (though indirectly, it speaks of IP Internalism, see here). Thus, when the question reaches the court, the Judge would apply a balancing test (the balance between author rights and users’ rights) to ensure that both parties’ interests are protected. But it runs with a presumption that protecting parties’ interests would automatically (or ultimately) endorse the public policy goals of copyright law (see the relevant discussions of Parliamentary Debates on Copyright law at pages (of the uploaded file) 124, 136, 196, 351 especially the statements of Mr. Kishan Chand). 

‘Balance’ is nothing but a mystical metaphor of (over)simplifying issues with an assumption that all the background work has been done (see for e.g. here). Moreover, from whose perspective, is the balance seen? This ballad of balance makes a bizarre impression that users and copyright holders have antagonistic interests, like a zero-sum game. But doesn’t this contradict the fundamental goal of copyright law which hinges on the harmony between users and creators​​ (where users and creators are not necessarily different) with an aim to foster knowledge and enhance it by maximizing people’s participation in a creative activity? I think, yes, it does.

Tellingly, giving people a right to research which presumes access, is equivalent to expecting every researcher to have institutional access to research, as well as assuming that institutions actually have the necessary subscriptions to all journals. This is in essence making research contingent on the economic capability of an individual. Further, if access is available, the accessor can anyways make use of the work and the researcher would be treated like any other consumer. In its current form, it is just a theoretical right, playing the role of a paper tiger with no real-life benefits

Right to Research (R2R) – An Independent Right?

As per the OHCHR, states have a duty of respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of people to undertake and access research, and this is core to actualizing many fundamental human rights. These rights include the right to science and culture (Art. 27, UDHR & Art. 15, ICESCR), right to expressions (Art 19 UDHR & Art 19, ICCPR), and right to development (declaration and supporting treaties), right to education (Art. 23, UDHR & Article 13, ICESCR). Further, there are rights that are derived and deciphered from the above rights such as the right to read, right to knowledge, right to information, right to think/learn, right to academic freedom, right to be creative. Hence, an R2R is just a derivative of these extant rights (especially the right to science and culture) which does not owe any recognition in copyright law. Interestingly, these rights have later  found a place in the Indian Constitution. 

‘Research’ literally suggests a close intellectual engagement with something, thus, it necessarily involves the faculties of reading, thinking, examining, which ultimately adds value to the personality of an individual. Given such a relationship of research with overall individual development, R2R draws credence from Part III and Part IV of the Indian Constitution. Under part III, R2R gains support from Article 21 [Right to Life] and Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of expression]. 

In 1966, in Rabinder Nath Malik v The Regional Passport Officer, the Delhi High Court noted that the scope of Article 21 includes “a right to acquire useful knowledge,”. Similarly, in 1980, the Supreme Court of India in Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (dealing with a right of a detenu under COFEPOSA Act) noted that “… the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, … facilities for reading, writing and expressing one-self in diverse forms…”. Highlighting the importance of giving a broad interpretation to fundamental rights especially Art 21, the Court went on to say that “Every limb or faculty through which life is enjoyed is thus protected by Article 21 … include the faculties of thinking and feeling”. Further, in Samatha v State of UP, while mentioning the right to development as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court included the fulfillment of the “social, cultural and intellectual” needs under Art. 21. I would argue that this can be used to bolster the premise for a right to research as well. 

Similarly, in Wiley Eastern Ltd. vs IIM,  the Delhi High Court found the purpose of Section 52 of Copyright Act (specifically mentioning ‘research’ at Para 19) in protecting Article 19(1). Thus, it could be argued that R2R is potentially backed by both Articles 21 and 19 – with Copyright law seeing it as a part of freedom of expression, and the Constitution justifying it as a part of living with human dignity.

Under part IV, a duty is imposed upon the state under Article 39(b) to effectuate that “the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”. The term “material resources” is interpreted so broadly that it includes both public and privately owned materials, and a premise for an R2R could be found within this understanding. The inclusion of data under material resources by the Srikrishna Committee (e.g. here) further lends support to the argument that it can include informational goods such as research material within its ambit.

Notably, it can be observed that R2R under the Constitution, if it exists, would tend to focus on overall well-being and the holistic development of an individual. Conversely, Indian Copyright law’s R2R/research exception/limitation appears (at least semantically) to be only concerned with the availability of research material as it seems to already assume (/ignore) access.

Final thoughts – Importance of (Re)Contextualization/Revision 

The framing of R2R within Copyright is not a problematic premise per se. However, it does not do much, and rather limits R2R’s scope and impacts to merely being called a right of the user who (often) is willing to research and needs access to copyrighted content. Such scenarios, by the very policy narrative of balance between private and public interests, are sought to be adjusted with(in) copyrights. Conversely, a constitutional framing of R2R backed by human rights logic would break this binary of ‘copyright owner–users’, making research a right of everyone which can include access to research, contribute to it, and make it available.

This framing can revamp its functioning and simultaneously foster the public interest goals of copyright laws. Such revision/contextualization of R2R would also help courts manifest and understand the (hidden) interrelationships, tensions, and contradictions between various legal concepts, legal problems, and legal arguments such as liberty, economic and social inequalities, property, knowledge governance, contract, free will, which though may be connected with copyright law but do not really stem from or exist within it. As noted in the beginning, this is a very surface level beginning to this conversation. I would welcome readers to write in with their thoughts and critiques. 

Some notable readings – InfoJustice (PIJIP), R2R – Bibliography; Carys Craig, Users rights Rhetoric; M. P. Ram Mohan and Aditya Gupta, Right to Research in India, Jessica Litman, Readers’ Copyright; Julie E. Cohen, Place of users; Jane C Ginsburg, Authors and Users in Copyright law (paywalled); Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning” and “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning” (paywalled); J. M. Balkin’s “The Hohfeldian Approach to Law and Semiotics” and “The Promise of Legal Semiotics”.

I would like to thank Prof Sean Flynn and Swaraj Barooah for their inputs on the topic. Thanks to Akshat Agrawal for his comments on the draft.

Source: spicyip.com, 18/01/22

How Europe’s €100-billion science fund will shape 7 years of research

 

As Horizon Europe issues its first call for grants, Nature reviews some big changes — from open science to goal-oriented ‘missions’.

Horizon Europe, the world’s largest multinational research and innovation programme, has issued its first call for grant applications.

Over the next seven years, the European Union’s giant research-spending scheme will distribute a record €95.5 billion (US$116 billion) — including €5.4 billion from a COVID-19 recovery fund — to basic-science projects and cross-border research collaborations to be carried out by tens of thousands of researchers across 27 member states and more than a dozen other countries.

Horizon Europe is an evolution, rather than a reinvention, of the EU’s previous research programmes. Like its predecessor Horizon 2020, which ran from 2014 to 2020, it is a mixed bag of funding schemes. It includes grants for individual scientists in all fields, and for large multinational collaborations covering grand societal challenges such as health, climate change and the digital revolution.

But Horizon Europe also includes new elements that reflect increasing attention to open science, equality, interdisciplinary research and practical applications. Here, Nature takes a look at some of the major changes.

Funding reserved for priority areas

The most anticipated change in Horizon Europe is the introduction of heavily financed, high-priority ‘missions’. About €4.5 billion is earmarked for five areas: climate change; cancer; oceans and other bodies of water; smart cities; and soil and food.

In both scope and ambition, the missions go far beyond ‘normal’ research collaboration, and will incorporate tools and resources from flanking EU programmes such as the Common Agricultural Policy, which administers farming subsidies, and EU initiatives for developing infrastructure in poorer regions. The idea, first proposed by University College London economist Mariana Mazzucato, is to get researchers, businesses and governments to pool their skills towards a common goal, selected with input from the public.

The missions replace the European Flagships, sometimes-controversial €1-billion programmes that focused on particular areas of research, such as graphene or the human brain. The European Commission says that missions will mirror the spirit of the European Green Deal plan for a sustainable economy, Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan or the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But many of the details remain to be determined. Over the next few months, mission boards appointed by the commission must lay out specific goals, research needs and indicators for measuring impact. First calls for proposals are expected by the end of this year.

A boost for basic research

Although much attention has been focused on the introduction of missions, they are only a relatively small part of the new programme, points out Torsten Fischer, head of the Brussels-based European liaison office of Germany’s research organizations. Basic science will continue to be a centrepiece of European research. Between 2021 and 2027, the EU’s premier funding agency for basic research, the European Research Council (ERC), will divide €16 billion among researchers at various career levels, an increase of more than 20% compared to Horizon 2020. Non-EU countries associated to Horizon Europe are expected to contribute an extra roughly €4 billion, depending on their level of participation. Associates include research-intensive nations such as Israel, Switzerland and the United Kingdom — which left the bloc at the beginning of 2021, but has signed a deal to allow its scientists, research organizations and companies to participate in Horizon Europe.

The ERC issued its first round of calls for starting grants under Horizon Europe on 25 February, and more are expected in the coming months. However, some types of grant have been delayed owing to a last-minute political agreement on the EU’s multiyear budget in December. There will be no calls in 2021 for ‘synergy’ grants — those involving several teams of scientists. Calls for proof-of-concept grants to develop ideas generated in the course of ERC-funded research will also be delayed until 2022, says Waldemar Kütt, head of the ERC’s administrative arm in Brussels.

Competition for ERC grants — which assign up to €2.5 million for 5 years to an individual investigator — has historically been tough, with an acceptance rate of around 12%, but the larger pot of money could mean that more scientists get funded.

Another important change is that researchers at international organizations headquartered in the European Union — such as the UN-chartered Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy — will now be able to apply for these grants. Around 80 such organizations were previously excluded from the scheme.

From lab to market

Horizon Europe will also aim to strengthen support for applied research with economic benefits. To this end, the European Commission has established the European Innovation Council (EIC), a new funding agency aimed at facilitating the transfer of inventions and research into goods and services.

Around €10 billion is earmarked for the EIC, to be divided between three types of grant. In an early ‘pathfinder’ phase, researchers can get support to develop ideas that have commercial potential. A second, ‘fast track to innovation’ phase will support the transition of promising results to market.

Finally, after market launch, entrepreneurs will be able to request EIC ‘accelerator’ support — including grants, loans and coaching services — to expand their businesses. (The accelerator programme was excluded from the UK–EU trade deal, so UK-based researchers will not be eligible.)

The idea is that recipients of ERC proof-of-concept grants will also be able to apply for EIC support. “Combining support from the two agencies is a wonderful opportunity to unlock commercial potential of basic science,” says Fischer.

Opening up

Horizon Europe is expected to mandate that grant recipients publish their results according to the principles of open science.

In particular, immediate open-access publishing will become mandatory for all recipients of Horizon Europe research grants, including those from the ERC, says Kütt. Scientists will be required to post an accepted, peer-reviewed version of their papers online at a ‘trusted repository’, according to a draft of the instructions for applicants, but it is unclear at this time which repositories will be acceptable. Grants will cover publishing costs for pure open-access journals, but not for hybrid publications. Authors must also retain intellectual-property rights for their papers.

The commission will encourage EU-funded scientists to post their papers on Open Research Europe, an open-access platform that will formally launch in March. Works submitted on the platform, run by the London-based open-science publisher F1000 Research, will be posted immediately and cannot be published elsewhere. Articles will be subject to open peer review, meaning that the reviews and reviewers’ names will be openly available, and the commission will cover publication costs.

Scientists will also need to make sure that any research data they generate are preserved and made available for reuse by others. Horizon Europe will require participants to submit a data-management plan, in line with the FAIR principles (findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability), within six months of completing a research project, although exceptions may be granted where business secrets or sensitive personal data are involved. A partnership of research and data-service organizations across Europe is developing the European Open Science Cloud, a freely accessible virtual repository for data from all research that is publicly funded, whether by a participating state or by the EU.

The rules have raised some concerns. Meeting data-management requirements might be technically challenging, in particular for scientists and research organizations in poorer countries, says David Smith, director of Croatia’s largest public research institute, the multidisciplinary Ruđer Bošković Institute in Zagreb.

“We are ready for open-access publishing, but we are not quite prepared for open data,” he says. “Frankly speaking, the whole region is behind in that respect.”

Equality

EU policymakers and the European Commission have agreed to spend more than 3% of Horizon Europe money — around €3 billion — on widening the participation of member states that tend to win fewer grants. The scheme will continue to use tried-and-tested tactics, such as teaming leading research institutions with ones that are less well-established, providing special grants for top researchers in countries that joined the EU only recently, and training researchers to improve their grant-writing and project-management skills.

However, it is unclear whether the headline Horizon Europe ‘missions’ will make fair allowance for scientists in poorer countries. “I do hope that the missions will not be geared for established players in rich countries,” says Smith. “Smaller countries like Croatia have a lot to offer too. If implemented reasonably, the new concept has potential to narrow the East–West gap.”

Organizations participating in Horizon Europe will also have to submit plans to improve gender equality — another change from Horizon 2020. Starting in 2022, all Horizon Europe-funded research institutions will be expected to aim for gender balance among their research staff, enact recruitment and anti-harassment policies, and start to offer gender-equality training opportunities.

Nature 591, 20-21 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00496-z