# NPOS2030 - Open Science Community Delft response & input

**This document is now closed. Thank you for all your feedback.*
Link to the NPOS2020 document and open consultation: https://survey.surf.nl/index.php/493148

The input provided here will be merged with input from the TUD Library, the TUD Open Science Programme and the Executive Board to produce the final response from TU Delft.

See [timeline and more about the TUD consultation process](https://github.com/osc-delft/ideas-and-plans/issues/9) (You can also comment on/make suggestions to this consultation process)

Other ways to contribute to the TU Delft response (By Dec 6):
- Email Emmy at f [dot] tsang [at] tudelft [dot] nl
- Book a 15/30 min chat with Emmy: https://calendly.com/emmy-tsang/

## Instructions
- You can leave input anonymously or with your name in this document
- If you are a member of OSC Delft but also of the library/the Open Science Programme, you can choose the preferred venue to share your feedback.
- Any comments that violate our [community Code of Conduct](https://github.com/osc-delft/osc-delft.github.io/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) will be removed.

## Input/comment/response

- To what extent do you agree with the **NPOS Guiding Principles** - and do you have comments/suggestions for this element of the Ambition Document?
- *Please put your input below*
- Inclusivity: a wide list of stakeholders in research is mentioned, but the principle does not mention addressing the power dynamics discrepancies and inequities that hampers the participation of many of these stakeholders. Without addressing these barriers/inequities, it is hard to any invitations to contribute can be acted upon by these stakeholders
- (+1 from Esther and I think this point should be number 1 or 2 rather than 4)
-

- To what extent do you agree with the **NPOS Vision for 2030** - and do you have comments/suggestions for this element of the Ambition Document?
- Esther: I generally agree with the vision but I think the part of recognition could be placed more centrally. "...better with recognition and rewards that do justice to scientific teamwork." is mentioned but not elaborated upon in the programme lines while this is a key element of the barriers that researchers are currently facing. It is currently sort of incorporated into the Open Access component, which indirectly reinforces the value of publications over all other research outputs.

- To what extend do you agree with the **NPOS Programme Lines and the Document** - and do you have comments/suggestions for this element of the Ambition Document?
- *Please put your input below*
- Claudiu Forgaci, addition regarding FAIR data: **Basics of FAIR data and ‘FAIRificaion’ might be introduced already as part of master-level education.** As master-level education provides the bridge to a research career (both within or outside academia), it is a good time to introduce basic concepts of FAIR data. Graduates can already ‘practice’ FAIRification at the time of their thesis submission. Such input to future researchers could be provided by data stewards as part of data literacy training, increasing their potential impact in the early stages of researchers careers.
- Esther:
- While I generally am in agreement with the points made, I'm not fully behind them. I'm dissapointed that the start of the programme lines is focused on open access when the ambition is to have 'new ways of disseminating research'. The programme lines are generally reconfirming with current moves from closed to open that are replicating current ways of working instead of working towards sustainable knowledge dissemination. I agree that we should aim for Open Access with no additional costs, but an ambition document might go further than just the bare minimum that knowledge dissemination deserves. What are the plans for translating research in other lay language or in Dutch/other languages?
- I think programme lines focused on rewards and research integrity would better address the core problems in the research ecosystem that need to be dealt with first before moving on to other Open Science ambitions. See also my comment on the vision itself.
- I appreciate the mention of rewards and appreciation for support staff working with data/software, but this could go further still by really incorporating these types of careers into the academic system and providing career paths/recognition. Not all line managers are adequately equipped to deal with these ambigious career paths and could use support before introducing more of these roles.
- The second programme line is primarily focused on data instead of also being inclusive of software, while the language used in this section also includes software so that might as well be made explicit.
- What is the FAIR Data Table and how does it incorporate feedback from stakeholders?
- Possibly bring forward the idea that paper becomes a satellite of open-source code, as the case in many domains.
- Now a lot of research is done with involvement of industry. It is not always easy to discuss how data and results can be shared. It could be good to discuss/build a practical and legal framework that guide a research in the negotiation with the industry.
- Crowdsourcing can be seen as a method tightly linked to citizen science. It would be good to engage in a discussion on practical/ethical/legal issues of such a method. Especially during the pandemic it became evident that the method is very useful in a number of domains.

## Typos
"Al(l) these developments,"
"that have been conceived in the Netherlands (in) early 2014"