Erika Lilja

In the aftermath of the Plan S announcement in September 2019, the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, responsible for the national coordination of open science in Finland, started the preparations of the Finland’s National Strategy for Open Scientific Publishing. At our university, the preparations have aroused a concerned debate over how we should advance the shift to open access publishing. For the time being, we have way too many cares with this brainchild of the National Strategy Group for Open Science – e.g. related to the legal protection of researchers, the quality criteria of scientific publishing, the inherently international character of research, the Funding Model of Finnish Universities, the Finnish Publication Forum Classification, the timetable for the drafted strategic aims… Just got out of breath.

The strategy “defines such strategic objectives and means, by committing to which the scientific community in Finland can achieve the following strategic aim/intent: … All new scientific publications become immediately open at the time of publishing.” In a similar way as the Plan S represents a call for the creation of an intellectual commons (Johnson 2019), the principles and aims of the national strategy urge “research community” in Finland to act “as soon as possible” almost like shouting “Forward march! This is the way towards the Finnish Intellectual Commons!”

In the strategy draft, the need for fast progress towards open access publishing in Finland is far too heavily emphasised regardless of the following stated: “Researchers are especially concerned about the shortage of open publication outlets and opportunities among the very highest-quality publication outlets. This concern is serious, and it has been taken into account in defining the strategic principles and objectives of this document.” The aims of the strategy are indeed very important, and it is obvious that something needs to be done, or rather everything needs to be done, however, this should not mean that we turn from responsible experts, officials and public servants into restless servants of haste and hurry.

The national strategy is doomed to being nothing more than a promiscuous and detached declaration, if it, already in the starting line, fails to form an overarching, responsible and reliable basis for the future work to which researchers, research groups and research organisations as well as other national actors can safely commit to. It just is not enough to wave towards “several structures governing the scientific community” which “are transformed simultaneously”. Let us not hide in the kitchenette, the monster should be faced without any fear. Look at us, here we are, ready to change this situation! No wonder that in the meeting of the Research Council of the University of Turku organised on the 25th of February, where the draft of the national strategy was discussed, words such as “war” and “anarchy” were used.

In this ambitious national journey of pursuing the openness of research articles published in scientific journals and conference proceedings, let us also not to forget the fact that research is inherently international. We will sink already into the Gulf of Finland, if we truly believe that “the scientific community in Finland” can achieve the strategic aim carved into our wooden boat overcrowded of nationally stated will and “collective view”. Arrival of the EU’s ambition and political will to stay at the forefront of open science set the scene for Finnish Open Science governance but reforming and inspiring sustainable scientific publishing system gains momentum only if we profess Internationality. 

As Johnson (2019) puts it, the “work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance”. The success and long-term blockbusting performance of the national strategy depends not only on the combat readiness of the Finnish research organisations and research leaders as well as on the prerequisites whereby we are able to create trust among researchers but also on structural changes systemic in nature. Be honest, be precise, build institutional trust, retain some autonomy, ask continuous feedback, remain open to amendments and adaptations, and Good Will follow.

For a more businesslike approach, please see the official statement of the University of Turku on the Draft of the National Strategy for Scientific Publishing (unfortunately only in Finnish but feel free to discuss on the issue and leave a comment). You may also want to read (in Finnish) our researchers’ thoughts on the future of scientific publishing from an earlier UTU blog posting.

 

Erika Lilja

The writer works as a development advisor at the University of Turku and studies (PhD Researcher) open science governance at the Tampere University, Higher Education Group.