Persisting globally FAIR access in an CAREfully identifiable manner

Networks of information are at the heart of ensuring fair and equitable access to scholarly information and the dissemination of works across an evolving landscape of national and international policy, platforms and people. Ensuring that works are registered in universally recognised ways allows them to participate as first class members of these global open knowledge environments without fear of bias or differentiation. The equality of recognition, discovery and access is fundamental to driving success across borders and regions. The principles of FAIRness – that works and the underlying infrastructure and metadata encourage: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable information -- are key enablers to be embedded in any successful approach.

Across regions, where access to technical hardware and platforms may be difficult (such as Africa, SouthEast Asia, Ibero-America), it is fairly common to see a “head down”| mobile data economy emerge with feature phones and laptops, rather than desktop, being the primary means of interactions with online resources, and the high end connectivity, compute power and visualisation capability largely available in urban centres and institutional settings.

This means that truly inclusive global policy and practice must take account of all the varying restrictions and opportunities these differences may present. Without established practice there is a place to move directly to overlay journals and data repositories without embedding failed gouging closed publishing economies with 30-40% profit margins. Without established infrastructure, there is an opportunity to take learning and lived experience on deploying assets during the pandemic in areas without Wi-Fi and how agreements were negotiated with network providers on free access to learning materials to apply generally to building resiliency into learning infrastructure informed by unreliable grid and network infrastructure make delivery unpredictable (just as the internet grew out of resiliency planning). At the same time, in acknowledgement that the FAIR Principle do not articulate all relevant data cases and concerns, the CARE Principles (Collective, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) are also increasingly embedding concepts of data stewardship, innovative and self-determination among indigenous data-holding communities. FAIR and CARE are approaching a number of similar issues – around individual vs common good, sharing, and power differentials. This provides an opportunity to discuss potential tensions using community-developed frameworks. There is also a place to look at interventions and pan-national support to counter instability caused by local policy reliant on patronage and the current political landscape with no persistence beyond an individual(‘s) administration. Best practices for interconnectivity developed on the national level will be comparable and inform other regional and national initiatives to utilize PID-based infrastructure on their own more efficiently.

In short, a FAIR approach to data and the wider scholarly infrastructure not only builds a more equitable global open science community and practice, but also allows all of us to recognise and build on the valuable experience and opportunities offered.