What is Open Science, and How Can Radical Collaboration Facilitate It?

Author: Meghan Potterbusch

Abstract: Open science is a multi-faceted movement serving as a goal and a motivation for many stakeholders, from researchers to information professionals and from funders to the general public. Aspects of open science include: open sharing of research materials such as data and code, collaborative research platforms, crowdsourcing platforms, blogs, open peer review, open educational resources, altmetrics, and more. These diverse aspects can be classified into schools of thought and are emphasized by members of various open-focused communities to different degrees (from intense belief to neutral to opposition in some cases). Regardless of the differences in views between diverse communities and differences in aspects or approaches, each of these forms of open science allows for additional levels of understanding, participation, or both by people external to the group producing the science.

Citation: Megan Potterbusch. “What is Open Science, and How Can Radical Collaboration Facilitate It?” Research Library Issues, no. 296 (2018): 44–48. https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.296.6

 

Source: Research Library Issues

Open Science MOOC: Open Research Software and Open Source

Authors: Jon Tennant; Simon Worthington; Tania Allard; Philipp Zumstein; Daniel S. Katz; Alexander Morley; Stephan Druskat; Julien Colomb; Arfon Smith; inacsmith; Tobias Steiner; Rutger Vos; Konrad Förstner; Heidi Seibold; Alessandro Sarretta; Abigail Cabunoc Mayes

Abstract: Software and technology underpin modern science. There is an increasing demand for more sophisticated open source software, matched by an increasing willingness for researchers to openly collaborate on new tools. These developments come with a specific ethical, legal and economic challenges that impact upon research workflows. This module will introduce the necessary tools required for transforming software into something that can be openly accessed and re-used by others.

Learning outcomes:

  1. You will be able to define the characteristics of open source research software, and the ethical, legal, economic and research impact arguments for and against it.
  2. Based on community standards, you will be able to describe the quality requirements of sharing and re-using open code.
  3. You will be able to use a range of research tools that utilise open source software.
  4. You will be able to transform code designed for your personal use into code that is accessible and re-usable by others.

Citation: Jon Tennant, Simon Worthington, Tania Allard, Philipp Zumstein, Daniel S. Katz, Alexander Morley, … Abigail Cabunoc Mayes. (2018, December 4). OpenScienceMOOC/Module-5-Open-Research-Software-and-Open-Source: Third release (Version 3.0.0). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1937708

View

Source: Zenodo

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Authors: Jonathan P Tennant, Jonathan M Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien C Jacques, François Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren B Collister, Christina K Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin R Berg, Kyle E Niemeyer, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling, Daniel S Katz, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Nazeefa Fatima, Marta Poblet, Marios Isaakidis, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Sébastien Renaut, Christopher R Madan, Lisa Matthias, Jesper Nørgaard Kjær, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Cameron Neylon, Sarah Kearns, Manojkumar Selvaraju, Julien Colomb

Abstract: Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

Citation: Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151
(https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3)

View

Source: F1000 Research

Open Science India Report


Authors: Arul Scaria, Shreyashi Ray

Abstract: This draft report summarises the major findings and recommendations from the open science project conducted at the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition (CIIPC), National Law University, Delhi.
Please send your comments/suggestions to: arul.scaria@nludelhi.ac.in or @openscience_in

Citation:Scaria, A. G., & Ray, S. (2018, September 24). Open Science India Report. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/aj9gw

View

Source : OSF Preprints

Funder open access platforms – a welcome innovation?


Authors: Tony Ross-Hellauer, Birgit Schmidt, and Bianca Kramer

Abstract: Funding organisations commissioning their own open access publishing platforms is a relatively recent development in the OA environment, with the European Commission following the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation in financing such an initiative. But in what ways, for better or worse, do these new platforms disrupt or complement the scholarly communications landscape? Tony Ross-Hellauer, Birgit Schmidt and Bianca Kramer examine the ethical, organisational, and economic strengths and weaknesses of funder OA platforms to scope the opportunities and threats they present in the transition to OA. While they may help to increase OA uptake, control costs, and lower the administrative burden on researchers, possible unintended consequences include conflicts of interest, difficulties of scale, or potential vendor lock-in.

Citation: Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Schmidt, Birgit; Kramer, Bianca. “Funder open access platforms – a welcome innovation?” LSE Impact Blog. July 4, 2018. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/07/04/funder-open-access-platforms-a-welcome-innovation/

View

Source: Funder open access platforms – a welcome innovation?

Enhancing Institutional Publication Data Using Emergent Open Science Services


Authors: David Walters and Christopher Daley

Abstract: The UK open access (OA) policy landscape simultaneously preferences Gold publishing models (Finch Report, RCUK, COAF) and Green OA through repository usage (HEFCE), creating the possibility of confusion and duplication of effort for academics and support staff. Alongside these policy developments, there has been an increase in open science services that aim to provide global data on OA. These services often exist separately to locally managed institutional systems for recording OA engagement and policy compliance. The aim of this study is to enhance Brunel University London’s local publication data using software which retrieves and processes information from the global open science services of Sherpa REF, CORE, and Unpaywall. The study draws on two classification schemes; a ‘best location’ hierarchy, which enables us to measure publishing trends and whether open access dissemination has taken place, and a relational ‘all locations’ dataset to examine whether individual publications appear across multiple OA dissemination models. Sherpa REF data is also used to indicate possible OA locations from serial policies. Our results find that there is an average of 4.767 permissible open access options available to the authors in our sample each time they publish and that Gold OA publications are replicated, on average, in 3 separate locations. A total of 40% of OA works in the sample are available in both Gold and Green locations. The study considers whether this tendency for duplication is a result of localised manual workflows which are necessarily focused on institutional compliance to meet the Research Excellence Framework 2021 requirements, and suggests that greater interoperability between OA systems and services would facilitate a more efficient transformation to open scholarship.

Citation: Walters D, Daley C. Enhancing Institutional Publication Data Using Emergent Open Science Services. Publications. 2018; 6(2):23.

View

Source: Enhancing Institutional Publication Data Using Emergent Open Science Services

Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices


Editors:

Abstract: Twenty-one years ago, the term ‘electronic publishing’ promised all manner of potential that the Web and network technologies could bring to scholarly communication, scientific research and technical innovation. Over the last two decades, tremendous developments have indeed taken place across all of these domains. One of the most important of these has been Open Science; perhaps the most widely discussed topic in research communications today.

This book presents the proceedings of Elpub 2017, the 21st edition of the International Conference on Electronic Publishing, held in Limassol, Cyprus, in June 2017. Continuing the tradition of bringing together academics, publishers, lecturers, librarians, developers, entrepreneurs, users and all other stakeholders interested in the issues surrounding electronic publishing, this edition of the conference focuses on Open Science, and the 27 research and practitioner papers and 1 poster included here reflect the results and ideas of researchers and practitioners with diverse backgrounds from all around the world with regard to this important subject.

Intended to generate discussion and debate on the potential and limitations of openness, the book addresses the current challenges and opportunities in the ecosystem of Open Science, and explores how to move forward in developing an inclusive system that will work for a much broader range of participants. It will be of interest to all those concerned with electronic publishing, and Open Science in particular.

Citation: Chan L & Loizides F. (2017). Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing. IOS Press Ebooks. ISBN 978-1-61499-769-6 (online)

View

A manifesto for reproducible science


Author: Marcus R. Munafò, Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy V. M. Bishop, Katherine S. Button, Christopher D. Chambers, Nathalie Percie du Sert, Uri Simonsohn, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Jennifer J. Ware & John P. A. Ioannidis

Abstract: Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.

Citation: Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

View

Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought


Authors: Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike

Abstract: Open Science is an umbrella term encompassing a multitude of assumptions about the future of knowledge creation and dissemination. Based on a literature review, this chapter aims at structuring the overall discourse by proposing five Open Science schools of thought: The infrastructure school (which is concerned with the technological architecture), the public school (which is concerned with the accessibility of knowledge creation), the “measurement school”(which is concerned with alternative impact measurement), the “democratic school”(which is concerned with access to knowledge) and the “pragmatic school” (which is concerned with collaborative research).

It must be noted that our review is not solely built upon traditional scholarly publications but, due to the nature of the topic, also includes scientific blogs and newspaper articles. It is our aim in this chapter to present a concise picture of the ongoing discussion rather than a complete list of peer-reviewed articles on the topic. In the following, we will describe the five schools in more detail and provide references to relevant literature for each.

Citation: Fecher B & Friesike S. (2014). “Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought”. In Opening Science. Amsterdam: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2

 

View

Toward the Geoscience Paper of the Future: Best practices for documenting and sharing research from data to software to provenance


Authors: Gil Yolanda, Cedric H. David, Ibrahim Demir, Bakinam T. Essawy, Robinson W. Fulweiler, Jonathan L. Goodall, Leif Karlstrom, Huikyo Lee, Heath J. Mills, Ji-Hyun Oh, Suzanne A. Pierce, Allen Pope, Mimi W. Tzeng, Sandra R. Villamizar, Xuan Yu

Abstract: Geoscientists now live in a world rich with digital data and methods, and their computational research cannot be fully captured in traditional publications. The Geoscience Paper of the Future (GPF) presents an approach to fully document, share, and cite all their research products including data, software, and computational provenance. This article proposes best practices for GPF authors to make data, software, and methods openly accessible, citable, and well documented. The publication of digital objects empowers scientists to manage their research products as valuable scientific assets in an open and transparent way that enables broader access by other scientists, students, decision makers, and the public. Improving documentation and dissemination of research will accelerate the pace of scientific discovery by improving the ability of others to build upon published work.

Citation: Gil, Y., et all (2016). Toward the Geoscience Paper of the Future: Best practices for documenting and sharing research from data to software to provenance. Earth and Space Science, 3, 388-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000136 

View