Category Archives: oa.recommendations

Mastodon over Mammon – Towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge | Zenodo

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Twitter is in turmoil and the scholarly community on the platform is once again starting to migrate. As with the early internet, scholarly organizations are at the forefront of developing and implementing a decentralized alternative to Twitter, Mastodon. Both historically and conceptually, this is not a new situation for the scholarly community. Historically, scholars were forced to leave social media platform FriendFeed after it was bought by Facebook in 2006. Conceptually, the problems associated with public scholarly discourse subjected to the whims of corporate owners are not unlike those of scholarly journals owned by monopolistic corporations: in both cases the perils associated with a public good in private hands are palpable. For both short form (Twitter/Mastodon) and longer form (journals) scholarly discourse, decentralized solutions exist, some of which are already enjoying some institutional support. Here we argue that scholarly organizations, in particular learned societies, are now facing a golden opportunity to rethink their hesitations towards such alternatives and support the migration of the scholarly community from Twitter to Mastodon by hosting Mastodon instances. Demonstrating that the scholarly community is capable of creating a truly public square for scholarly discourse, impervious to private takeover, might renew confidence and inspire the community to focus on analogous solutions for the remaining scholarly record – encompassing text, data and code – to safeguard all publicly owned scholarly knowledge.

 

Open Science and Software Assistance: Commentary on “Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened”

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Májovský and colleagues have investigated the important issue of ChatGPT being used for the complete generation of scientific works, including fake data and tables. The issues behind why ChatGPT poses a significant concern to research reach far beyond the model itself. Once again, the lack of reproducibility and visibility of scientific works creates an environment where fraudulent or inaccurate work can thrive. What are some of the ways in which we can handle this new situation?

 

COAR community consultation on managing non-English and multilingual content in repositories – COAR

Posted on by
Reply

“COAR welcomes your input on 16 draft recommendations for managing non-English and multilingual content in repositories. These recommendations were developed by a COAR Task Force and are meant to provide good practice advice on depositing, managing, and curating multilingual and non-English language content in repositories.

Multilingualism is a critical characteristic of a healthy, inclusive, and diverse research communications landscape. Publishing in a local language ensures that the public in different countries has access to the research they fund, and also levels the playing field for researchers who speak different languages. However, multilingualism presents a particular challenge for the discovery of research outputs. Although researchers and other information seekers may only be able to read in one or two languages, they want to know about all the relevant research in their area, regardless of the language in which it is published. Yet, discovery systems such as Google Scholar and other scholarly indexes tend to provide access only to the content available in the language of the user.

The recommendations define good practices for metadata, multilingual keywords, user interfaces, translations, formats, licenses, and indexing that will improve the visibility and discovery of repository content in a variety of languages along with implementation guidance for the repository community….”

Call for Contributions: Open Consultation on Innovative Outputs in the Humanities – ALLEA

Posted on by
Reply

“The ALLEA Working Group E-Humanities has launched an open consultation concerning draft recommendations on recognising digital scholarly outputs in the humanities. The goal is to gather broad feedback from active humanities researchers and institutions in order to tailor the recommendations to the community’s needs.

A link to the draft recommendations and instructions for contributing are available on the Working Group E-Humanities homepage, or can be accessed directly here: https://bit.ly/ALLEAehumanities …”

Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy | SpringerLink

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Evidence-based policy uses intervention research to inform consequential decisions about resource allocation. Research findings are often published in peer-reviewed journals. Because detrimental research practices associated with closed science are common, journal articles report more false-positives and exaggerated effect sizes than would be desirable. Journal implementation of standards that promote open science—such as the transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines—could reduce detrimental research practices and improve the trustworthiness of research evidence on intervention effectiveness. We evaluated TOP implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy.

 

WorldFAIR Project (D13.2) Cultural Heritage Image Sharing Recommendations Report | Zenodo

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Deliverable 13.2 for the WorldFAIR Project’s Cultural Heritage Work Package (WP13). Although the cultural heritage sector has only recently begun to think of traditional gallery, library, archival and museum (‘GLAM’) collections as data, long established practices guiding the management and sharing of information resources has aligned the domain well with the FAIR principles for research data, evidenced in complementary workflows and standards that support discovery, access, reuse, and persistence. As explored in the previous report by Work Package 13 for the WorldFAIR Project, D13.1 Practices and policies supporting cultural heritage image sharing platforms, memory institutions are in an important position to influence cross-domain data sharing practices and raise critical questions about why and how those practices are implemented.

Deliverable 13.2 aims to build on our understanding of what it means to support FAIR in the sharing of image data derived from GLAM collections. This report looks at previous efforts by the sector towards FAIR alignment and presents 5 recommendations designed to be implemented and tested at the DRI that are also broadly applicable to the work of the GLAMs. The recommendations are ultimately a roadmap for the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI) to follow in improving repository services, as well as a call for continued dialogue around ‘what is FAIR?’ within the cultural heritage research data landscape.

WorldFAIR Project (D13.2) Cultural Heritage Image Sharing Recommendations Report –

Posted on by
Reply

“Deliverable 13.2 for the WorldFAIR Project’s Cultural Heritage Work Package (WP13). Although the cultural heritage sector has only recently begun to think of traditional gallery, library, archival and museum (‘GLAM’) collections as data, long established practices guiding the management and sharing of information resources has aligned the domain well with the FAIR principles for research data, evidenced in complementary workflows and standards that support discovery, access, reuse, and persistence. As explored in the previous report by Work Package 13 for the WorldFAIR Project, D13.1 Practices and policies supporting cultural heritage image sharing platforms, memory institutions are in an important position to influence cross-domain data sharing practices and raise critical questions about why and how those practices are implemented.

Deliverable 13.2 aims to build on our understanding of what it means to support FAIR in the sharing of image data derived from GLAM collections. This report looks at previous efforts by the sector towards FAIR alignment and presents 5 recommendations designed to be implemented and tested at the DRI that are also broadly applicable to the work of the GLAMs. The recommendations are ultimately a roadmap for the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI) to follow in improving repository services, as well as a call for continued dialogue around ‘what is FAIR?’ within the cultural heritage research data landscape.

The report is available on Zenodo.”

Harnessing the Metric Tide: indicators, infrastructures & priorities for UK responsible research assessment

Posted on by
Reply

“This review was commissioned by the joint UK higher education (HE) funding bodies as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP). It revisits the findings of the 2015 review The Metric Tide to take a fresh look at the use of indicators in research management and assessment. 

While this review feeds into the larger FRAP process, the authors have taken full advantage of their independence and sought to stimulate informed and robust discussion about the options and opportunities of future REF exercises. The report should be read in that spirit: as an input to ongoing FRAP deliberations, rather than a reflection of their likely or eventual conclusions. 

The report is written in three sections. Section 1 plots the development of the responsible research assessment agenda since 2015 with a focus on the impact of The Metric Tide review and progress against its recommendations. Section 2 revisits the potential use of metrics and indicators in any future REF exercise, and proposes an increased uptake of ‘data for good’. Section 3 considers opportunities to further support the roll-out of responsible research assessment policies and practices across the UK HE sector. Appendices include an overview of progress against the recommendations of The Metric Tide and a literature review. 

We make ten recommendations targeted at different actors in the UK research system, summarised as: 

1: Put principles into practice. 

2: Evaluate with the evaluated. 

3: Redefine responsible metrics. 

4: Revitalise the UK Forum. 

5: Avoid all-metric approaches to REF. 

6: Reform the REF over two cycles. 

7: Simplify the purposes of REF. 

8: Enhance environment statements. 

9: Use data for good. 

10: Rethink university rankings….”

Reproducibility and Research Integrity – Science, Innovation and Technology Committee

Posted on by
Reply

“The United Kingdom is experiencing the largest-ever increase in public investment in research and development, with the Government R&D budget set to reach £20 billion a year by 2024/5. The creation of the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been advanced by the Government as heralding an increased focus on research and innovation—seen to be among Britain’s main strengths.

At the same time, there have been increasing concerns raised that the integrity of some scientific research is questionable because of failures to be able to reproduce the claimed findings of some experiments or analyses of data and therefore confirm that the original researcher’s conclusions were justified. Some people have described this as a ‘reproducibility crisis’.

In 2018, our predecessor committee published a report ‘Research Integrity’. Some of the recommendations of that report were implemented—such as the establishment of a national research integrity committee.

This report looks in particular at the issue of the reproducibility of research….

We welcome UKRI’s policy of requiring open access to research that it funds, but we recommend that this should go further in requiring the recipients of research grants to share data and code alongside the publications arising from the funded research….”

Optimising the UK’s university research infrastructure assets – Jisc

Posted on by
Reply

“This summary report brings together a range of perspectives from the UK’s higher education, research and innovation sector and stakeholder organisations.

It highlights some opportunities for collective approaches to optimise the use, sharing, efficiency and sustainability of research infrastructure assets, from the perspective of stakeholders in universities, regional consortia, funders and sector bodies from across the UK. It is intended as the beginning of a conversation and is for anyone interested in the opportunities we have identified….”

New Jisc research infrastructure assets report will drive collaboration | Jisc

Posted on by
Reply

“For the first time, UKRI-funded report brings together views of 15 major stakeholders from across the UK research community.

To gain an unprecedented insight into the UK’s academic research infrastructure assets, Jisc has collected the views of leading bodies from across the sector.

The new report, Optimising the UK’s university research infrastructure assets, aims to help identify more opportunities for collaboration, attracting investment, developing skills and reducing bureaucracy.

The UK’s university research infrastructure assets include equipment, facilities and the laboratories commissioned for research use across all disciplines.

The report outlines a range of perspectives from interviews with leaders and experts at 15 groups and stakeholder organisations from the UK’s higher education, research and innovation sector.

It highlights opportunities for new collaborative approaches to optimise the use, sharing, efficiency and sustainability of research infrastructure assets, and was funded by UK Research and Innovation.

The report identifies four key areas of opportunity for the research sector, which it recommends should receive extra investment to promote knowledge exchange and the commercialisation of research and development….”

Iranian researchers’ perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication | BMC Health Services Research | Full Text

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Background

Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers.

Methods

From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified.

Results

Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers’ understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research.

Conclusion

The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries.

A Semi-Automated Workflow for FAIR Maturity Indicators in the Life Sciences

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Data sharing and reuse are crucial to enhance scientific progress and maximize return of investments in science. Although attitudes are increasingly favorable, data reuse remains difficult due to lack of infrastructures, standards, and policies. The FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles aim to provide recommendations to increase data reuse. Because of the broad interpretation of the FAIR principles, maturity indicators are necessary to determine the FAIRness of a dataset. In this work, we propose a reproducible computational workflow to assess data FAIRness in the life sciences. Our implementation follows principles and guidelines recommended by the maturity indicator authoring group and integrates concepts from the literature. In addition, we propose a FAIR balloon plot to summarize and compare dataset FAIRness. We evaluated the feasibility of our method on three real use cases where researchers looked for six datasets to answer their scientific questions. We retrieved information from repositories (ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus, eNanoMapper, caNanoLab, NanoCommons and ChEMBL), a registry of repositories, and a searchable resource (Google Dataset Search) via application program interfaces (API) wherever possible. With our analysis, we found that the six datasets met the majority of the criteria defined by the maturity indicators, and we showed areas where improvements can easily be reached. We suggest that use of standard schema for metadata and the presence of specific attributes in registries of repositories could increase FAIRness of datasets.

 

Academic Journals are Broken. Let’s Build a Better Scientific Record. – YouTube

Posted on by
Reply

“This session is presented in two parts. The first three speakers will provide evidence of serious and even criminal problems in scholarly publishing. The next three speakers will propose actions researchers, universities and funders are taking to move away from the old model and create a better system.”

Open science round-up: April 2023 – International Science Council

Posted on by
Reply

“Open Science with an in society: Around eighteen months ago, all member states of UNESCO unanimously approved recommendations on Open Science. These recommendations could transform the meaning of Open Science beyond just providing access to research articles and data to fellow scientists.  

The most far-sighted aspect of Open Science is embedded in ‘open dialogue with other knowledge systems’. Open Science acknowledges that knowledge also resides outside the realm of ‘scientific institutions, professionals & journals’ and calls for collaboration between diverse knowledge systems. However, the challenge lies in bridging the gap between different knowledge systems to address urgent global issues. 

A recent international study on ‘Bridging Knowledge Cultures’ found that professional training of scientists and academic researchers often prevents them from appreciating the existence of other cultures of knowledge outside their field. For example, a representative of a tribal community from Dumka, a small town in India, asserts that knowledge is crucial for their daily life, while for academics, it is their profession. 

The UNESCO Recommendations also highlight the importance of ‘open engagement of societal actors’ and value ‘citizen science’ and ‘participatory research’. The movement of participatory research as a methodology for co-creation of knowledge has been in practice around the world over past five decades. This methodology encourages valuing oral and artistic expressions and experiential knowledge of community; indigenous and community knowledge resides in culture, rituals, ceremonies and expressed through local languages. 

Post-pandemic world, experiencing serious and continuous climate disruptions, is just beginning to acknowledge that ‘co-creation’ of knowledge solutions may indeed be urgently required. Building capacities, mostly attitudes and normative appreciations of young scientists, towards these principles and methodologies requires urgent investment, if such a transformative potential of ‘open science within society’ is to be realized….”