“NASA’s Science Mission Directorate is asking public and private sector entities for ideas on how to better manage data and computing infrastructure.
In a notice posted Thursday on SAM.gov, the directorate said that input from the request for information will support a larger goal to align the agency’s computing systems to Open-source Science policies.
The space agency established the Open-Source Science Initiative to promote early-stage sharing of software, data, documents and other relevant scientific knowledge in the spirit of transparency, inclusivity, accessibility and reproducibility.
To this end, SMD is seeking technologies and opportunities that can support open-science information and computing functions.
The RFI is aimed at U.S. and non-U.S. organizations from the industry, academe, government and science community. Individual researchers are also welcome to submit responses, which are due on Feb. 21….”
“On Monday, November 7th, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) held a virtual community forum about the 2022 Public Access Memorandum titled, Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content…. The OSTP briefing was led by Dr. Alondra Nelson, Deputy Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Director for Science and Society, and Dr. Christopher Steven Marcum, Assistant Director for Open Science and Data Policy. Federal government perspectives were provided by representatives from three federal agencies and included members of the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Open Science. Discussion points from the OSTP briefing included Biden-Harris Administration priorities involving public access, principles motivating the 2022 OSTP Memorandum, details on the provisions of the Memorandum, and a review of the timeline for federal agency implementation expectations.”
“Yesterday, the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission signed the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade. The Declaration — which has been in the works since early 2022 — sets out principles for shaping the European digital space in the years to come. The Declaration calls for “promoting interoperability, transparency, open technologies and standards as a way to further strengthen trust in technology as well as consumers’ ability to make autonomous and informed choices” and seeks to “foster participation in the digital public space.”
To help with achieving these ambitious and much-needed objectives, today we are publishing a public draft of a white paper proposing a European Public Digital Infrastructure Fund aimed at building Digital Public Spaces in Europe. The draft whitepaper builds on our previous work on Digital Public Space which we have undertaken together with our partners in the Shared Digital European Digital Sphere coalition. It is based on the observation that there is increasing momentum for supporting public digital infrastructures and that there is a clear opportunity for consolidating the various efforts on the European level.
We are publishing the whitepaper as a public draft for comments and feedback from all interested stakeholders today. The deadline for comments is 27 January 2023, and we plan to release the final version of the paper shortly thereafter….”
“Open Science is on the rise. We can infer as much from the proliferation of Open Access publishing options; the steady upward trend in bioRxiv postings; the periodic rollout of new national, institutional, or funder policies.
But what do we actually know about the day-to-day realities of Open Science practice? What are the norms? How do they vary across different research subject areas and regions? Are Open Science practices shifting over time? Where might the next opportunity lie and where do barriers to adoption persist?
To even begin exploring these questions and others like them we need to establish a shared understanding of how we define and measure Open Science practices. We also need to understand the current state of adoption in order to track progress over time. That’s where the Open Science Indicators project comes in. PLOS conceptualized a framework for measuring Open Science practices according to the FAIR principles, and partnered with DataSeer to develop a set of numerical “indicators” linked to specific Open Science characteristics and behaviors observable in published research articles. Our very first dataset, now available for download at Figshare, focuses on three Open Science practices: data sharing, code sharing, and preprint posting….”
“Last week, the U.S. government posted a summary of the feedback they have heard on making government more inclusive and responsive and invited the American public to read and share these summaries, and let the White House know what we thought of them by December 9, 2022 by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org. The following is the response we sent today….
A new Open Government Directive issued by President Biden that explicitly requires all federal employees to embrace the spirit and principles of open government, from the administration of the Freedom of Information Act to the proactive disclosure of public information to the public in the open, accessible formats required by the Open Government Act to the responsive, collaborative approach to civic engagement and public information that Americans should expect from our public officials and civil servants. Make in press freedom and Internet freedom the planks of a bridge to the next century of access to information. Enshrine public access to public information as a defining priority of this administration, building on the foundations laid by generations past to erect an enduring architecture of open governance for our democracy….”
“Public access to research data is critical to advancing science and solving real world problems. The Realities of Academic Data Sharing (RADS) Initiative project team has spent considerable time this year developing surveys designed for campus administrators and funded researchers, inquiring into public-access research data management and sharing (DMS) activities and their costs. Public-access DMS activities are often distributed across institutional departments and units and, as such, the expenditures to support these activities are rarely captured holistically within one institution and may not even be captured at the unit or department level. The goal of surveying campus administrators and funded researchers is twofold: to determine where, within the institution, these activities are occurring, and to understand the costs to the institution to support them. Defining public-access DMS activities further provides a common framework for gathering expenses for the staffing, services, and infrastructure of these activities, which then provides a more comprehensive view of the overall cost of making research data publicly accessible.
Although the RADS studies focus on data management practices over the last decade, the project team recognizes that many of these activities may be helpful for those in the higher education community currently defining institutional processes for supporting public access to research data. Identifying necessary services, infrastructure, and staffing, and ways in which to categorize expenses and budgeting for open access to research data, is timely due to the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy and the revised federal agency policies that will result from the 2022 OSTP Nelson memo.
The RADS project team and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) have released a report, Public Access Data Management and Sharing Activities for Academic Administration and Researchers, that defines the data management and sharing activities used in our research. We hope that the research community will provide feedback around these activities, as this report presents version 1 of the RADS public access DMS activities. Additional versions will be released in response to community feedback and best practices as more institutions and agencies implement DMS policies in the coming year….”
“The KE Task and Finish group on FAIR Data and Software supporting Reproducible Research have produced a scoping document which provides an overview for this work.
We are inviting consultants to submit proposals to undertake work around ‘Minimum conditions supporting research reproducibility’. Full details of the work and its requirements are included in the Call for proposals document….”
“The DataCite Metadata Working Group has been working on the next version of the metadata schema—and we need your feedback!
Over the past year and a half, the Metadata Working Group has been working on changes to support the evolving use cases for DataCite DOIs. These proposed updates are in response to requests from DataCite community members and also in alignment with pillar 3 of DataCite’s strategic plan—that is, to “identify and connect all resource types held by research organizations globally.”
We want to make sure these changes work—that they solve the problems that they are intended to solve—and we want to hear from you! For the first time, we are sharing a draft proposal before releasing the next metadata schema version….”
“The DataCite Metadata Working Group has been working on the next version of the metadata schema—and we need your feedback! Over the past year and a half, the Metadata Working Group has been working on changes to support the evolving use cases for DataCite DOIs. These proposed updates are in response to requests from DataCite community members and also in alignment with pillar 3 of DataCite’s strategic plan—that is, to “identify and connect all resource types held by research organizations globally.” We want to make sure these changes work—that they solve the problems that they are intended to solve—and we want to hear from you! For the first time, we are sharing a draft proposal before releasing the next metadata schema version….”
DOIs and URLs themselves don’t really tell readers much. People with visual impairments rely on screen readers to read out loud the contents of a page. We’re asking for the title of each DOI to be added, in an ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) attribute, so these users understand what these links are for.
Accessible text, as this kind of description is known, should be included for all links, but at this time, we’re specifically recommending it for landing pages of newly registered records.
It’s not required, yet. We’re proposing a 2 year recommendation period and we want your feedback on the particulars, including timing and how we can help. Please take a short survey and/or get in touch and share your thoughts.
We’ll finalize these recommendations after assessing the feedback. Please check back for updates….”
“The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG), in conjunction with the Health Research Alliance and PREreview, is pleased to release the initial drafts of a set of primers designed to render the grantmaking lifecycle more open and equitable. For the past nine months, the ORFG and our partners have been exploring tangible ways to make both the processes of grantmaking and the resulting research outputs more transparent, inclusive, and trustworthy. With significant co-creation from our working group and the broader community, we have identified interventions across the grantmaking lifecycle – program development, dissemination and publicity, application mechanics, proposal review, funding decisions, grantee and alumni support, and impact assessment. For each stage, the primers detail specific actions funders can take to ensure a broader range of voices and perspectives are engaged and supported. These interventions will be actively tested over the next year by a cohort of 11 philanthropies, with results and lessons learned reported transparently at the conclusion.
The primers are works in progress and we welcome ongoing input and questions from all parties. Please explore the drafts and leave feedback, either anonymously or with attribution. If you prefer, you can also (1) email us your thoughts and/or request to arrange a call to share it verbally, and/or (2) join our recurring Open Community Calls. We will continue to update these primers to reflect the insights of the community.”
“Are you confused by all the ‘alternative’ scholarly publishing platforms that have emerged over recent years? Today there seem to be so many ways to communicate or disseminate research. There are not only peer-reviewed academic articles, monographs, conference proceedings, or theses. Now there are also preprint repositories, data journals, specialist data and code repositories, trials registries, scholarly blogs and websites, many forms of peer review and micropublications. These different forms of publication all have different aims, such as seeking to remove the barriers, constraints and costs imposed by legacy academic publishing companies, to reduce questionable practices, or make research work more deeply accessible and reusable.
In order to help guide conversations about the merits and downsides of these different ‘alternative’ publishing platforms, a new Task and Finish Group worked on a recently published Knowledge Exchange (KE) scoping paper. As a next step, we hope that we can develop a taxonomy of these various platforms – platforms that follow different paths (e.g. in equitable publishing models, quality control, technical features, open source, iterative publishing workflows, etc.) compared to the legacy publishers. Such platforms represent a move away from the traditional journal as an organising principle and might differ from traditional scholarly journals in a number of ways, including publication process, governance, and underlying infrastructure. They can be regarded as examples of real innovative, open access scholarly communication or as effective “threat infrastructures” to traditional journal publishers. Knowing the directions in which these platforms are driving innovation, and their different aims, might allow us insight into what can be a confusing landscape.
Throughout the process we would welcome feedback on our scoping paper (https://doi.org/10.21428/996e2e37.3ebdc864) and the developing taxonomy. We therefore invite all stakeholders, including researchers, institutions, funders and (non profit) publishers to comment and provide feedback….”