Supporting Open Science in the Promotion & Tenure Process: Lessons from the University of Maryland

“The academic promotion and tenure process establishes the incentive structure for institutions of higher education. Open science champions have long advocated for the process to better reflect important open science scholarship that is often under-valued and neglected in academia. This webinar will highlight the five-year effort in the Psychology Department at the University of Maryland to adopt new guidelines that explicitly codify open science as a core criteria in tenure and promotion review. Discussion will include forces supporting and resisting open science behaviors and strategies for creating buy-in across the department. According to Dr. Doughetry, Department Chair, the new policy was necessary to ensure incentives for advancement reflect the values of scientists and their institutions.”

Open Science

“For a growing number of scientists, though, the process looks like this:

The data that the scientist collects is stored in an open access repository like figshare or Zenodo, possibly as soon as it’s collected, and given its own Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Or the data was already published and is stored in Dryad.
The scientist creates a new repository on GitHub to hold her work.
As she does her analysis, she pushes changes to her scripts (and possibly some output files) to that repository. She also uses the repository for her paper; that repository is then the hub for collaboration with her colleagues.
When she’s happy with the state of her paper, she posts a version to arXiv or some other preprint server to invite feedback from peers.
Based on that feedback, she may post several revisions before finally submitting her paper to a journal.
The published paper includes links to her preprint and to her code and data repositories, which makes it much easier for other scientists to use her work as starting point for their own research.

This open model accelerates discovery: the more open work is, the more widely it is cited and re-used. However, people who want to work this way need to make some decisions about what exactly “open” means and how to do it. You can find more on the different aspects of Open Science in this book.

This is one of the (many) reasons we teach version control. …”

Fifteen Questions: Marc Lipsitch on Covid Modeling, Open-Access Science, and Latte Art

“I’ve been arguing for open-access and favoring open-access journals for my own work — not exclusively, but a lot. I’ve been working as an editor and reviewer on open-access journals. That’s the wave of the future. It’s outrageous that publicly funded research is paywalled. Most journals add almost no value to the papers they publish. “Epidemiology,” one of the major journals in our field, really edits it carefully and improves the paper beyond the peer review. But there are other ways to pay for that. It’s long overdue….”

Third Global Open Science Workshop at the EGI Conference, 22 September – CODATA, The Committee on Data for Science and Technology

“We are pleased to announce the 3rd Global Open Science Workshop which will be held on 22nd September, during the EGI Conference 2022, Prague and online. We warmly invite you to be part of the event and join the discussions.

The Workshop takes place on 22 September and the programme can be found at: https://indico.egi.eu/event/5957/

The Workshop is part of the EGI Conference 2022, 20-22 September, for which the full conference program can be found at: https://indico.egi.eu/event/5882/timetable/#20220922 …”

 

Open Science Observatory – OpenAIRE Blog

“The Open Science Observatory (https://osobservatory.openaire.eu) is an OpenAIRE platform showcasing a collection of indicators and visualisations that help policy makers and research administrators better understand the Open Science landscape in Europe, across and within countries.  

The broader context: As the number of Open Science mandates have been increasing across countries and scientific fields, so has the need to track Open Science practices and uptake in a timely and granular manner. The Open Science Observatory assists the monitoring, and consequently the enhancing, of open science policy uptake across different dimensions of interest, revealing weak spots and hidden potential. Its release comes in a timely fashion, in order to support UNESCO’s global initiative for Open Science and the European Open Science Cloud (the current development and enhancement is co-funded by the EOSC Future H2020 project and will appear in the EOSC Portal).  …

How does it work: Based on the OpenAIRE Research Graph, following open science principles and an evidence-based approach, the Open Science Observatory provides simple metrics and more advanced composite indicators which cover various aspects of open science uptake such us

different openness metrics
FAIR principles
Plan S compatibility & transformative agreements
APCs

as well as measures related to the outcomes of Open Access research output as they relate to

network & collaborations
usage statistics and citations
Sustainable Development Goals

across and within European countries. ”

PLOS partners with DataSeer to develop Open Science Indicators – The Official PLOS Blog

“To provide richer and more transparent information on how PLOS journals support best practice in Open Science, we’re going to begin publishing data on ‘Open Science Indicators’ observed in PLOS articles. These Open Science Indicators will initially include (i) sharing of research data in repositories, (ii) public sharing of code and, (iii) preprint posting, for all PLOS articles from 2019 to present. These indicators – conceptualized by PLOS and developed with DataSeer, using an artificial intelligence-driven approach – are increasingly important to PLOS achieving its mission. We plan to share the results openly to support Open Science initiatives by the wider community.”

The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers | SpringerLink

Steinhardt, I., Bauer, M., Wünsche, H. et al. The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers. Qual Quant (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4

Abstract: The Open Science movement is gaining tremendous popularity and tries to initiate changes in science, for example the sharing and reuse of data. The new requirements that come with Open Science poses researchers with several challenges. While most of these challenges have already been addressed in several studies, little attention has been paid so far to the underlying Open Science practices (OSP). An exploratory study was conducted focusing on the OSP relating to sharing and using data. 13 researchers from the Weizenbaum Institute were interviewed. The Weizenbaum Institute is an interdisciplinary research institute in Germany that was founded in 2017. To reconstruct OSP a grounded theory methodology (Strauss in Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987) was used and classified OSP into open production, open distribution and open consumption (Smith in Openness as social praxis. First Monday, 2017). The research shows that apart from the disciplinary background and research environment, the methodological approach and the type of research data play a major role in the context of OSP. The interviewees’ self-attributions related to the types of data they work with: qualitative, quantitative, social media and source code. With regard to the methodological approach and type of data, it was uncovered that uncertainties and missing knowledge, data protection, competitive disadvantages, vulnerability and costs are the main reasons for the lack of openness. The analyses further revealed that knowledge and established data infrastructures as well as competitive advantages act as drivers for openness. Because of the link between research data and OSP, the authors of this paper argue that in order to promote OSP, the methodological approach and the type of research data must also be considered.

 

Evaluating the (in)accessibility of data behind papers in astronomy

Abstract:  This paper presents results of a survey of authors of journal articles published over several decades in astronomy. The study focuses on determining the characteristics and accessibility of data behind papers, referring to the spectrum of raw and derived data that would be needed to validate the results of a particular published article as a capsule of scientific knowledge. Curating the data behind papers can arguably lead to new discoveries through reuse. However, as shown through related research and confirmed by the results of the present study, a fully accessible portrait of the data behind papers is often unavailable. These findings have implications for reusability efforts and are presented alongside a discussion of open science.

Dr. h.c. Johan Rooryck – an in-depth interview | Open Science Talk

Abstract:  On 1 September 2022, professor of linguistics and director of cOAlition S Johan Rooryck was created a doctor honoris causa at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. In this in-depth interview, Rooryck reflects on his career so far and shares his vision of a future where scholar-led, fair and equitable open access prevails over commercial publishing structures.

Johan Rooryck starts out by explaining how he became the editor-in-chief of the high-ranking journal Lingua in 1999, how his relations with the publisher Elsevier became increasingly strained, and how he succeeded in bringing all his co-editors along in a sensational break with Elsevier. Instead, they launched the fully open access journal Glossa (now a high-ranking journal of general linguistics) at the platform Open Library of Humanities, in 2015. Rooryck in particular dwells on the non-commercial model known as Diamond Open Access, with no charges facing either readers or authors. Speaking on behalf of Plan S and the cOAlition S, whose executive director he became in 2019, Rooryck also broadens the view to all forms of open access, including open access to books and research data. At the end, he looks ahead to the future, when faced with the final, fundamental question: are you an optimist?

The Human Rights Case for Open Science | Impact of Social Sciences

“You’re writing a grant application, and you want to make a strong case for open science! You’ve seen colleagues use language from human rights treaties to support their arguments for open work in the past: but what does that actually mean? Does international human rights law really say that science should be open? In this article, Laura Carter, PhD candidate in the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex and member of the Open Heroines collective, explains that yes, it does, and yes, you can use human rights to argue for open science….”

Open science and data sharing in trauma research: Developing a trauma-informed protocol for archiving sensitive qualitative data. – PsycNET

Abstract:  Objective: The open science movement seeks to make research more transparent, and to that end, researchers are increasingly expected or required to archive their data in national repositories. In qualitative trauma research, data sharing could compromise participants’ safety, privacy, and confidentiality because narrative data can be more difficult to de-identify fully. There is little guidance in the traumatology literature regarding how to discuss data-sharing requirements with participants during the informed consent process. Within a larger research project in which we interviewed assault survivors, we developed and evaluated a protocol for informed consent for qualitative data sharing and engaging participants in data de-identification. Method: We conducted qualitative interviews with N = 32 adult sexual assault survivors regarding (a) how to conduct informed consent for data sharing, (b) whether participants should have input on sharing their data, and (c) whether they wanted to redact information from their transcripts prior to archiving. Results: No potential participants declined participation after learning about the archiving mandate. Survivors indicated that they wanted input on archiving because the interview is their story of trauma and abuse and it would be disempowering not to have control over how this information was shared and disseminated. Survivors also wanted input on this process to help guard their privacy, confidentiality, and safety. None of the participants elected to redact substantive data prior to archiving. Conclusions: Engaging participants in the archiving process is a feasible practice that is important and empowering for trauma survivors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Postponed, non?competitive peer review for research funding – Dresler – European Journal of Neuroscience – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Receiving research grants is among the highlights of an academic career, affirming previous accomplishments and enabling new research endeavors. Much of the process of acquiring research funding, however, belongs to the less favorite duties of many researchers: it is time consuming, often stressful, and, in the majority of cases, unsuccessful. This resentment toward funding acquisition is backed up by empirical research: the current system to distribute research funding, via competitive calls for extensive research applications that undergo peer review, has repeatedly been shown to fail in its task to reliably rank proposals according to their merit, while at the same time being highly inefficient. The simplest, fairest, and broadly supported alternative would be to distribute funding more equally across researchers e.g. by an increase of universities’ base funding, thereby saving considerable time that can be spent on research instead. Here, I propose how to combine such a ‘funding flat rate’ model – or other efficient distribution strategies – with quality control through postponed, non-competitive peer-review using open science practices.

 

Safeguarding science in the wake of conflict – International Science Council

“Full adoption of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recommendation on open science is highlighted as a pathway for enabling displaced scholars to continue their work, and supporting the (re)development of fragile science systems. Crucially, stakeholders must work together to develop sustainable frameworks in higher education and research systems for a more predictable and effective approach to the phases of preparedness, response and rebuilding in the aftermath of conflict or disaster….”

Conference homepage – Singapore Open Research Conference 2022 – LibGuides at Nanyang Technological University

“Open Research, or Open Science is the movement to make the scientific process and research outputs more transparent, inclusive and accessible. 

It supports validation, reproducibility and reduces cases of academic misconduct.

It helps to maximise the impact of one’s research and provides the foundations for others to build upon. 

Held in conjunction with the International Open Access Week, the inaugural Singapore Open Research Conference, “Accelerating Research with Responsible Open Science”, will provide a great opportunity to interact with drivers and practitioners about their experiences and suggestions on Open Science/Open Research.

Though the discussions will be based on the bioscience field, researchers from various institutions are most welcome….”

Open Science, equity and the Brazilian context

“Open Science, a global movement created by the scientific community, has undertaken efforts aimed at increasing the popularity of scientific knowledge production and making the results of scientific research widely accessible to society. Open Science principles, which aim to make research outcomes freely available through scientific journals or open access repositories, and to promote transparency to their processes, replication and reproducibility, have generally been well received by the scientific community. Its transparent, accessible and collaborative nature is widely recognized, but discussion of potentially reckless aspects for implementation, such as the costs of participation and the need for a favorable policy agenda, are also in focus.1

 

As this “umbrella of strategies” spreads, some questions become more frequent: how can we promote equity from such an inequitable basis, after all? The venue for the “open science party” has been set, but the capacity of the guests to take part in it has not been the same. Surveys show that the article processing charges (APCs), charged by international open access journals have increased sharply and constituted a barrier to the visibility of scientific production of researchers globally.2,3 Thus, the Brazilian scientific community is among those agents whose capacity to participate is compromised by budget constraints for research and the lack of resources directed to publication fees by funding agencies in Brazil.

 

Science has been deeply marked by advances and setbacks, in Brazil. Even in the early 2000s, the structural working conditions, regional imbalances, funding options and conflicts between the public and private sectors were already seen as challenges.4 The situation has not changed much and, despite an upward trend in federal government spending on science and technology, from 2003 to 2015, this trend was reversed as of 2016, reaching levels below the investments in 2009 by 2020.5 This funding setback has imposed heavy burdens on the entire scientific community, reflected in difficulties to maintain institutions and projects, and consequent expansion of barriers, making Brazilian researchers even more distant from the effective implementation of Open Science….”