“The Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands, which publishes university rankings, plans to start a new ranking based entirely on open data and open algorithms in 2024.
The open-source CWTS ranking will sit alongside listings produced, as in previous years, based on bibliographic data from the Web of Science database of Clarivate*….”
“At the core of education, engineering, and science lies the quest to better understand and improve the world. This document aims to explain the essential role of open-source hardware for this mission and why it should be considered an essential pillar of the ongoing open science programmes in Dutch Universities.
Open-source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or other hardware and products based on that design. Ideally, the design of open source hardware is available in the preferred format for making modifications and uses widely available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of other individuals to make and use hardware. Open-source hardware gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open exchange of (compatible) designs.
Open Science practices are becoming the norm in academia, and are rightly encouraged by funders and policymakers of higher education. Open-source hardware is an essential pillar of Open Science. Sharing hardware designs openly both enables more people and teams to access it, and through encouraging replication it makes science more reproducible. But it is also an area of contention because of the exclusive knowledge transfer practices and (not always justified) confidentiality clauses in research partnerships or contract defaults.
Beyond academia, open hardware has the potential to radically transform science, education, and society by facilitating collaborative innovation and democratizing access to technology. It can massively accelerate the transition of an invention into a useful product, and simultaneously reduce costs and promote sustainable practices. By promoting open-source hardware initiatives, the Netherlands can solidify its position as a leader in Open Science and contribute to the global effort of achieving the sustainable development goals.”
“Are you interested in reproducible code and Open Science? Then we have the perfect opportunity for you!
As part of a pilot project between TU Delft and CODECHECK, we are organising a codechecking hackathon on 18th September 2023! During this hackathon, you will learn the concept behind codechecking, and practise related skills to check whether available code and data can reproduce the results in a paper, preprint or project. More information about the codechecking process can be found here.
Would you like to participate as a codechecker, and help promote reproducible code and Open Science? Register via this page, and save the date! The hackathon will take place over two sessions, in the morning and afternoon. Details of the programme will be released in early September.
Familiarity with a current programming or data analysis language (e.g., R, Python, JavaScript, Julia) is beneficial.
PhD candidates at TU Delft are eligible for 0.5 Graduate School credits, provided they attend the entire session (morning and afternoon), and write a short reflection (between 300-350 words) on the skills they learned during the codechecking session, to be uploaded on their DMA profiles. To confirm their eligibility for GS credits, PhD candidates must seek approval from their supervisors and their Faculty Graduate Schools in advance of the session. If confirmation of attendance is required from the organisers, please let us know beforehand….”
“SCOSS is most grateful to the Dutch Research Council’s(NWO) commitment to Open infrastructure. The NWO is one of the few SCOSS national research funder pledgers so far!”
“On June 20th, Universities Allied for Essential Medicines Netherlands (UAEM NL) called upon the General Secretary of the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) to address concerns regarding clinical trial transparency within the country.
This initiative garnered support from various allied organizations, including Health Action International, Doctors Without Borders the Netherlands, Wemos, and TranspariMED.
The CCMO is currently undergoing the reform of the Dutch National Trial Registry. As health advocacy organizations, we are eager to contribute to this pivotal effort aimed at enhancing the prompt registration and reporting of results for all clinical trials conducted in the Netherlands and eagerly anticipate engaging in productive discussions with the CCMO….”
“In the first package of the second round of the Open Science Fund, 30 projects will receive a financial boost of up to EUR 50,000. This second round is particularly intended for project proposals aimed at further developing open science in fields or disciplines where it is not yet the norm, or projects that promote open science in a large group or community. This round is also intended for project proposals that promote collaboration between different organisations and disciplines and between academic and support staff….”
“Welcome to the Portal of Research Output from the Netherlands. This has been developed as part of a collaboration between UKB, SURF and OpenAIRE. This portal presents Dutch research results and research projects as a sub-section found in the OpenAIRE Graph. This Research Graph is actively fed by Dutch institutional repositories, data and software repositories, and Research Information Systems (CRIS’s) that comply with the OpenAIRE metadata guidelines. In addition, this portal also includes research output and research projects from other sources that have an affiliation with one or more Dutch research performing organisations and research funders found in the OpenAIRE Graph….”
Home page for an event. No further description.
“In 2022, 97% of UG/UMCG peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings were open access – including gold (30%), hybrid (32%) and green (35%) open access. The share of open access publications remained stable from 2021, but rose significantly compared to previous years (69% in 2020, 64% in 2019, 55% in 2018, 51% in 2017 and 37% in 2016).
The steep rise registered in the last two years is largely due to the implementation of the new open access procedural regulations which resulted in a significant growth of the green open access share….”
“The theme of the conference is Inclusiveness through Openness. Find a full abstract describing the conference here. The conference intends to look forward to an increasingly open world of research, data, and publication and identify the opportunities and challenges of living in such an environment. We are particularly concerned to engage with the issues from a global perspective, especially within in the global south, emerging economies, and circumstances of political and/or financial constraint. How do we ensure that open access to science will be truly open for researchers and readers worldwide?…”
“The NWO Executive Board has appointed the Open Science NL Steering Board with effect from 1 June. The Steering Board is the decision-making body of Open Science NL, determining, among other things, its two-year work programme.”
“OSC-NL is a network of coordinators of Dutch Open Science Communities (OSC). We stimulate collaboration amongst Dutch OSCs and provide input to research policy, infrastructure and services.
By the same token, OSC-NL is the Dutch national chapter of the International Network of Open Science Communities (INOSC)….”
“Academic publishing is on the move. Dissatisfaction with the dominant publishing paradigm has given rise to a manifold of new ideas, projects and services. The time is ripe for consolidation of the most promising developments.
Imagine academic publishing that is fast, transparent, and free. Is that a pipe dream or something within reach? We already have preprint publishing (fast), open peer review (transparent), and diamond/overlay journals (free). If we could connect these disparate initiatives, would that make our dream come true? And how could this best be done? These are questions that are currently being discussed by us and others at Leiden University….”
Abstract: Supervision is one important way to socialize Ph.D. candidates into open and responsible research. We hypothesized that one should be more likely to identify open science practices (here publishing open access and sharing data) in empirical publications that were part of a Ph.D. thesis when the Ph.D. candidates’ supervisors engaged in these practices compared to those whose supervisors did not or less often did. Departing from thesis repositories at four Dutch University Medical centers, we included 211 pairs of supervisors and Ph.D. candidates, resulting in a sample of 2062 publications. We determined open access status using UnpaywallR and Open Data using Oddpub, where we also manually screened publications with potential open data statements. Eighty-three percent of our sample was published openly, and 9% had open data statements. Having a supervisor who published open access more often than the national average was associated with an odds of 1.99 to publish open access. However, this effect became nonsignificant when correcting for institutions. Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19–4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86–11.35) after removing false positives. The prevalence of open data in our sample was comparable to international studies; open access rates were higher. Whilst Ph.D. candidates spearhead initiatives to promote open science, this study adds value by investigating the role of supervisors in promoting open science.
“The Dutch Reproducibility Network (NLRN) is currently being developed with the goal to increase the quality and efficiency of research in the Netherlands by coordinating, supporting and strengthening initiatives on transparency and reproducibility across scholarly disciplines. NLRN is being structured following other reproducibility networks such as the UKRN.
Job description
The coordinator will be the driving force in further developing the network and in planning and organizing activities, working in close collaboration with the steering group and serving as a bridge between the steering group, network members and other stakeholders. The coordinator will organize activities such as symposia and webinars, take care of communication and dissemination within the network (e.g. via social media and the website), keep the website up to date, actively think about future activities and support the steering group in identifying and contacting relevant stakeholders. Additionally, the coordinator will support the steering group in the development and curation of training materials and in designing implementation strategies together with stakeholders from the network….”