Experimental Publishing collaboration with POP, the Politics of Patents project · COPIM

“The experimental publishing group at COPIM is collaborating with four research ?and book publishing projects:

?One focuses on POP and Data books ?working together with Mattering Press.

A second one, in collaboration with Open Humanities Press, explores the notion of Combinatorial Books that are made by reusing existing texts beyond established citation practices. Both involve innovative re-use of source data and texts. 

A third project, X-Sketchbook, in collaboration with TIB Hannover (Germany), The Bartlett School of Architecture (UCL, London, UK), and Open Book Publishers, will explore the state of the art of experimentation in architectural publishing.

And a fourth project, Citizen Science for Research Libraries—A Guide, in collaboration with TIB Hannover and the LIBER Citizen Science Working Group, will explore ways to assist research libraries in setting up Citizen Science programs at their institutions….”

Finding and Using the Good Stuff: Open Educational Practices for Developing Open Educational Resources | Christian Hilchey

Finding and Using the Good Stuff : Open Educational Practices for Developing Open Educational Resources by Christian Hilchey

part of book:  Open Education and Second Language Learning and Teaching (Feb. 2021, De Gruyter)

Abstract: “Open educational resources (OER) are the concrete products of various open educational practices (OEP). As such, OER are typically more visible and better understood than OEP. Thus, the goal of this chapter is to make the hidden, tacit knowledge of OEP more apparent to L2 specialists who may wish to design their own OER. In particular, this chapter seeks to describe and demonstrate two OEP that are central to the development of OER: (1) how to find high-quality open content; and (2) how to adapt open content for the creation of user-generated materials. The chapter begins by demonstrating effective methods for finding rich and usable open media. This section summarizes the a ordances of different search engines and media repositories (e.g. Google, Flickr, Forvo, Pixabay, YouTube, Vimeo). Next, useful strategies for developing elements of a language curriculum based on openly licensed content are described. The chapter ends with a discussion of the pros and cons of technologies for the creation of OER content….

this chapter describes the various OEP that I learned through trial and error during the development of Reality Czech, an OER developed at the University of Texas at Austin under the auspices of the Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL)….”

 

Social media attention and citations of published outputs from re-use of clinical trial data: a matched comparison with articles published in the same journals | BMC Medical Research Methodology | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case–control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates.

Methods

Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups.

Results

89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3—22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3—12.3) for controls (p?=?0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1—8) for reuses and 4 (1 – 11.5) for controls (p?=?0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source.

Conclusions

Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare.

Communicating reusable research with peer-reviewed protocols from PLOS ONE and protocols.io

“Register below for our up-coming webinar where PLOS, protocols.io and the research community will introduce an innovative new publishing option that gives researchers recognition for their contributions to developing and optimising research methods, and advances open science. Developed with researchers and in partnership with the protocols.io team, Lab Protocol articles in PLOS ONE consist of two interlinked components that together describe peer-reviewed, reusable methods.

 

This webinar will cover:

The importance of sharing peer-reviewed protocols and methods to advance open science and meet researchers’ needs

A new, innovative partnership between protocols.io and PLOS ONE

An overview of the options for publishing protocols and methods at PLOS ONE

How peer-reviewed protocols at PLOS ONE complement other types of publication

The researcher perspective and experience with sharing and reusing verified methodologies

Questions from the audience and discussion with panelists…”

Day One Project: Re-envisioning Reporting of Scientific Methods

“The information contained in the methods section of the overwhelming majority of research publications is insufficient to definitively evaluate research practices, let alone reproduce the work. Publication—and subsequent reuse—of detailed scientific methodologies can save researchers time and money, and can accelerate the pace of research overall. However, there is no existing mechanism for collective action to improve reporting of scientific methods. The Biden-Harris Administration should direct research-funding agencies to support development of new standards for reporting scientific methods. These standards would (1) address ongoing challenges in scientific reproducibility, and (2) benefit our nation’s scientific enterprise by improving research quality, reliability, and efficiency. …

Common standards are already proving invaluable for the recognition and reuse of open data. The same principles could be applied to open methods….

Compliance could be achieved through a combination of “push” incentives from publishers and “pull” incentives from funders. As is already happening for open-data standards, federal agencies can require researchers to adhere to open-methods standards in order to receive federal funding, and scientific journals can require researchers to adhere to open-methods standards in order to be eligible for publication….”  

Filtering Academic Content by Re-use – Citation Counts and Altmetric Scores

“The demands on researchers to make all of the products of their research openly available, continue to grow. As a result, the balance between the carrots and sticks for incentivising open research continues to be investigated.

The State of Open Data report(1) identifies a perceived lack of credit for sharing data for over 50% of those surveyed. The same respondents identified ‘Full Data Citation’ as the biggest motivating factor to publish data….”

Coleridge Initiative – Show US the Data | Kaggle

“This competition challenges data scientists to show how publicly funded data are used to serve science and society. Evidence through data is critical if government is to address the many threats facing society, including; pandemics, climate change, Alzheimer’s disease, child hunger, increasing food production, maintaining biodiversity, and addressing many other challenges. Yet much of the information about data necessary to inform evidence and science is locked inside publications.

Can natural language processing find the hidden-in-plain-sight data citations? Can machine learning find the link between the words used in research articles and the data referenced in the article?

Now is the time for data scientists to help restore trust in data and evidence. In the United States, federal agencies are now mandated to show how their data are being used. The new Foundations of Evidence-based Policymaking Act requires agencies to modernize their data management. New Presidential Executive Orders are pushing government agencies to make evidence-based decisions based on the best available data and science. And the government is working to respond in an open and transparent way.

This competition will build just such an open and transparent approach. …”

???????? ? ?????????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ????????? ???????? | ???? ?????? ???????????

From Google’s English:  “By Order of the Minister of Education and Science, a National Plan for the Development of the Open Science Initiative in the Republic of Bulgaria has been approved. The plan sets out the strategic goals, the necessary steps and tools for the transition to the transformation of open science into a standard practice for conducting research.

This plan should be promoted and implemented in a coordinated and joint manner by the scientific community in the country and by the organizations funding research. It will upgrade the Bulgarian portal for open science – https://bpos.bg/ , will create new institutional repositories for data and publications and will ensure the connection of Bulgarian resources with the European cloud for open science. The implementation of the National Plan will also provide conditions for increasing the scientometric indicators, citations and visibility of Bulgarian scientists.

The main goal of the Open Science Initiative is to provide researchers and the public in the Republic of Bulgaria with access to scientific publications reviewed by independent experts, reliable research data and results in an open and non-discriminatory manner at the earliest possible stage of dissemination, as well as to provide an opportunity for their use and reuse.

The expected benefits are transparency and accountability of public funding for research; increase innovation capacity by combining their own knowledge with the available scientific results of publicly funded research.

You can view and download the National Plan for Development of the Open Science Initiative in the Republic of Bulgaria here: https://www.mon.bg/upload/24848/plan-otvorena-nauka_130121.pdf …”

Books Contain Multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing · COPIM

“Books contain multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing is a three-part research and scoping report created to support the Experimental Publishing and Reuse Work Package (WP 6) of the COPIM project. It also serves as a resource for the scholarly community, especially for authors and publishers interested in pursuing more experimental forms of book publishing.

COPIM (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs) is a 3-year project led by Coventry University as part of an international partnership of researchers, universities, librarians, open access (OA) book publishers and infrastructure providers and is funded by The Research England Development Fund and Arcadia—a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. COPIM is building community-owned, open systems and infrastructures to enable OA book publishing to flourish, delivering major improvements in the infrastructures used by OA book publishers and those publishers making a transition to OA. The project addresses the key technological, structural, and organisational hurdles—around funding, production, dissemination, discovery, reuse, and archiving—that are standing in the way of the wider adoption and impact of OA books. COPIM will realign OA book publishing away from competing commercial service providers to a more horizontal and cooperative knowledge-sharing approach.

As part of seven connected Work Packages, COPIM will work on 1) integrated capacity-building amongst presses; 2) access to and development of consortial, institutional, and other funding channels; 3) development and piloting of appropriate business models; 4) cost reductions achieved by economies of scale; 5) mutually supportive governance models; 6) integration into library, repository, and digital learning environments; 7) the re-use of and experimentation with OA books; 8) the effective and robust archiving of OA content; and 9) knowledge transfer to stakeholders through various pilots….”

Books Contain Multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing · COPIM

“Books contain multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing is a three-part research and scoping report created to support the Experimental Publishing and Reuse Work Package (WP 6) of the COPIM project. It also serves as a resource for the scholarly community, especially for authors and publishers interested in pursuing more experimental forms of book publishing.

COPIM (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs) is a 3-year project led by Coventry University as part of an international partnership of researchers, universities, librarians, open access (OA) book publishers and infrastructure providers and is funded by The Research England Development Fund and Arcadia—a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. COPIM is building community-owned, open systems and infrastructures to enable OA book publishing to flourish, delivering major improvements in the infrastructures used by OA book publishers and those publishers making a transition to OA. The project addresses the key technological, structural, and organisational hurdles—around funding, production, dissemination, discovery, reuse, and archiving—that are standing in the way of the wider adoption and impact of OA books. COPIM will realign OA book publishing away from competing commercial service providers to a more horizontal and cooperative knowledge-sharing approach.

As part of seven connected Work Packages, COPIM will work on 1) integrated capacity-building amongst presses; 2) access to and development of consortial, institutional, and other funding channels; 3) development and piloting of appropriate business models; 4) cost reductions achieved by economies of scale; 5) mutually supportive governance models; 6) integration into library, repository, and digital learning environments; 7) the re-use of and experimentation with OA books; 8) the effective and robust archiving of OA content; and 9) knowledge transfer to stakeholders through various pilots….”

Reusable Research Webinar

“Open, reproducible, and reliable research is critical for the scientific process. Although sharing data, code, documentation, and workflows associated with papers encourages scholars to turn a more careful eye to their work, many challenges remain, which will prevent other researchers from validating and building on prior work. This webinar will present relevant projects, approaches, and practices that advance research sharing for reproducibility and reuse. The overarching goal is to facilitate an exchange of ideas while discussing the current standards, challenges, and opportunities.

The primary audience for this webinar is data scientists, researchers, data curators, managers of digital libraries and repositories. However, anyone interested in reusable research or computational reproducibility is welcome to join….”