What a difference a data repository makes: Six ways depositing data maximizes the impact of your science – The Official PLOS Blog

“1. You can’t lose data that’s in a public data repository…

2. Public data repositories support understanding, reanalysis and reuse…

3. Public data repositories facilitate discovery…

4. Public data repositories reflect the true value of data…

5. Public data demonstrates rigor…

6. Research with data in public data repositories attracts more citations…”

 

International Survey on Data Sharing and Re-use in Traumatic Stress Research

“The Global Collaboration on Traumatic Stress, a coalition of 11 scientific societies in the field of traumatic stress, is conducting a survey to better understand traumatic stress researchers’ opinions and experiences regarding data sharing and data re-use.

If you are a traumatic stress researcher at any career stage (including trainees) we invite you to share your opinions and experiences by participating in this survey. …”

A Survey of Researchers’ Needs and Priorities for Data Sharing

Abstract:  One of the ways in which the publisher PLOS supports open science is via a stringent data availability policy established in 2014. Despite this policy, and more data sharing policies being introduced by other organizations, best practices for data sharing are adopted by a minority of researchers in their publications. Problems with effective research data sharing persist and these problems have been quantified by previous research as a lack of time, resources, incentives, and/or skills to share data.

In this study we built on this research by investigating the importance of tasks associated with data sharing, and researchers’ satisfaction with their ability to complete these tasks. By investigating these factors we aimed to better understand opportunities for new or improved solutions for sharing data.

In May-June 2020 we surveyed researchers from Europe and North America to rate tasks associated with data sharing on (i) their importance and (ii) their satisfaction with their ability to complete them. We received 617 completed responses. We calculated mean importance and satisfaction scores to highlight potential opportunities for new solutions to and compare different cohorts.

Tasks relating to research impact, funder compliance, and credit had the highest importance scores. 52% of respondents reuse research data but the average satisfaction score for obtaining data for reuse was relatively low. Tasks associated with sharing data were rated somewhat important and respondents were reasonably well satisfied in their ability to accomplish them. Notably, this included tasks associated with best data sharing practice, such as use of data repositories. However, the most common method for sharing data was in fact via supplemental files with articles, which is not considered to be best practice.

We presume that researchers are unlikely to seek new solutions to a problem or task that they are satisfied in their ability to accomplish, even if many do not attempt this task. This implies there are few opportunities for new solutions or tools to meet these researcher needs. Publishers can likely meet these needs for data sharing by working to seamlessly integrate existing solutions that reduce the effort or behaviour change involved in some tasks, and focusing on advocacy and education around the benefits of sharing data.

There may however be opportunities – unmet researcher needs – in relation to better supporting data reuse, which could be met in part by strengthening data sharing policies of journals and publishers, and improving the discoverability of data associated with published articles.

Data Books & Data Bodies: Performing Archival Data differently | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

Politics of Patents, or POP, is a research project headed by Kat Jungnickel looking at 200 years of clothing patents to reveal some of the hidden ideas, practices and histories that are inscribed into people’s dress. Working with over 370,000 patents, Kat and her team have unearthed the stories and designs of many lesser-known inventors who pushed and struggled to change how people’s dress addresses political needs and desires for liberation, safety, containment and expression. The archive of patents in this work is not just a record of what was, but a resource that opens up and expands normative understandings of the world at different times. 

One of the project’s questions is how large amounts of seemingly dry and dusty data can be brought into experience, on bodies, to literally craft different bodies and possibilities. They are exploring this by combining research with reconstruction; making and wearing a collection of historic costumes from the archive. The question speaks to the work of Julien McHardy and his colleagues Rebekka Kiesewetter, Janneke Adema, Gary Hall, Tobias Steiner, and Simon Bowie at COPIM’s experimental publishing group, exploring books as intermediaries that can anchor and hold previously published data, text and analysis as well as collectives and practices.

At COPIM’s experimental publishing group, we’re especially interested in the book as a dynamic conduit between archive and interpretation. We think of books that relate digital archival material, and data to interpretation as Data Books. We are interested in where the archive ends and the book starts, and how new technologies and open copyright regimes allow blurring that boundary between data and analysis in productive ways. With that in mind, we experiment with relating databases, previously published sources, narrative and analytical storytelling in new ways. The book, we explore as a site of archive/reading/writing interference; an interface for bringing data into shared experience; transforming data from disembodied information to situated, embodied, relational, and negotiated knowledges.

[…]

Tentative Florilegium: Experiments & Recipes for ReWriting Books | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

Digital publishing tools and non-restrictive copyright regimes make it possible to incorporate source texts and data in ways that go beyond conventional citation practices, re-assessing the relationships between publications and their sources while providing full attribution. In the summer of 2021, COPIM’s Experimental Publishing Group hosted a mini-workshop series on ReUsing Data and ReUsing Texts to explore this potential. The ReUsing Data workshop experimented with how scholars and new kinds of data books might assemble, relate, expose and perform data differently. 

The ReUsing Texts workshop focused on how scholars might gather, engage, (dis)appropriate, remix and rewrite existing texts. The Combinatorial Books: Gathering Flowers project, set up by COPIM, Open Humanities Press and Gabriela Méndez Cota explores rewriting as a way of writing books. We co-hosted the workshop with Gabriela’s team of scholars, technologists, and students from the Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México and their work inspired the event. Gabriela and her team set out to collaboratively ‘rewrite’ Tondeur and Marder’s book The Chernobyl Herbarium: Fragments of an Exploded Consciousness (Open Humanities Press, 2016).

[…]

Toward Reusable Science with Readable Code and Reproducibility

Abstract:  An essential part of research and scientific communication is researchers’ ability to reproduce the results of others. While there have been increasing standards for authors to make data and code available, many of these files are hard to re-execute in practice, leading to a lack of research reproducibility. This poses a major problem for students and researchers in the same field who cannot leverage the previously published findings for study or further inquiry. To address this, we propose an open-source platform named RE3 that helps improve the reproducibility and readability of research projects involving R code. Our platform incorporates assessing code readability with a machine learning model trained on a code readability survey and an automatic containerization service that executes code files and warns users of reproducibility errors. This process helps ensure the reproducibility and readability of projects and therefore fast-track their verification and reuse.

 

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

Abstract:  The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners, challenging to interpret, and/or difficult to use. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We consider the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and (re)use potential of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation professionals (scientists and practitioners) to acquire the skills needed to make use of research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently, in addition to reducing inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge to overcome. Finally, we caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate for a proactive stance towards transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

 

Open Climate Now! | Branch magazine issue #2, June 2021

“Two global movements—open and climate—both reckoning with privilege and power in their own organizing, should seize the moment to work more intersectionally and learn from each other. The open movement with its values, community and action has the potential to greatly contribute to climate research and activism, and climate scientists and organizers should join the fight for the (digital) commons.  …

A scan of the open movement—which comprises networks, projects, and organizations that advocate for the creation, curation, and sharing of the knowledge commons through the use of open licenses—shows very limited collaboration between both communities. These movements share similar values and their activists envision similar horizons of human and planetary well-being, yet actions are being organized and conducted separately. We must now reflect: how will future generations of open activists use the digital commons to grapple with climate change, one of the greatest challenges of humanity?…”

Authors: Shannon Dosemagen, Evelin Heidel, Luis Felipe R. Murillo, Emilio Velis, Alex Stinson and Michelle Thorne

Branch magazine funded in part by EIT Climate KIC

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….”