Case Study: ROR in FAIRsharing

“In this installment of the ROR Case Studies series, we talk with Allyson Lister, Content and Community Lead for FAIRsharing, a cross-disciplinary registry of scientific standards, databases, and policies, about how and why FAIRsharing used ROR to help make organizations first-class citizens in their data model….”

 

How can I persuade my institution to support collective funding for open access books? (Part Two) · Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

“As Sharla Lair at LYRASIS says “The transformation of scholarly publishing happens one investment at a time. You can’t do everything, but you can do something.” In the UK, several libraries (including the Universities of St Andrews, Manchester, Sussex, and Salford, among others) are all implementing innovative strategies to enable ethically-aligned support for OA that mesh with budget constraints. The university KU Leuven has an approach worth studying (more on this below), as does that of Utrecht, Iowa State University, the University of Kansas, Guelph, Temple University, University of California and MIT Library. But even libraries that are not in a position to make strategic overhauls can still agree criteria by which they can start to assess deals. 

Practical approaches – a case study from the library at KU Leuven…

CFP: Digital Heritage: Museum Data, Digitization and Digital Infrastructure ? dh+lib

“Digital Humanities scholar and digital heritage practitioner, Dr. Anne Luther (Digital Benin), is proposing a book project with Routledge and seeks proposals for book chapters that address the following:

History of Digitization in Museum: history of cataloging, history of digitization and computers in museums, today’s practices.

Digital Infrastructure: foundational texts that build an overview on internal and public infrastructure (who is interacting with data in museums [practitioners], what are data in museums [standards, vocabularies, thesaurus, data structures], what are databases [differences, uses, technical possibilities, use] how do museums publish data online [infrastructure, standardization, LOI, Wiki, online catalogues etc.], what are differences between internal data use and online publication [technical, social, monetary].

Ownership: copyright, access, authorship and the digital divide

Practice and Education: case studies in- and outside the museum

Impact and Change: case studies on restitution, accessibility and change in museum policies, practices, authorship and ownership

Short proposals of 500 words can be submitted until 31 January 2023 to contact[at]anneluther.info.”

Protecting User Privacy and Rights in Academic Data-Sharing Partnerships: Principles From a Pilot Program at Crisis Text Line

Abstract:  Data sharing between technology companies and academic health researchers has multiple health care, scientific, social, and business benefits. Many companies remain wary about such sharing because of unaddressed concerns about ethics, data security, logistics, and public relations. Without guidance on these issues, few companies are willing to take on the potential work and risks involved in noncommercial data sharing, and the scientific and societal potential of their data goes unrealized. In this paper, we describe the 18-month long pilot of a data-sharing program led by Crisis Text Line (CTL), a not-for-profit technology company that provides a free 24/7 text line for people in crisis. The primary goal of the data-sharing pilot was to design, develop, and implement a rigorous framework of principles and protocols for the safe and ethical sharing of user data. CTL used a stakeholder-based policy process to develop a feasible and ethical data-sharing program. The process comprised forming a data ethics committee; identifying policy challenges and solutions; announcing the program and generating interest; and revising the policy and launching the program. Once the pilot was complete, CTL examined how well the program ran and compared it with other potential program models before putting in place the program that was most suitable for its organizational needs. By drawing on CTL’s experiences, we have created a 3-step set of guidelines for other organizations that wish to develop their own data-sharing program with academic researchers. The guidelines explain how to (1) determine the value and suitability of the data and organization for creating a data-sharing program; (2) decide on an appropriate data sharing and collaboration model; and (3) develop protocols and technical solutions for safe and ethical data sharing and the best organizational structure for implementing the program. An internal evaluation determined that the pilot satisfied CTL’s goals of sharing scientific data and protecting client confidentiality. The policy development process also yielded key principles and protocols regarding the ethical challenges involved in data sharing that can be applied by other organizations. Finally, CTL’s internal review of the pilot program developed a number of alternative models for sharing data that will suit a range of organizations with different priorities and capabilities. In implementing and studying this pilot program, CTL aimed both to optimize its own future data-sharing programs and to inform similar decisions made by others. Open data programs are both important and feasible to establish. With careful planning and appropriate resources, data sharing between big data companies and academic researchers can advance their shared mission to benefit society and improve lives.

 

Enhancing India’s Open Science Infrastructure: A Case Study of I-STEM Portal | OSSAN 2022

OSSAN (Open Science South Asia Network) session description: “Background: Indian researchers, particularly those who are working as grassroots innovators, independent experimental researchers, or working with resource-poor setups in non-metropolitan cities and towns, often require scientific instruments and scientific facilities not available to them. There is a need for a gateway for innovators/researchers to locate the specific type of facility they need for their R&D work and to identify the one that is either located closest to them or available the soonest. Problem statement: This paper will focus on how an open science infrastructure in India can enhance scientific productivity and research experiments, expanding the use of scientific instruments and facilities available with centrally-funded R&D institutions. Results: During the Indian Science Congress of 2020, the Indian Science Technology and Engineering facilities Map (I-STEM) I-STEM portal was launched by the Honourable Prime Minister as the national web portal for sharing R&D facilities. This paper will be presented as a case study that evaluates the functions and usability of the I-STEM portal. Solution/Conclusion: The usability of the I-STEM portal can be enhanced substantially if more scientific institutions (both central and state-level) share relevant data on scientific instruments and facilities available with them and enlarge the user community base. The user community should also get timely information on the new additions to the portal….”

ANUP KUMAR DAS*, RABI SHANKAR GIRI**

*Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

**Presidency University, Kolkata, India

Open Research Case studies by faculty – Leeds University Libraries Blog

“These are the Sway resources from the Open Research Case Study project developed by Dorka Tamás and PhD candidate Christopher Cox from interviews conducted across the University of Leeds. For more information about the project see previous post: Case by case: Open research in different disciplines

Note that not all case studies have yet been approved by contributors. More will be added to this list over time….”

Open Research Case studies by faculty – Leeds University Libraries Blog

“These are the Sway resources from the Open Research Case Study project developed by Dorka Tamás and PhD candidate Christopher Cox from interviews conducted across the University of Leeds. For more information about the project see previous post: Case by case: Open research in different disciplines

Note that not all case studies have yet been approved by contributors. More will be added to this list over time….”

WorldFAIR Project (D2.1) ‘FAIR Implementation Profiles (FIPs) in WorldFAIR: What Have We Learnt?’ | Zenodo

“Report on the completed FAIR Implementation Profiles completed by project Case Studies in 2022.  Project Deliverable D2.1 for EC WIDERA-funded project “WorldFAIR: Global cooperation on FAIR data policy and practice”.

This report gives a brief overview of the experience of the WorldFAIR project in using FAIR Implementation Profiles (FIPs).  It describes the WorldFAIR project, its objectives and its rich set of Case Studies; and it introduces FIPs as a methodology for listing the FAIR implementation decisions made by a given community of practice. Subsequently, the report gives an overview of the initial feedback and findings from the Case Studies, and considers a number of issues and points of discussion that emerged from this exercise. Finally, and most importantly, we describe how we think the experience of using FIPs will assist each Case Study in its work to implement FAIR, and will assist the project as a whole in the development of two key outputs: the Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework (CDIF), and domain-sensitive recommendations for FAIR assessment.

We hope this report will be of interest to data experts who want to find out more about the WorldFAIR project, its remarkable and diverse array of Case Studies, and about FIPs.  It is important to stress that this report does not set out to give a comprehensive appraisal of the FIPs approach and could not do so.  All the WorldFAIR Case Studies have developed an initial FIP, but the process of reflection on practice will continue throughout the project.  Each Case Study will complete at least one further FIP, and in some cases more than one, towards the end of the project and this will enrich our understanding of the utility of the approach.  At that stage, we intend to be able to incorporate some robust prospective and aspirational considerations, and we need to consider how best to represent this in the FIPs.

As noted above, the final section of this report looks forward to the development of the Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework (CDIF), and domain-sensitive recommendations for FAIR assessment….”

New report on value and utility of FAIR Implementation Profiles (FIPs) available from the WorldFAIR project – CODATA, The Committee on Data for Science and Technology

“In the WorldFAIR project, CODATA (the Committee on Data of the International Science Council), with the RDA (Research Data Alliance) Association as a major partner, is working with a set of eleven disciplinary and cross-disciplinary case studies to advance implementation of the FAIR principles and, in particular, to improve interoperability and reusability of digital research objects, including data. 

To that end, the WorldFAIR project created a range of FAIR Implementation Profiles (FIPs) between July and October 2022 to better understand current FAIR data-related practices.  The report, ‘FAIR Implementation Profiles (FIPs) in WorldFAIR: What Have We Learnt?’, is published this week and available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7378109.  …”

The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PID landscape | Zenodo

de Castro, Pablo, Herb, Ulrich, Rothfritz, Laura, & Schöpfel, Joachim. (2022). The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PID landscape. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7258210

This case study is part of a series that has been produced within the study on “Risks and Trust in pursuit of a well-functioning PID infrastructure for research” commissioned by the Knowledge Exchange in July 2021. The main outcome of this work will be a report examining the current PID landscape with an emphasis on its risks and trust-related issues.

This initial case study aims to explore the key role research funders are expected to play in the gradual adoption of an ever wider range of PIDs across European countries.

The study examines matters such as the endorsement of PIDs by research funders and opportunities for cross-funder collaboration. In addition it looks at the potential differences in the technical workflows for PID adoption among others.

The report, “Building the Plane as We Fly It”: the Promise of Persistent Identifiers, and remaining complementary case studies will be published soon.

 

Preprints em CSP

From Google’s English:  “CSP [Cad Saúde Pública] is a journal that guarantees public and free access to its entire collection for the reading public, an essential part of the principles of Open Science. In addition, CSP recognizes the importance of preprints in today’s scientific publishing scenario and, since 2020, accepts articles previously deposited in non-commercial preprint repositories (eg: arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Zenodo and SciELO Preprints), before submission to the journal or during the peer review process.

 

In these two situations, it is necessary for the author to notify the journal’s editorial team and inform the name of the preprints server and the DOI assigned to the article.two?? However, the practice of publishing preprints of an article already approved in CSP on a server is not recommended. In this case, the participation of the scientific community debating with the author will not contribute to the improvement of the article and the duplicate DOI can harm the authors and the journal….

It is emphasized that the deposit of the article in the preprints server is a decision of the author. It is worth noting, however, the implications for the double-blind peer review system adopted by CSP, since it makes it possible to identify authorship.”

News – Case study: The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PID landscape – News – Knowledge Exchange

“There can be risk and trust related concerns within the current PID landscape. To explore this, the Knowledge Exchange commissioned consultants, scidecode science consulting, to undertake a study which examines the world of PIDs with an emphasis on its risks and trust-related issues. The resulting report will be accompanied by a series of case studies which aim to provide a greater understanding of the wider PID landscape. ‘The role of research funders in the consolidation of the PID landscape’ is the first case study in this series.

Research funders will likely play an important role in the gradual adoption of an ever wider range of PIDs across European countries. From raising awareness of the role of PIDs through to implementation of best practices, this case study examines what this key task involves.

The study explores topics such as the endorsement of PIDs by research funders and opportunities for cross-funder collaboration. Additionally it looks at the potential divergences in the technical workflows for PID adoption among others.

Research funders’ involvement is seen as critical for ensuring widespread adoption of the more technical PIDs, that are likely to see a bottom-up implementation with researchers in the lead. International coordination across national research funders is crucial as they are ideally placed to identify researchers’ best practices and to further promote them in specific disciplines. Understanding what funders believe to be the main issues around risks and trust will guide us in formulating further recommendations.

To access the case study please click here.”

Guest Post — Exploring the Strengths and Limitations of Replication in the Humanities: Two Case Studies

“In the past few years, a variety of articles have examined why attempts to replicate studies in biomedical, natural and social sciences often are without success. These debates on the so-called ‘replication crisis’ led Rik Peels and Lex Bouter in 2018 to ask the question: What about replication in the humanities? Scholars in the humanities go about their research in other ways than those in the sciences, because of the difference in the sources, data and methods they work with, the type of questions they try to answer and the purposes they aim to serve. But two of the things that both domains have in common, is that they aspire to acquire knowledge that is not largely dependent on the idiosyncrasies of the researcher and that their future studies often relate to or build upon the findings of previous ones. Might replication studies be a useful way to corroborate findings in the humanities? If so, what would they look like in various fields within the humanities and how would they differ from replication in the biomedical, natural and social sciences? What aims would they strive for in terms of epistemic progress? What can the humanities learn from replication studies in the sciences and vice versa? In addition to this, we need to ask whether and how, as Peels and Bouter introduced, replication might contribute to the trustworthiness of research in the humanities. Furthermore, concerns regarding replication studies in the humanities voiced by other scholars, like Leonelli and Penders, Holbrook and De Rijcke, call for further investigation….”