“The Research Scientist will play a key role in the execution of projects by a set deadline. They communicate with internal and external stakeholders to make decisions and monitor the progress of the project to keep it on schedule. This position will be focused on advancing the research agenda examining open science initiatives. Examples include, but are not limited to, open science badges, preregistration, and Registered Reports. This role is responsible for supporting and implementing ongoing research projects examining open science initiatives and participating in identifying and designing future projects. The Research Scientist will work with other COS teams to understand current opportunities and to provide research insights to advance our mission….”
“After multiple years of data collection, the Research team at the Center for Open Science (COS) is preparing for the end of its participation in DARPA’s Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) program and the transition to the work that follows. SCORE has been a significant undertaking spanning multiple research teams and thousands of researchers and participants throughout the world – all collaborating to answer a single question: Can we create rapid, scalable, and valid methods for assessing confidence in research claims?…
How do you believe the objectives of SCORE contribute to Open Science more generally?
KU: The scale and rigor behind SCORE are unlike anything that was achieved so far in the open science research space. Each step of the project has been carefully planned to ensure that we can reach decisive conclusions regarding the current state of social and behavioral science research which makes me confident in SCORE’s ability to transform our understanding of the state of the field….”
“This conversation with Eric Olson of the Center for Open Science is the first in a new series of interviews, “Case Studies in ROR Integration,” a series designed to provide in-depth detail on why and how people are choosing to integrate ROR IDs into their systems.”
“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.
COS hosted a webinar on September 27, 2022, highlighting 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. According to Dr. Michael Doughetry, Department Chair, the new policy was necessary to ensure incentives for advancement reflect the values of scientists and their institutions….”
“Ten years ago, open science was an unfamiliar concept and the only practitioners were innovators seeking to do science in a more rigorous, transparent, and inclusive way. These innovators engaged research communities across the world around open research practices, and now we celebrate 500,000 registered users on the Open Science Framework (OSF), one of many indicators that open science is now mainstream.
OSF has experienced non-linear growth every year since it launched in November 2012. In early 2013, OSF was a self-funded lab project with just 371 users. Since then, OSF gained critical support from private funders such as Arnold Ventures to become a robust public goods infrastructure to enable open science behaviors. This kickstarted a culture change process enabling grassroots communities to advance new norms by increasing the visibility of open science and offering peer-to-peer training on how to get started….”
“The Center for Open Science (COS) supports the new policy update from the White House Office of Science Technology & Policy (OSTP) ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research.
“This updated guidance is probably the most important event for open science in the United States to date,” said Brian Nosek, Executive Director of COS. “This policy directive moves the thirty years of advocacy for open access within reach of the goal line for a complete transformation to open by default. Moreover, by also mandating sharing the data underlying reported results, this directive is a major leap forward for the open data movement.”
The new guidance calls on all federal agencies with research and development expenditures to implement a policy advancing open access of publications and underlying data of research funded by the agency immediately upon publication. “This is a watershed moment in the move toward better research,” said David Mellor, Director of Policy at COS. “No longer will policymakers, patients, students or any consumer of scientific knowledge be faced with unnecessary barriers to the best evidence available. Scientists will be more able to quickly build upon key discoveries by using important data to inform their next step. Open science is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream; it is becoming the new reality.” …”
“The Open Science Framework (OSF) is a free, open-source platform that helps researchers openly and transparently collaborate and share their work throughout the entire research lifecycle. Each tool on the OSF is designed to promote the integrity of each phase of research while supporting researchers’ individual comfort levels related to sharing and accessibility. Because of its focus on research transparency and integrity, the OSF has caught the attention of institutions with open access policies, journals, and even private or government funding agencies. For new and experienced OSF users, it can often be difficult to understand just how the many tools on the OSF apply to their situation. Join us for a webinar to explore a variety of use cases highlighting how OSF can support your open science practices and solve common problems many researchers face throughout the research lifecycle….”
“Open Science Badges (OSB) were designed by the Center for Open Science to acknowledge and encourage open science practices. They are offered as incentives for researchers to share data, materials, or to preregister their research. The badges are a visual signal for readers, indicating that the content of the study is available in perpetuity….”
“In today’s episode, Nikesh Gosalia talks to Lisa Cuevas Shaw about open science practices and her journey in the publishing industry. Lisa unpacks her experiences, from her beginnings at Sage to her stint at McGraw Hill, before her return to Sage to help expand Corwin. She discusses the opportunities that led her to the Center for Open Science, which is championing open science practices through their tool, Open Science Framework (OSF), using a three-pronged approach of product, policy, and research. Lisa also shares advice on risky career moves, making this a must-listen for all early career researchers. Nikesh and Lisa also dive deep into the nitty gritty of open science. They discuss the goals of open science, its UNESCO definition, and how open science is different from open access. Finally, Lisa makes a strong case for making open science the new default practice, from fostering increased trust in science, accelerating scientific findings, to reducing global inequities.
Lisa Cuevas Shaw is the COO and Managing Director for the Center for Open Science, and an adjunct professor in Management at Pepperdine University. Lisa has extensive experience in the publishing world, having previously worked as a COO and a Deputy Publisher for JMIR Publications and a Senior Vice President for Sage Publishing. She can be reached on Twitter. ”
“This is a transcript of the interview with Brian Nosek (Season 2, Episode 1). Listen to the podcast here. The transcript is slightly edited for readability….”
“Measuring the transparency and credibility of research is fundamental to our mission. By having measures of transparency and credibility we can learn about the current state of research practice, we can evaluate the impact of our interventions, we can track progress on culture change, and we can investigate whether adopting transparency behaviors is associated with increasing credibility of findings….
Many groups have conducted research projects that manually code a sample of papers from a field to assess current practices. These are useful but highly effortful. If machines can be trained to do the work, we will get much more data, more consistently, and much faster. There are at least three groups that have made meaningful progress creating scalable solutions: Ripeta, SciScore, and DataSeer. These groups are trying to make it possible, accurate, and easy to assess many papers for whether the authors shared data, used reporting standards, identified their conflicts of interest, and other transparency relevant actions….”
“Amid continuing global challenges due to the pandemic, 2021 was another noteworthy year not only for COS, but for the broader research community. The theme, “Accelerating Open Science” is based on our observations of an accelerating shift toward openness-as-default. This shift is being driven by the collective, collaborative actions of researchers and stakeholders committed to providing research progress. The full Impact Report highlights our achievements, our relationships, and our community support, and we hope you’ll take the time to review it. Thank you for your individual and collective actions to change the default to open so that the scientific ideals are manifest and rewarded in everyday practice.”
“The Center for Open Science (COS) is a non-profit culture change organization founded in 2013 with a mission to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research. COS pursues this mission by building communities around open science practices, supporting metascience research, and developing technologies such as OSF (Open Science Framework), a free, open source software tool.
COS is seeking a new Director of Development who will be responsible for identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding philanthropic contributions in support of the mission and activities of COS. The Director of Development works closely with the Executive Director, COO & Managing Director, as well as the rest of the leadership team. Supervising the Senior Development Manager and Development Coordinator, the Director will establish and implement the strategy and infrastructure needed to increase and diversify annual revenue through the development of individual donors, foundations, corporations, and innovative online giving.
If you are a strategic and entrepreneurial leader with demonstrable experience and success in development and excited by our mission and values, then we look forward to hearing from you.
The Center for Open Science is partnering with the executive search firm Perrett Laver on this search. A complete application will include a letter of interest and a current CV, all correspondence will be held in strict confidence.
The deadline for applications is Friday, February 11….”
“In May 2015, the Center for Open Science invited Epidemiology to support the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.1 After consulting our editors and former Editors-in-Chief, I declined this invitation and published an editorial to explain the rationale.2 Nonetheless, the Center for Open Science has assigned a TOP score to the journal and disseminated the score via Clarivate, which also disseminates the Journal Impact Factor. Given that Epidemiology has been scored despite opting not to support the TOP Guidelines, and that our score has been publicized by the Center for Open Science, we here restate and expand our concerns with the TOP Guidelines and emphasize that the guidelines are at odds with Epidemiology’s mission and principles. We declined the invitation to support the TOP Guidelines for three main reasons. First, Epidemiology prefers that authors, reviewers, and editors focus on the quality of the research and the clarity of its presentation over adherence to one-size guidelines. For this reason, among others, the editors of Epidemiology have consistently declined opportunities to endorse or implement endeavors such as the TOP Guidelines.3–5 Second, the TOP Guidelines did not include a concrete plan for program evaluation or revision. Well-meaning guidelines with similar goals sometimes have the opposite of their intended effect.6 Our community would never accept a public health or medical intervention that had little evidence to support its effectiveness (more on that below) and no plan for longitudinal evaluation. We hold publication guidelines to the same standard. Third, we declined the invitation to support the TOP Guidelines because they rest on the untenable premise that each research article’s results are right or wrong, as eventually determined by whether its results are reproducible or not. Too often, and including in the study of reproducibility that was foundational in the promulgation of the TOP Guidelines,7 reproducibility is evaluated by whether results are concordant in terms of statistical significance. This faulty approach has been used frequently, even though the idea that two results—one statistically significant and the other not—are necessarily different from one another is a well-known fallacy.8,9 ”
“The Einstein Foundation Berlin is honoring the American physicist Paul Ginsparg and the Center for Open Science with the inaugural Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research. Paul Ginsparg is the founder of the preprint server arXiv.org, the first platform to exchange scientific discoveries among scientists immediately, openly and globally without review- and paywall restrictions….”