MOOC: Open Science: Sharing Your Research with the World | TU Delft Online

“You can become a more visible, effective and impactful researcher by sharing your research data and publications openly. In this course, you will learn the objectives, main concepts, and benefits of Open Science principles along with practices for open data management and open data sharing.

Since research increasingly relies on software which is used to model and simulate, and to deal with the ever growing volume of research data, the course will also introduce FAIR software practices.

Citizens participation in research is getting more and more important. The course will demonstrate what citizen science is about, how to stimulate citizens to participate in your research and how to handle (new) responsibilities when implementing citizen science.

You’ll learn to establish links between publications, data, software and methods, how to attach a persistent identifier and metadata to your results, and methods for clarifying usage rights. You will also discover ways to apply these principles to your daily research and adapt existing routines. Finally, you’ll uncover potential barriers to sharing research and discuss possible solutions.

This course will help you grasp the key principles of Open Science, with answers to questions like:

How can researchers effectively store, manage, and share research data?
What kinds of open access publishing are most effective?
How can researchers increase the visibility and impact of their research?
How can the use of social media contribute to the visibility and impact of research?
How can researchers be acknowledged for the research software they write?
How can research benefit from citizen science? …”

Practices and Tools of Open Science

The series will be conducted online via Zoom. All are welcome to participate, and participation is free of charge. We do require participants to complete a brief registration via a Google Form. A Zoom link will be sent to you the evening before each scheduled event.

Who we are

The Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) is the supra-regional research support facility for psychology in German-speaking countries. PsyFaKo (Bundesfachschaftentagung der Psychologiestudierenden) is the representative body of all psychology students in the German-speaking countries.

Content recording

All sessions will be recorded and made available on PsychArchives approximately 2-3 weeks later, unless specifically requested otherwise by the session presenters.

 

Opening Up to Open Science

“This way of sharing science has some benefits: peer review, for example, helps to ensure (even if it never guarantees) scientific integrity and prevent inadvertent misuse of data or code. But the status quo also comes with clear costs: it creates barriers (in the form of publication paywalls), slows the pace of innovation, and limits the impact of research. Fast science is increasingly necessary, and with good reason. Technology has not only improved the speed at which science is carried out, but many of the problems scientists study, from climate change to COVID-19, demand urgency. Whether modeling the behavior of wildfires or developing a vaccine, the need for scientists to work together and share knowledge has never been greater. In this environment, the rapid dissemination of knowledge is critical; closed, siloed knowledge slows progress to a degree society cannot afford. Imagine the consequences today if, as in the 2003 SARS disease outbreak, the task of sequencing genomes still took months and tools for labs to share the results openly online didn’t exist. Today’s challenges require scientists to adapt and better recognize, facilitate, and reward collaboration….

This tension between individual and institutional incentives and the progress of science must be recognized and resolved in a manner that contributes to solving the great challenges of today and the future. To change the culture, researchers must do more than take a pledge; they must change the game—the structures, the policies, and the criteria for success. In a word, open science must be institutionalized….

A powerful open science story can be found in the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), established in 1995. Before CMIP, with the internet in its infancy, climate model results were scattered around the world and difficult to access and use. CMIP inspired 40 modeling groups and about 1,000 researchers to collaborate on advancing modeling techniques and setting guidelines for how and where to share results openly. That simple step led to an unexpected transformation: as more people were able to access the data, the community expanded, and more groups contributed data to CMIP. More people asking questions and pointing out issues in their results helped drive improvements. In its assessment reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on research publications using CMIP data to assess climate change. As a platform, CMIP enabled thousands of scientists to work together, self-correct their work, and create further ways to collaborate—a virtuous circle that attracted more scientists and more data, and increased the speed and usefulness of the work….

The most important message from these reports is that all parts of science, from individual researchers to universities and funding agencies, need to coordinate their efforts to ensure that early adopters aren’t jeopardizing their careers by joining the open science community. The whole enterprise has to change to truly realize the full benefits of open science. Creating this level of institutional adoption also requires updating policies, providing training, and recognizing and rewarding collaborative science….”

Global Thinking. ON-MERRIT recommendations for maximising equity in open and responsible research | Zenodo

“Open and responsible research has the potential to profoundly alter the who, what, why, when and how of knowledge-creation. Yet it is not a destiny. The ways we implement change today will have long-lasting consequences for the kind of open and responsible research ecosystem we inhabit tomorrow. For that future to be one more equitable than today’s world, critical consideration must be given to the ways in which agendas of openness are shaped by those in positions of power and privilege, and might hence reflect or even reinforce global dynamics of inequity. 

ON-MERRIT is an EC-funded project to investigate dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in the transition to Open Research and Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) across a range of stakeholder categories (in particular for those at the periphery) and multiple dimensions of Open Research, as well as its interfaces with industry and policy. Our results found many areas of concern, from which we identified four key areas of risk:

Resource-intensity of Open Research: Putting open and responsible research into practice requires considerable resources (including infrastructures, services, and training). The structural inequalities that exist within institutions, regions and nations, and on a global scale, create structural advantages for well-resourced actors and structural disadvantages for less-resourced actors, in terms of capacity and ability to engage in these practices.
Article-processing charges and the stratification of Open Access publishing: The article processing charge (APC)  model within Open Access publishing seems to discriminate against those with limited resources (especially those from less-resourced regions and institutions). These facts seem to be having effects of stratification in terms of who publishes where. 
Societal inclusion in research and policy-making: Open and responsible research processes take place within broader social systems where inequalities continue to structure access and privilege certain actors while others are disadvantaged. Despite laudable aims of equity, inclusion and diversity in open and responsible research, the most marginalised, vulnerable, and poor remain mostly excluded. 
Reform of reward and recognition: Institutional processes for reward and recognition not only do not sufficiently support the uptake of open and responsible research, but often get in the way of them. This disadvantages those who wish to take up these practices (putting early-career researchers especially at risk). …”

Open Peer Reviewers in Africa: Nominations are now open to recruit future peer-review trainers across the continent | Inside eLife | eLife

AfricArXiv, Eider Africa, eLife, PREreview, and TCC Africa have collaborated to develop a peer-review training workshop, Open Peer Reviewers in Africa, tailored to the region-specific context of African researchers. They co-created tools and strategies for scholarly literature evaluation, and are now ready to pilot the new workshop series with researchers who would be interested in sharing their knowledge by training others, and helping co-develop the resources further.

Professional Program in Open Education | KPU.ca – Kwantlen Polytechnic University

This comprehensive and flexible online program is designed to develop expertise and capacity across a broad spectrum of open educational practices, including open educational resources and pedagogies, educational technologies, policy, advocacy, and scholarship. The program balances both theoretical and practical elements, always ensuring that critical perspectives and issues are foregrounded.

Note that the program will be offered from Fall, 2022.  Check back often as additional program information will continue to be added.

Writing up your clinical trial report for a scientific journal: the REPORT trial guide for effective and transparent research reporting without spin | British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:  The REPORT guide is a ‘How to’ guide to help you report your clinical research in an effective and transparent way. It is intended to supplement established first choice reporting tools, such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), by adding tacit knowledge (ie, learnt, informal or implicit knowledge) about reporting topics that we have struggled with as authors or see others struggle with as journal reviewers or editors. We focus on the randomised controlled trial, but the guide also applies to other study designs. Topics included in the REPORT guide cover reporting checklists, trial report structure, choice of title, writing style, trial registry and reporting consistency, spin or reporting bias, transparent data presentation (figures), open access considerations, data sharing and more.

Open Science Training Handbook

A group of fourteen authors came together in February 2018 at the TIB (German National Library of Science and Technology) in Hannover to create an open, living handbook on Open Science training. High-quality trainings are fundamental when aiming at a cultural change towards the implementation of Open Science principles. Teaching resources provide great support for Open Science instructors and trainers. The Open Science training handbook will be a key resource and a first step towards developing Open Access and Open Science curricula and andragogies. Supporting and connecting an emerging Open Science community that wishes to pass on their knowledge as multipliers, the handbook will enrich training activities and unlock the community’s full potential.

Sharing their experience and skills of imparting Open Science principles, the authors (see below) produced an open knowledge and educational resource oriented to practical teaching. The focus of the new handbook is not spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively. The form of a book sprint as a collaborative writing process maximised creativity and innovation, and ensured the production of a valuable resource in just a few days….”

 

Public Access in PMC Update

In 2021, PubMed Central (PMC) continued to grow and evolve in its role as a repository for research support by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other partner funding agencies. Around 1.3 million articles have been made publicly accessible in PMC under the NIH Public Access Policy; and the volume of NIH-supported articles added to PMC with associated data content continues to increase annually (59% of articles in 2020 included supplementary material and/or a data availability statement vs. 27% in 2009).

Towards a culture of open scholarship: the role of pedagogical communities

The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has called for evidence on the roles that different stakeholders play in reproducibility and research integrity. Of central priority are proposals for improving research integrity and quality, as well as guidance and support for researchers. In response to this, we argue that there is one important component of research integrity that is often absent from discussion: the pedagogical consequences of how we teach, mentor, and supervise students through open scholarship. We justify the need to integrate open scholarship principles into research training within higher education and argue that pedagogical communities play a key role in fostering an inclusive culture of open scholarship. We illustrate these benefits by presenting the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT), an international grassroots community whose goal is to provide support, resources, visibility, and advocacy for the adoption of principled, open teaching and mentoring practices, whilst generating conversations about the ethics and social impact of higher-education pedagogy. Representing a diverse group of early-career researchers and students across specialisms, we advocate for greater recognition of and support for pedagogical communities, and encourage all research stakeholders to engage with these communities to enable long-term, sustainable change.

Assessing risk when sharing data: a guide – The ODI

“From optimising supply chains and supporting innovation, to addressing sector challenges and delivering public services, we have seen that sharing data can generate benefits for companies, the economy, society and the environment.

However, a common concern for organisations looking to share data is in providing assurance to senior leaders that sharing a particular set of data will not generate negative impacts on reputation; compromise legal compliance or negatively affect their place in the market; or cause harm to society, the economy or the environment.

With this in mind, we’ve created this guide to help organisations identify, assess and manage risks related to sharing data that they hold.

This guide seeks to provide early steps – prior to seeking legal counsel (if that is required) – to consider real and perceived risks in sharing data to identify suitable mitigating actions. We include typical risk categories, key questions to consider and suggestions on how to minimise harm….”