An interview with Nicola Ramsey of Edinburgh University Press about the Press’s new Open Access Fund.
The post The Open Access Fund at Edinburgh University Press: An Interview with Nicola Ramsey appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
An appeals court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to require deposit of published works in the Library of Congress
The post Appeals Court Rules That Library of Congress Can No Longer Require Deposit of Published Works appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Revisiting a post from 2019 in light of the acquisition of protocols.io by Springer Nature. As community-owned and -led efforts to build scholarly communications infrastructure gain momentum, what can be done to help them achieve long term sustainability?
The post Revisiting — Building for the Long Term: Why Business Strategies are Needed for Community-Owned Infrastructure appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Revisiting a post from 2017: Several services aim to gather all publications comprehensively. Who has all the content?
The post Revisiting: Who Has All The Content? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
New models are emerging for funding open access, which may serve to alleviate one of the publishing industry’s most problematic practices: Levying book processing charges on authors.
The post Guest Post — Funding Open Access Book Publishing: A Different Approach appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
by Guido Scherp
On 27 April 2023, the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics invited researchers of business studies and economics to Berlin for a day of exchange on Open Practices. In the morning a Meet-Up took place and in the afternoon a symposium on “Open Science – Research Transparency in Economics” (German). Both formats are part of the ZBW’s commitment to creating a discussion and networking space on the topic of research transparency for economics and business studies researchers.
The symposium was particularly dedicated to the topics of reproducibility and replication. Four national and international business researchers were invited to share their experiences with open practices for this topic and related food for thought. The event was moderated by Marianne Saam, Professor of Economics, in particular Digital Economics, at the Department of Socioeconomics at the University of Hamburg and head of the programme area “Open Economics” at the ZBW.
Melanie Schienle, Professor of Statistical Methods and Econometrics at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, presented the Covid19-Nowcasthub in her talk “Transparent collaborative forecasts and nowcasts in real time” (German).
This is a platform for forecasting (forecast = 4 weeks, nowcast = estimate now-state) the incidence of hospitalization, which is based on a collaborative and combinatorial approach. To improve forecast quality, multiple models from different teams were combined using a standardized framework and an open, collaborative space for stakeholders to share was created. Jointly, the prediction quality and combination of the individual prediction models were assessed, evaluated, and interpreted. An attempt was also made to quantify the uncertainty that is always present in forecasts. Interestingly, the overall quality of the forecast combined from the different models performed better than the individual forecasts. The forecast data as well as the nowcast models are openly available on GitHub. The studies evaluating the forecast models or their combination were preregistered. In addition to quality assurance, this form of transparency and collaboration naturally also serves to promote trust in the results, says Schienle.
oachim Gassen, Professor of Accounting and Auditing at Humboldt University of Berlin, shared his experiences from the “Open Science Data Center” (German) in his talk on “Making Open Science Matter: How can we increase the reusability and impact of research?” (PDF, German).
The center was created as part of the Collaborative Research Center “Accounting for Transparency” which is funded by the German Research Foundation. Gassen believes that there are still a number of hurdles to overcome on the way to Open Science. On the one hand, there is a lack of know-how, fear of mistakes, excessive demands, and also unresolved issues of licensing and data protection. On the other hand, there is a great interest in reusable data and tools, which is hindered by a lack of interoperability and content that is difficult to find. However, there is also the question of the impact of Open Science, or the question of what one wants to achieve with Open Science. The real impact of Open Science, according to Gassen, will ultimately unfold where others can build on the results and methods of previous research. An important, but unfortunately difficult issue is the recognition of corresponding achievements in career decisions.
Dr Lars Vilhuber, Data Editor of the American Economic Association (AEA), reflected in his presentation “Continuous Transparency and Reproducibility in Academic Publications: Approaches and Techniques,” the experience of the AEA’s “Data and Code Availability Policy”, in effect since 2019.
With this policy, authors must provide so-called “Replication Packages” when submitting to the Association’s journals. A replication package should contain or reference the data and code underlying a publication and sufficiently describe the runtime environment. On this basis, Vilhuber’s team can perform reproducibility checks with the aim of obtaining computationally identical results. Since 2019, 1,500 publications have been checked in this way. However, Vilhuber points out limitations in this process. For example, programming errors are not checked, or complex computer environments can make computational reproducibility difficult or even impossible. Even if it is sometimes difficult to achieve today, the goal must be an all-encompassing replication package for the sake of transparency. When creating this package, authors must also think from the perspective of the reviewers, for example, what they need to carry out a reproduction (“computational empathy”), says Vilhuber. And transparency and reproducibility do not end with the journal publication; one has to get away from the concept of the final publication. For example, building replications can follow, including in the form of replication games. Vilhuber also emphasized that the implementation of replications must be better anchored in academic training.
In the last presentation, “Economics needs self-reflection: Are transparency standards enough?” (PDF, German), Professor Jörg Ankel-Peters of RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research and founding member of the Institute for Replication addressed the resilience of modern empirical economics. In principle, great progress has been made in implementing research transparency, Ankel-Peters said, for example in the area of data and code sharing and prespecification. But the road does not end with the creation of transparency standards, he said. A culture of meta-analysis (how can everything be put together to form a consolidated, generalized picture) and organized skepticism (methodological questioning of published results) is lacking in economics, he said. In this respect, there are signs of a “replication crisis” in economics, Ankel-Peters said. He followed this up with the question of what economic researchers actually replicate for, and brought the concept of “policing replications” into play. A “policing replication” is one that directly addresses and “challenges” a previously published paper. This can have a “regulatory effect,” Ankel-Peters said. However, the proportion of “policing replications” in published replications is very small, at 1- 3%, he said. And this type of replication is not without problems, he said, since they are both costly and highly socially and culturally sensitive. Nevertheless, Ankel-Peters called for critical self-reflection to become part of work in economics.
In the presentations, it became clear that economics researchers are currently quite aware of a further development of research transparency in economics and business studies. The examples presented show how Open Practices are becoming increasingly entrenched. In the discussion that followed, however, it also became clear that the journey is not yet over and that the discourse must continue, for example, on what should be achieved by creating transparency. For example, should more collaboration and reuse be achieved, should systematic quality assurance be pursued through reproducibility standards, or should targeted use of replications be the focus? In this context, a change in the work culture, for example the development of a different error culture, as well as the systematic teaching of necessary skills, also belong. In line with this, two groups have already formed in the Meet-Up to further develop the topics “Incentives, Culture, Conflict Readiness” and “Education”.
This text has been translated from German.
You may also find interesting:
Photos: David Außerhofer, ZBW©
The post Open Science Symposium: Open Practices and Transparency in Business Studies and Economics first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
Libraries continue to sign Transformative Agreements while becoming increasingly convinced that they do not represent the desired transformation. Peter Barr explains why this happens.
The post Guest Post — Why Are UK Libraries Signing a Springer-Nature Deal They Don’t Seem to Like? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
“Researchers have only so many hours in a day; if they can spend one less hour on a research article because we have implemented improved workflows and better technology, that’s one more hour they can spend on research to try to save my life, and the lives of all ALS patients.” In today’s post, Bruce Rosenblum shares his experience as a clinical trial participant and how that contributed to scholarly publications.
The post Guest Post — Being Research Data appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
by Doreen Siegfried
Since 2020, the ZBW has been conducting interviews with business studies and economics researchers from all associated disciplines and career stages for the Open Science Magazine. The question is always: What experiences have you had with individual practices in the context of “Open Science”, be it pre-registrations, data sharing, replications, scholarly communication, registered reports, open access publications and much more. By now, interviews have been conducted with more than 50 people from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and even Great Britain for the Open Science Magazine.
What is special about these interviews is that the researchers are dynamic, active, inspired, and are setting up Open Science training courses, mentoring programmes, peer2peer exchanges, and much more locally at their university or research institution. Each and every one of them on their own. Hardly anyone knows about the activities of Open Science proponents from business studies and economics at other locations.
We wanted to change that and bring together researchers of business administration and economics who are already interested in and committed to Open Science for the first time. The goal of our first Open Science Meet Up on 27 April 2023, was mainly to get to know each other and then to work together on a concrete agenda of how to raise the topic of Open Science jointly with the ZBW to a new level and bring Open Science into the mainstream of working in business studies and economics.
It was important for the ZBW to create an inspiring space and connect people who want to take tangible steps. Below you can read about how the first Meet Up was designed specifically and what work results were.
As a venue we chose the Schleswig-Holstein State Representation in Berlin, which is centrally located on Potsdamer Platz and offers a stimulating ambience. We stripped the room of standard furniture for the Meet Up and brought our own cardboard materials instead (see photos). This was firstly to make the environment as aesthetically pleasing as possible for these 3.5 hours, secondly to support the out-of-the-box thinking approach and thirdly to have as much space as possible for moving participation. The Meet Up was moderated and prepared by the ZBW together with Henning Humml from Weltenerbauer (German).
15 committed participants from business research and economics being Open Science proponents for their discipline at the same time met at the invitation of the ZBW to work out important topics for the further development of Open Science in a co-creative workshop format. Three stations were used to collect, discuss, and prioritize ideas. In the end, teams were formed for future work on the selected topics. We present the process in detail here:
In order to break the ice from the beginning and create an easy working atmosphere, we photographed the participants with a Polaroid camera at the beginning.
The portraits were pinned on the welcome board so that those arriving could immediately get an overview of the others present. After a round of getting to know each other, we went straight to the first table.
Each participant first wrote down her or his own ideas for important topics that could contribute to the advancement of Open Science on post-its.
Then the topics were categorized into the following clusters at the first table:
The collected topics were jointly transferred to the second table and prioritized based on two criteria: Relevance to the community and feasibility (time).
In the upper right corner, thus categorized as “very relevant to the community” and “quickly implementable”, were found after extensive discussion the topics of (1) leading debate on “How do we receive replications?”, 2) highlighting the importance of meta studies & meta analyses, and 3) discussing conflict readiness of Open Science. Somewhat below that, that means “relevant for the community” and “feasible in the medium term”, were the topics “offering events for the exchange of experiences” and “critically discussing the feasibility of Open Science”.
The prioritized topics were presented on the third table. The participants then chose their personal favorites and formed two teams. The favorites of this Open Science Meet Up were:
Other interesting but less prioritized topics were: Events, Funding, Community of Practice, and Infrastructure.
The first Open Science Meet Up of the ZBW was a productive start to the joint work on important topics for the further development of Open Science in business and economics research. Two teams were formed and will now focus on “Incentives, Culture, Conflict Readiness” and “Education”. In the next Open Science Meet Up, these teams will deepen their work and jointly develop concrete solutions. We are eager to see the results and look forward to continuing this exciting process.
You may also find interesting:
Photos: ZBW©, photographer: David Außerhofer
The post Open Science Meet Up: Creating the Future Together first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
A.J. Boston offers a route for managing closed access e-serials in a way that finds the best value for libraries, the most content for users, keeps publishers solvent, and experiments on behalf of equity.
The post Guest Post – Manifesto for a New Read Deal appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
When a journal’s entire editorial board is replaced, is it still the same journal? And if that board starts another journal on the same topic, is it a new one or a continuation of the old one? Discuss.
The post Is the Essence of a Journal Portable? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Is the OA movement painting itself into a corner with concerns about new OA rules and regulations?
The post The Ivies (Plus) Have Concerns about the Nelson OSTP Memo appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Part three of a three-part series aims to discuss the topic of advancing accessibility within scholarly communication with the focus of digital accessibility.
The post Guest Post — Advancing Accessibility in Scholarly Publishing: Recommendations for Digital Accessibility Best Practices appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Part two of a three-part series aims to discuss the topic of advancing accessibility within scholarly communication with the focus of digital accessibility.
The post Guest Post — Advancing Accessibility in Scholarly Publishing: Building Support appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Part one of a three-part series aims to discuss the topic of advancing accessibility within scholarly communication with the focus of digital accessibility.
The post Guest Post — Advancing Accessibility in Scholarly Publishing: Fostering Empathy appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.