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.
by Birgit Fingerle and Guido Scherp
The tenth edition of the Open Science Conference 2023 took place on June 27-29, 2023 online. The 228 participants from 34 countries were offered a diverse program of 14 presentations, 21 practical solutions, eight workshops, and one panel.
Youtube: Klaus Tochtermann: Opening Open Science Conference 2023, zbw©
As in previous years, the conference was opened by Professor Klaus Tochtermann, Director of the ZBW – Leibniz Information Center for Economics. He outlined the development of the conference since 2014, when it was established as Science 2.0 Conference. Its topics initially focused on the use of participatory tools, or rather on the influence of social media on research and the associated changes. Since 2017, Open Science has been the main focus, at first still strongly influenced by policy topics and a focus on research data, for example in the context of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). In addition to a broader range of topics, Open Science at the conference is increasingly viewed from a global perspective, for example topics such as inclusion and equity are being more and more addressed. The program nowadays is also strongly characterized by successful practical examples of Open Research, but current challenges are always considered as well. This blog post takes up some of the fascinating insights from the conference.
Several contributions impressively demonstrated how Open Practices can be strategically anchored and implemented with very different objectives.
Youtube: Ludwig Hülk: Unite behind the (Open) Science – OS for a Global Energy System Transformation, zbw©
Ludwig Hülk, scientist and project leader at the Reiner Lemoine Institute, presented in his talk“Unite behind the (Open) Science – Open Science for a Global Energy System Transformation” how embedding Open Practices in the energy system research community has been successful. With energy-related CO2 emissions accounting for a large share of total emissions, decarbonizing energy systems is of particular relevance when addressing the climate crisis. And time is running out. Thus, efficiency and high re-usability of results were key triggers to consistently embed open practices. This has resulted in a collaborative Open Science ecosystem, with various platforms and tools for sharing open and FAIR data, for example. Some of the tools can also be used by the public.
Youtube: Jana Hoffmann: Leading Change in Organizations: Towards an Open Knowledge Infrastructure for Nature, zbw©
In the presentation “Leading Change in Organizations: Towards an Open Knowledge Infrastructure for Nature” gab Jana Hoffmann, co-leader of the science program “Collection Future” at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (MfN), which is also a research museum, gave an insight into a transformation process underway there.
The goal is to develop the entire collection into an open knowledge infrastructure and to make it completely accessible in a new way, especially via digital methods. This serves research itself, but also brings research and the public closer together. With numerous examples, she showed how knowledge can be made accessible and new opportunities for public participation can be created in virtual space as well as on site – and how both worlds can be brought together. This made the collection a unique environment for trying out and reflecting on open practices.
The challenges facing researchers in ecology were the subject of the keynote talk “Meta-Science and Open Science for Ecology: The Revolution We Need” by Antica Culina, senior scientist at the Ruder Boskovic Institute. Her work on local and global challenges around climate change, which she hopes to solve with Open Science, is hampered not only by the extreme complexity of ecological systems, but also by the poor accessibility and re-usability of existing research. To this end, Antica Culina presented several case studies.
For example, she worked with other researchers to calculate “Wasted Research” in ecology. Result: Out of more than 10,000 studies, 45% were not even published. Of the published studies, in turn, a large proportion had serious quality deficiencies. This resulted in 82% wasted research in the best-case scenario and 89% in the worst-case scenario. She sees Open Science as a key enabler to improve these inefficiencies and solve the complex research challenges as quickly as possible.
There are a few examples of near-instantaneous data sharing in ecology. But in general, Open Science practices are still not widespread there. An analysis of Open Data found by the team in terms of its reusability was not very successful. In many cases, the data’s poor quality hindered its reusability. In another case, they found a lot of Open Data on a research question, but upon closer inspection were unable to conduct the planned study at the end of the day, again because of poor data quality.
Another area Antica Culina looked at was Open Code. Given the serious impact on research results that even small programming errors can have, she said it is surprising that code is not part of the peer review process, as it is in software development. Sharing code allows better understanding of analyses, evaluation of conclusions, and reuse of code, which can save a lot of work time. It also increases confidence in science because it boosts reproducibility. However, an analysis of data from 400 random papers from journals with code-sharing policies showed that 73% of the papers nevertheless had no code available. In conjunction with other problems, this led to only 21% of the paper being potentially computationally reproducible.
For the first time, this year’s conference featured so-called “highlight talks” on the latest research findings on Open Science.
Youtube: Ronny Röwert: What Drives Open Science Pioneers? Evidence from Open Science Award Winners , zbw©
Ronny Röwert, research associate at the Institute for Technical Education and University Didactics at the Technical University of Hamburg, presented his study “What Drives Open Science Pioneers? Evidence from Open Science Award Winners” conducted as part of his doctoral thesis in which he had asked 13 thirteen winners of Open Science Awards about their motivations for Open Research. The most frequently cited reasons were the subsequent use of one’s own research results (benefit for science), citation advantages (benefit for researchers), and public interest or the social relevance of the research (benefit for society). Despite existing differences between the disciplines, there could always be observed a balanced interplay between egoistic and altruistic motives. In his conclusion, Röwert emphasized the importance of motivation in the implementation of Open Science and that appropriate framework conditions must be in place for a strong commitment. Otherwise:
“Research culture eats open science strategy for breakfast”.
In the contribution “Results of Monitoring on Open Science and Research in Finland: Perspective of the UAS Sector” Anne Kärki, researcher at Satakunta University of Applied Sciences, presented the results of an Open Science monitoring for universities of applied sciences (UAS) in Finland.
Youtube: Anne Kärki: Results of Monitoring on Open Science and Research in Finland: Perspective of the UAS Sector, zbw©
The “Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020-2025”, (PDF) is a shared vision for the Finnish research community, and the 23 UAS are united by their strong commitment to it. Questionnaire-based monitoring (the data is open) was used to measure the degree of implementation of openness for the first time. This covered the areas of culture for Open Science, Open Access to scientific publications, Open Access to research data and methods, and Open Education and Open Access to educational resources. It showed that the majority of UAS are already doing very well, especially in terms of Open Access. Deficits were identified with regard to Open Science culture, among other things because concepts such as Citizen Science are not yet really tangible. The area of Open Education was found to be very heterogeneous in its degree of implementation; some UAS have not yet taken it up at all. Kärki emphasized that the first monitoring deliberately did not yet include everything and was not as rigorous.
The currently very present topic of reforming research assessment, which is driven in particular by CoARA (Coalition for advancing research assessment), and the connection of CoARA with Open Science were discussed at the panel on “Reforming Research Assessment in the Spirit of Open Science” diskutiert.
Youtube: Panel Discussion with Lidia Borrell-Damian, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Claudia Labisch and Iris Lechner: Reforming Research Assessment in the Spirit of Open Science, zbw©
With Lidia Borrell-Damian (Science Europe) as a member of the CoARA Steering Board, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz (PLOS) as a representative of a publisher, Claudia Labisch (Leibniz Association) as a representative of a research organization, and Iris Lechner as a young scientist, different perspectives were represented.
After initial hesitation, around 600 organizations have now signed the CoARA agreement , including PLOS and the Leibniz Association. There were and are definitely concerns from the research community. Among other things, there were fears that the reform process launched by the European Commission was too strongly guided by science policy and would take control away from the scientific community. In the meantime, these concerns have been dispelled. In the panel, it was stated that research assessment must of course remain science-led and existing systems must be taken into account.
The course of the discussion showed that Open Science is seen as an integral part of CoARA, being one of the key drivers. Therefore, the involvement of Open Science advocates must be ensured everywhere, including in the working groups to be established. The panel gave a clear message to the Open Science community:
“Get involved! After all, CoARA and Open Science have a common goal, to improve research.”
However, the role of publishers in this process has yet to be determined. At the moment, it is more of an observational role. Ultimately, part of the reform process is to enforce the recognition of more diverse research outputs, such as data and code. This will have implications for future publication formats, their linkage to each other, and their peer review.
The most important aspect emphasized several times was the consideration of early career researchers. They are already represented in the CoARA Steering Board and this will also be ensured for all working groups. In the context of the reforms, there must also be a broad discussion of what a future researcher actually is and what achievements are recognized, for example, team leadership, science communication and public involvement. The panel also emphasized that this process would take time and that young researchers should not lose patience. It is all the more important, they said, to design the transitional phase of research assessment in such a way that early career researchers are always given guidance. In a statement, the following applies to the reform process:
“Generation of young researchers must be the winners.”
To sum up the conference, a statement from the panel can be taken up: “We cannot turn the wheel back”. Even though there is still a long way to go, Open Science is well on its way to becoming the modus operandi of science, and with each passing year, more and more foundations are being laid. In 2023, the Open Science Conference again provided good insights into what Open Science can look like in practice.
All talks and the panel were recorded and can be found on YouTube. The slides for the presentations are available on Zenodo.
You may also find this interesting:
Dr Guido Scherp is Head of the “Open-Science-Transfer” department at the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics. He can also be found on LinkedIn and Twitter.
Portrait: ZBW©, photographer: Sven Wied
The post Open Science Conference 2023: Old Hurdles and new Practical Successes for the Anniversary first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
Peer Review Week is an annual global event exploring and celebrating the essential role of peer review. This year’s Peer Review Week theme is “Peer Review and the Future of Publishing.”
The post Guest Post — Peer Review Week 2023 to Focus on Peer Review and the Future of Publishing 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.
We are pleased to announce the completion of a study on the current landscape of non-legislative policy practices affecting researchers and authors in the authors’ rights and licensing domain. The freshly […]
The post New SPARC Europe’s report on rights retention and open licensing in Europe appeared first on SPARC Europe.
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.
Jo Havemann presents a map containing more than 200 resources and supplementary data nodes across the spectrum of available tools, guidelines, events, and services by research discipline, also including general resources that are sortable by Open Science principle, language or country.
The post Guest Post – Mapping Open Science Resources from Around the World by Discipline appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Rebecca Lawrence discusses how connections across all aspects of the system are needed for open research to flourish and deliver upon its promise.
The post Guest Post — Why Interoperability Matters for Open Research – And More than Ever appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
The DIAMAS project has just launched a survey which is of high relevance to the future of Open Access! DIAMAS supports Open Access Diamond and institutional publishing by setting new standards, […]
The post Help us understand Open Access Diamond and institutional publishing appeared first on SPARC Europe.
by André Vatter
The claim that AI language models are here to stay should be irrefutable by now. Although just introduced to the public in November 2022, ChatGPT has made rapid progress in this short time. How rapid? Let’s compare: After its founding, it took Twitter two years and Facebook ten months to build up a base of one million users. ChatGPT managed to reach this milestone in only five days. Two months after its launch, almost forty percent (German) of all Germans said they had heard of the chat robot or had already tried it.
But as impressive as the private adoption rate is today, what is more exciting is the escalations that ChatGPT has caused hitting the corporate world. Microsoft’s announcement of its plan to integrate the generative language model into its own search engine Bing caused sheer panic among the undisputed global industry leader Google. Google has been tinkering with an AI-supported web search for some time, but it has not yet been able to demonstrate that it is really ready for the market. There is a name, “Bard“, but CEO Sundar Pinchai is silent about concrete integrations. On the other hand, Microsoft was able to announce just a few days ago that its own search engine, which had hardly been noticed by users for decades, had to cope with a sudden rush of visitors:
“We have crossed 100M Daily Active Users of Bing. This is a surprisingly notable figure, and yet we are fully aware we remain a small, low, single digit share player. That said, it feels good to be at the dance!”
Redmond, Washington, is in an AI frenzy. In the future, there will hardly be a business area at Microsoft – whether B2B or B2C – in which ChatGPT does not play a role.
The disruption is also leaving its mark on the smaller competitors. Brave Search, the web search engine created by the US browser manufacturer Brave Software Inc. recently got a new AI feature. The “Summarizer” not only summarises facts directly at the top of the search results page, but also provides relevant content information for each result found. There are also changes at the privacy-focussed search engine DuckDuckGo, which has just launched “DuckAssist“. Depending on the question, the new AI feature taps Wikipedia for relevant information and offers concrete answers while still being on the search results page. But this is just the beginning: “This is the first in a series of generative AI-assisted features we hope to roll out in the coming months.”
All these integrations of AI language models into search engines are not about creating extensions to the existing, respective business model. It’s about a complete upheaval in the way we search the web today, how we interpret results and understand them.
Whereas the previous promise of search consisted of an effortful “I’ll show you where you might find the answer”, in combination with AI it suddenly advances to: “Here’s the answer.” Since their invention, search engines have only ever shown us possible ways where answers to our questions might be found. In fact, it has never been the inevitable goal of advertising-based business concepts to provide users with a quick answer. After all, the goal is to keep them in one’s ecosystem as long as possible in order to maximise the likelihood of ad clicks. This is also the reason why Google at some point began to present generally available information – such as times, weather, stock market prices, sports results or flight information – directly on the search results pages (SERPs), for example, in the so-called OneBox. The ultimate ambition is that no one leaves the Googleverse!
Intelligent chatbots, like ChatGPT, get around this problem. On the one hand, they transform the type of search by replacing keywords with questions. Soon, many users are likely to say goodbye to so-called “search terms” or even Boolean operators. Instead, they’ll learn to tweak their prompts more and more to make their communication with the machine more precise. And on the other hand, intelligent chatbots reduce the importance of the original sources; often there is no longer any reason to leave the conversation. Those who search with the help of AI want and get an answer. They do not want a card catalogue with shelf numbers.
We can already see that comfort does not come without critical implications. For example, with regard to the transparency of sources that we may no longer be able to see. Where do they come from? How were they selected? Are they trustworthy? Can I access them specifically? Especially in the scientific sector, reliable answers to these questions are indispensable. Other problems revolve around copyright. After all, AI does not create new information, but relies on the work of journalists who publish on the internet. How will they be remunerated if no one reads their texts and only rely on machine summaries?
Data protection concerns will not be long in coming. In communicating with the machine, a close relationship develops over time; the more it knows about us and can understand our perspective, the more accurately it can respond. In addition, the models need to be trained. Personalisation, however, inevitably means a critical wealth of data in the hands of third parties in return. In the hands of companies that will have to build entirely new business models around a question-answering game – quite a few of which, if not all, will be ad-supported.
AI provides answers. But not really to all questions at the moment. Search will change radically in a short time. Academic libraries with online services will also have to orient themselves accordingly and adapt. Perhaps the “catalogue” as a static directory or list will take a step back. Let’s imagine for a moment the scenario of an AI that has access to a gigantic corpus of Open Access texts. Researchers access several sources simultaneously, have them sorted, summarised in terms of content and classified: Have these papers been supported or falsified? The picture that emerges is of a new mechanism for making scientific knowledge accessible and comprehensible. Provided, of course, that the underlying content is openly accessible. From this perspective, too, here is once again a clear plea for Open Science.
So, how do academic libraries implement these technologies in the future? How do they create source transparency, how do they build trust and which disciplines of media literacy move to the foreground when new, machine-friendly communication is part of the research toolbox? Many questions, many uncertainties – but at the same time a great potential for the future supply of scientific information. A potential that libraries should use to actively shape the unstoppable change.
This might also interest you:
The post ChatGPT & Co.: When the Search Slot turns into an AI Chatbox first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
by André Vatter
The claim that AI language models are here to stay should be irrefutable by now. Although just introduced to the public in November 2022, ChatGPT has made rapid progress in this short time. How rapid? Let’s compare: After its founding, it took Twitter two years and Facebook ten months to build up a base of one million users. ChatGPT managed to reach this milestone in only five days. Two months after its launch, almost forty percent (German) of all Germans said they had heard of the chat robot or had already tried it.
But as impressive as the private adoption rate is today, what is more exciting is the escalations that ChatGPT has caused hitting the corporate world. Microsoft’s announcement of its plan to integrate the generative language model into its own search engine Bing caused sheer panic among the undisputed global industry leader Google. Google has been tinkering with an AI-supported web search for some time, but it has not yet been able to demonstrate that it is really ready for the market. There is a name, “Bard“, but CEO Sundar Pinchai is silent about concrete integrations. On the other hand, Microsoft was able to announce just a few days ago that its own search engine, which had hardly been noticed by users for decades, had to cope with a sudden rush of visitors:
“We have crossed 100M Daily Active Users of Bing. This is a surprisingly notable figure, and yet we are fully aware we remain a small, low, single digit share player. That said, it feels good to be at the dance!”
Redmond, Washington, is in an AI frenzy. In the future, there will hardly be a business area at Microsoft – whether B2B or B2C – in which ChatGPT does not play a role.
The disruption is also leaving its mark on the smaller competitors. Brave Search, the web search engine created by the US browser manufacturer Brave Software Inc. recently got a new AI feature. The “Summarizer” not only summarises facts directly at the top of the search results page, but also provides relevant content information for each result found. There are also changes at the privacy-focussed search engine DuckDuckGo, which has just launched “DuckAssist“. Depending on the question, the new AI feature taps Wikipedia for relevant information and offers concrete answers while still being on the search results page. But this is just the beginning: “This is the first in a series of generative AI-assisted features we hope to roll out in the coming months.”
All these integrations of AI language models into search engines are not about creating extensions to the existing, respective business model. It’s about a complete upheaval in the way we search the web today, how we interpret results and understand them.
Whereas the previous promise of search consisted of an effortful “I’ll show you where you might find the answer”, in combination with AI it suddenly advances to: “Here’s the answer.” Since their invention, search engines have only ever shown us possible ways where answers to our questions might be found. In fact, it has never been the inevitable goal of advertising-based business concepts to provide users with a quick answer. After all, the goal is to keep them in one’s ecosystem as long as possible in order to maximise the likelihood of ad clicks. This is also the reason why Google at some point began to present generally available information – such as times, weather, stock market prices, sports results or flight information – directly on the search results pages (SERPs), for example, in the so-called OneBox. The ultimate ambition is that no one leaves the Googleverse!
Intelligent chatbots, like ChatGPT, get around this problem. On the one hand, they transform the type of search by replacing keywords with questions. Soon, many users are likely to say goodbye to so-called “search terms” or even Boolean operators. Instead, they’ll learn to tweak their prompts more and more to make their communication with the machine more precise. And on the other hand, intelligent chatbots reduce the importance of the original sources; often there is no longer any reason to leave the conversation. Those who search with the help of AI want and get an answer. They do not want a card catalogue with shelf numbers.
We can already see that comfort does not come without critical implications. For example, with regard to the transparency of sources that we may no longer be able to see. Where do they come from? How were they selected? Are they trustworthy? Can I access them specifically? Especially in the scientific sector, reliable answers to these questions are indispensable. Other problems revolve around copyright. After all, AI does not create new information, but relies on the work of journalists who publish on the internet. How will they be remunerated if no one reads their texts and only rely on machine summaries?
Data protection concerns will not be long in coming. In communicating with the machine, a close relationship develops over time; the more it knows about us and can understand our perspective, the more accurately it can respond. In addition, the models need to be trained. Personalisation, however, inevitably means a critical wealth of data in the hands of third parties in return. In the hands of companies that will have to build entirely new business models around a question-answering game – quite a few of which, if not all, will be ad-supported.
AI provides answers. But not really to all questions at the moment. Search will change radically in a short time. Academic libraries with online services will also have to orient themselves accordingly and adapt. Perhaps the “catalogue” as a static directory or list will take a step back. Let’s imagine for a moment the scenario of an AI that has access to a gigantic corpus of Open Access texts. Researchers access several sources simultaneously, have them sorted, summarised in terms of content and classified: Have these papers been supported or falsified? The picture that emerges is of a new mechanism for making scientific knowledge accessible and comprehensible. Provided, of course, that the underlying content is openly accessible. From this perspective, too, here is once again a clear plea for Open Science.
So, how do academic libraries implement these technologies in the future? How do they create source transparency, how do they build trust and which disciplines of media literacy move to the foreground when new, machine-friendly communication is part of the research toolbox? Many questions, many uncertainties – but at the same time a great potential for the future supply of scientific information. A potential that libraries should use to actively shape the unstoppable change.
This text has been translated from German.
This might also interest you:
The post ChatGPT & Co.: When the Search Slot turns into an AI Chatbox first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
An interview with Kristin Hirschmann
Around ten years ago, the first Barcamp to focus especially on the topic of Open Educational Resources (OER) was held in Germany. For the anniversary event in October 2022 there were 446 registrations, 19 workshops, 56 Barcamp sessions, 235 minutes of video, keynotes and live podcasts ranging from Austria to New Zealand.
In this interview Kristin Hirschmann, project manager of the OERcamps organised by the J&K – Jöran und Konsorten training agency, reports on the development of the Barcamps and further OERcamp formats.
At the OERcamp in October 2022, the main focus was on the OER strategy of the federal government, introduced in the summer by Jens Brandenburg, parliamentary state secretary at the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The third day of the OERcamp was therefore completely dedicated to the strategy: Stakeholders of the OER community discussed and reviewed the different areas of activity of the strategy. We also made it possible for members of the OER community who were not able to be present at the OERcamp to comment on the results realised at the event. This commentary phase took place during the two weeks following the event via a collaborative document; 100 contributions were also added.
By agency J&K – Jöran und Konsorten for the OERcamp 2022 under CC BY 4.0
What’s more, after almost 3 years without face-to-face events, people felt it was important to bring the community together in one place. I received this feedback from many participants: the personal networking and exchange was even more important.
The first OERcamp took place at Bremen University in 2012. Since then, the OERcamp format has developed further according to current requirements: An OERcamp took place in Berlin every year until 2016. In 2017 there were then two innovations: the OERcamp was extended to four events for the first time: in the north, east, west and south. The OER Award was also established to select the best open educational materials in German-speaking countries. In 2018, the principle of one OERcamp in each of the four points of the compass in Germany was established. In 2019–2020, the OERcamp formats were refined so that the 5 aims of the OERcamp (qualification of OER, OER mainstreaming, networking and exchange, creation of specific materials and enabling a culture of sharing) could be implemented even more successfully. This means that alongside the participatory format of the Barcamp, there are now OERcamp workshops that focus on the creation and publication of OER as well as small, compact OERcamps that are affiliated to other events.
By agency J&K – Jöran und Konsorten for the OERcamp 2022 under CC BY 4.0
In 2020, the OERcamps were held in a virtual format owing to the coronavirus pandemic. With online formats such as the OERcamp webtalks or the OERcamp SummOERschool, we were able to respond to the urgent need of teachers to find, use and create digital teaching and learning materials quickly.
Further milestones that we were pleased about were the „Open Innovation Award 2020“(German) of the OE Awards Committee of “Open Education Global” at the 2020 OERcamp, the recognition of the work of the OERcamps with the 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report the first international OERcamp in December 2021, OERcamp.global. This was, moreover, the first 48-hour festival on OER, and received 1063 registrations from 87 countries.
At the OERcamps, I am struck time and again by the participants, who are exceptionally enthusiastic. Of course, this comes on the one hand from the participatory format of the Barcamp. On the other hand, the formats of the OERcamp, such as the OERcamp workshop, are very needs-based and offer many more programmes than the participants can use: the participants therefore need the courage and openness to decide what they need for their personal OER journey from the abundance of programmes.
By agency J&K – Jöran und Konsorten for the OERcamp 2022 under CC BY 4.0
I also enjoy the great mix of people: those who are attending the OERcamp for the first time, and OER connoisseurs and pros. Experience has shown that around half the participants at the events are OERcamp newbies. The exchange that takes place there is very fruitful and also serves the aim of making OER accessible to a wider group of people.
In the OERcamp workshop, great focus is placed on the creation as well as the publication of OER. This is owing to the concept, because OER newbies receive a low-barrier start to working with OER thanks to the concrete utilisation of OER. This very specific learning-by-doing thereby enables them to experience the culture of sharing. I find this experience in particular a very important basis for continuing to engage with OER, and therefore also using the potentials of the OER community. The fact that we promote this active engagement with OER through the OERcamp format is something special, in my opinion.
The members of the OER community are not merely participants at an OERcamp who consume one-sidedly, but also central components who give input, ensure exchange and networking, thereby also ensuring the further development of OER and its dissemination.
From an international point of view, OER has even greater relevance than in German-speaking countries. The CC summit of Creative Commons, the Open Education Global Conference with the Open Education Week, the Open Education Policy Forum, the OER22 Conference, the Open Science Conference and the OpenEd are just a few events that focus on OER. At the events, it also becomes clear that OER plays a role on all continents. There is even more value placed on OER as a correct step towards more educational fairness and, above all, equity and social inclusion.
There is already a wide range of materials available for getting started in OER. This includes the #OERklärt video series (German), which explains the OER basics. This is published via OERinfo (German), the information centre for Open Educational Resources. The platform iRights.info (German) focuses on OER from a legal perspective. And the OERcamps themselves have published diverse materials that can also be further used. The campus of the OERcamps (German), for example, offers 12 online courses with know-how on OER. These include “100 great sources for OER”, “videos and audios as OER” or “online courses with and as OER”.
For librarians in particular, I recommend Fachstelle Öffentliche Bibliotheken NRW (German) – which emerged from the “oebib” blog, which has already been very active since 2015.
This text has been translated from German.
This might also interest you:
Kristin Hirschmann is a cultural and educational scientist. She works as project manager for the J&K – Jöran und Konsorten (German) training agency – a “think and do tank” for contemporary training. In this context, she designs and organises educational events for all educational fields and works in a content-related capacity on the topic of Open Education/Open Training.
Portrait: Kristin Hirschmann©
The post 10 Years of OERcamp: Community Get-together on Digital and Open Educational Resources first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
Author: Marcel LaFlamme, Open Research Manager, PLOS
When authors submit a Lab Protocol to PLOS ONE, they prepare a short manuscript that contextualizes their step-by-step protocol, describing the value it adds to the published literature and providing evidence that the protocol works. This additional context helps readers to decide whether and, if so, how to adapt the protocol for their own research.
In 2023, PLOS is making it easier for authors to share these protocol manuscripts as preprints, by expanding our partnership with the preprint server bioRxiv to include Lab Protocols.
During the submission process, Lab Protocol authors will now be asked if they want PLOS to forward their manuscript to bioRxiv to be considered for public posting within a few days. Facilitated posting to bioRxiv has been offered at PLOS ONE since 2018. Extending this service to Lab Protocols means that authors can share and get credit for their methods development work sooner, even as the peer review process unfolds.
In keeping with PLOS ONE’s multidisciplinary scope, Lab Protocol submissions are welcomed from any scientific field. Through the end of 2022, 61% of submitted Lab Protocols were in the life sciences, making bioRxiv an especially suitable partner to promote their early sharing.
“bioRxiv has always encouraged authors to post new methods as preprints,” said Richard Sever, co-founder of bioRxiv. “Formats like Lab Protocols that put protocols in context and provide data supporting their use are a great way to make methods more discoverable, and we’re delighted to partner with PLOS to make these manuscripts immediately available to researchers.”
The post Facilitated Preprint Posting is now available for Lab Protocols at PLOS ONE appeared first on EveryONE.
We are very excited to announce the publication of our 2022 Annual Report. Last year was an eventful year for SPARC Europe, and we were pleased to reconnect with our network […]
The post SPARC Europe highlights of 2022 appeared first on SPARC Europe.
OS Fair 2023 aims to bring together and empower open science communities and services; to identify common practices related to open science; to see what are the best synergies to deliver […]
The post Open Science Fair 2023 appeared first on SPARC Europe.
