A Community Handbook for Open Data Science

“The Turing Way started in December 2018 and has quickly evolved into a collaborative, inclusive and international endeavor with the aim of uncovering gold standards to ensure reproducible, ethical, inclusive and collaborative data science. How did this happen? I think two ingredients were central to The Turing Way‘s success: extraordinary community building and a clear enticing vision….

Anyone can contribute is a central theme. And not only that: anyone can bring ideas to the table. And folks are doing just that. At the time of writing this post 168 people have contributed. So on average the project has gained 9 new contributors every month since it’s initiation….”

Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities | The BMJ

Abstract:  Objective To determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide.

Design Cross sectional study.

Setting International sample of universities.

Participants 170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list.

Main outcome measure Presence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties.

Results A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria.

Conclusions This study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria.

Universal Funders’ Policy on Open Deposition of Publication-Associated Records

“A condition of being awarded funding by [FUNDER] is that researchers commit to making all source evidence such as data and computer code supporting published research — hence referred to in this policy as the records — publicly available as Open Access outputs, to the maximum extent permitted by relevant legal and ethical requirements. Where the materials can be legally and ethically published and made available, they must be released in synchrony with peer-reviewed outputs rather than at the end of the project. “Data will be available upon (reasonable) request from the corresponding author(s)” will no longer be acceptable in publications featuring work funded by [FUNDER]. …”

Universal Funders’ Policy on Open Deposition of Publication-Associated Records

“A condition of being awarded funding by [FUNDER] is that researchers commit to making all source evidence such as data and computer code supporting published research — hence referred to in this policy as the records — publicly available as Open Access outputs, to the maximum extent permitted by relevant legal and ethical requirements. Where the materials can be legally and ethically published and made available, they must be released in synchrony with peer-reviewed outputs rather than at the end of the project. “Data will be available upon (reasonable) request from the corresponding author(s)” will no longer be acceptable in publications featuring work funded by [FUNDER]. …”

A framework for thinking about the ‘new normal’ – Research Libraries UK

“The library community is one that prides itself on being open and collaborative. And so, as we move into the new normal, I hope that these instincts will come to the fore. But we should acknowledge that there are significant overheads to collaboration and cooperation. There may be long term benefits, but there are short term costs both directly and in staff time.  As budgets are squeezed in the short to medium term how can we ensure that collaboration continues?

 

Beyond the library community, there are a number of areas where alliances could be strengthened.  UK funders have placed a lot of emphasis on open research and the Covid crisis will be a promoter of that agenda – as researchers look to read preprints and papers beyond paywalls, as sequences and trials data are shared, as questions around epidemiology and the economics of reopening continue, the arguments for open research become stronger. The research library community is well placed to work with funders to support open research….”

Open Entomology: Tips and Tools for Better Reproducibility in Your Research

“Many tools are available to make our work more reproducible, and I outline several in more detail in my paper, “A Guide and Toolbox to Replicability and Open Science in Entomology,” published in May in the open-access Journal of Insect Science. The article is part of a special “Open Entomology” group of papers published in the journal. I cowrote it with my advisor, Brian Aukema, Ph.D., of the University of Minnesota because there does not seem to be much open science communication targeted at the entomology community.

Open science practices and tools exist to make it easier for other people to pick up our work and see how we did it, which has the side effect of being beneficial to us individually! There is a common adage uttered in many statistics courses that captures this sentiment: “Your most important collaborator is you 6 months from now, and past you doesn’t answer emails.” At the start of my graduate work, I can’t tell you how many times I had to spend a few hours reacquainting myself with old data or analyses. If I had been aware of the open science movement and all the tools and practices available to me, I could have saved myself many headaches. Below are a few ways you can save yourself a headache, while simultaneously making your work more open and reproducible….

 

Open Repositories Conference Handbook – OR Steering Committee – LYRASIS Wiki

“This document is intended to serve both as an aide-memoire for the Open Repositories organization and as a loose guide for each year’s conference organisers. We attempt to keep this as up to date as possible, but there may be areas which are inaccurate. If you have questions, please contact the Chair of the Open Repositories Steering Committee..

Following the overview, the middle sections of the document are essentially a walk through of the conference “creation” process whilst the Appendices contain related documents that will be useful in the process….”

Upcycling a Schol Comm Unit: Building Bridges with Creativity, Reallocations, and Limited Resources: The Serials Librarian: Vol 78, No 1-4

Abstract:  Despite limited resources, the nascent Scholarly Communication Unit of the David L. Rice Library has focused on creatively developing the themes of NASIG’s Scholarly Communication Competencies within and outside the library in order to develop scholarly communication services at the University of Southern Indiana. This paper describes the creation and development of the unit, its strengths and weaknesses, and some lessons learned, in the hopes that more libraries like ours will see scholarly communication work as valuable and attainable.

 

Academic publishing is absolute disgrace and needs fixing now | Stuff.co.nz

“It’s clear that Covid-19 is disrupting much of the world as we knew it. My hope is that we come out of this pandemic with an academic publishing model fit for purpose.

That has to be better than the current system of handing over vast amounts of public money that could have been spent on research.”