Interview with Jon Tennant on Open Science MOOC | Eurodoc

“The Open Science MOOC, which stands for massively open online community, is a project based around people. It is a peer-to-peer community of practice, based around sharing of knowledge and ideas, learning new skills, and using these things to develop as individuals, so that research communities can grow as part of a wider cultural shift towards openness.

We are a mission-driven project to help set the default to ‘open’ for all global research, and driven almost purely by volunteers. Anyone can contribute, and anyone can participate….”

The research ecosystem is changing rapidly and profoundly, Elsevier/Ipsos MORI study shows | EurekAlert! Science News

In 10 years’ time, the academic world will see new funding models, methods of collaboration, and ways of conceptualizing research and measuring its impact – all driven by advances in technology, an empirical study, conducted by information analytics business Elsevier and market research organization Ipsos MORI, showed.

Tech advances are also likely to make research practice and publication faster, and more open. Researchers can expect to benefit from greater career flexibility, better feedback on their work and improved reproducibility.

These are some of the findings presented in the new report, “Research Futures – drivers and scenarios for the next decade“. The report is the result of a year-long, scenario-planning study, drawing on the opinions of more than 2,000 researchers globally, interviews with more than 50 expert stakeholders around the world (including futurists, publishers, funders and technology experts), and a comprehensive review of published literature.

The report lays out three plausible future scenarios showing how the world of research could transform over the next decade. These are [full summaries of each scenario are at the end]:

  • “Brave open world” – considers the rise of open science;
  • “Tech titans” – examines the growing influence and dominance of technology and technology companies; and
  • “Eastern ascendance” – considers a fragmented world in which China plays a key role….”

For Innovation, Open Science Means Open for Business | Centre for International Governance Innovation

“Last week, Celgene – an American biotech company – invested the most ever for a Canadian-discovered early-stage drug. The US$40-million down and potentially US$1-billion deal only came about because of strategic funding by governments both for “open science” partnerships and for risk-taking, IP-generating research and commercialization centres. Open science partnerships openly share data and research results with the scientific community and do not seek patent rights over their results.

The Celgene deal is the fruit of a new innovation path – from open science to Canadian IP – that involves the Ontario government-funded Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (OICR) and its commercialization partner, FACIT Inc. This “made in Canada” approach does not copy U.S. approaches, which commonly result in Canadian IP rights being transferred to foreign firms for pennies on the dollar, as we are doing in the cases of Sidewalk Labs and investments in artificial intelligence. Rather, it leaves the IP in Canada for much longer, within a locally owned company that will continue to develop the drug and conduct clinical trials here, and thus extract fuller scientific and economic value from our investments….

Five years ago, OICR embraced open science as an early innovation strategy and partnered with the SGC. Both OICR and SGC appreciated that although IP is a key pillar of the innovation economy, seeking it too early or by the wrong entity creates barriers to collaboration, leads to redundant research, introduces significant transaction costs and, perhaps counterintuitively, slows down innovation. The open science collaboration allowed knowledge, materials and data to flow freely and enabled OICR and SGC to develop a new chemical probe against the WDR5 protein and to share it freely and rapidly with research groups around the world. Those groups revealed WDR5’s therapeutic role in leukemia, breast cancer and neuroblastoma….”

Plan S feedback | Innovations in Scholarly Communication

We have a few overall recommendations:

  • Improve on the why: make it more clear that Plan S is part of a broader transition towards open science and not only to make papers available and OA cheaper. It is part of changes to make science more efficient, reliable and reusable.
  • Plan S brings great potential, and with that also comes great responsibility for cOAlition S funders. From the start, plan S has been criticized for its perceived focus (in intent and/or expected effects) on APC-based OA publishing. In our reading, both the principles and the implementation guidance recognize for all forms of full OA publishing, including diamond OA and new forms of publishing like overlay journals. However, it will depend to no small extent on the actual recognition and support of non-APC based gold OA models by cOAlitionS funders whether plan S will indeed encourage such bibliodiversity and accompanying equity in publishing opportunities. Examples of initiatives to consider in this regard are OJS journal systems by PKP, Coko open source technology based initiatives, Open Library of HumanitiesScoap3Free Journal Network, and also Scielo and Redalyc in Latin America.
  • The issue of evaluation and assessment is tied closely to the effects Plan S can or will have. It is up to cOAlitionS funders to take actionable steps to turn their commitment to fundamentally revise the incentive and reward system of science in line with DORA into practice, at the same time they are putting the Plan S principles into practice. The two can mutually support each other, as open access journals that also implement other open science criteria such as pre-registration, requirements for FAIR data and selection based on rigorous methodological criteria will facilitate evaluation based on research quality.  
  • Make sure to (also) provide Plan S in the form of one integrated document containing the why, the what and the how on one document. Currently it is too easy to overlook the why. That document should be openly licensed and shared in a reliable archive.
  • In the implementation document include a (graphical) timeline of changes and deadlines….”

Plan S feedback | Innovations in Scholarly Communication

We have a few overall recommendations:

  • Improve on the why: make it more clear that Plan S is part of a broader transition towards open science and not only to make papers available and OA cheaper. It is part of changes to make science more efficient, reliable and reusable.
  • Plan S brings great potential, and with that also comes great responsibility for cOAlition S funders. From the start, plan S has been criticized for its perceived focus (in intent and/or expected effects) on APC-based OA publishing. In our reading, both the principles and the implementation guidance recognize for all forms of full OA publishing, including diamond OA and new forms of publishing like overlay journals. However, it will depend to no small extent on the actual recognition and support of non-APC based gold OA models by cOAlitionS funders whether plan S will indeed encourage such bibliodiversity and accompanying equity in publishing opportunities. Examples of initiatives to consider in this regard are OJS journal systems by PKP, Coko open source technology based initiatives, Open Library of HumanitiesScoap3Free Journal Network, and also Scielo and Redalyc in Latin America.
  • The issue of evaluation and assessment is tied closely to the effects Plan S can or will have. It is up to cOAlitionS funders to take actionable steps to turn their commitment to fundamentally revise the incentive and reward system of science in line with DORA into practice, at the same time they are putting the Plan S principles into practice. The two can mutually support each other, as open access journals that also implement other open science criteria such as pre-registration, requirements for FAIR data and selection based on rigorous methodological criteria will facilitate evaluation based on research quality.  
  • Make sure to (also) provide Plan S in the form of one integrated document containing the why, the what and the how on one document. Currently it is too easy to overlook the why. That document should be openly licensed and shared in a reliable archive.
  • In the implementation document include a (graphical) timeline of changes and deadlines….”

A new EPFL fund rewards nine open science ideas

“In September 2018, EPFL President Martin Vetterli announced the creation of the Open Science Fund to support the best ideas from everyone on campus with a total of CHF 3 Mio over the period 2019-2021.

Nearly 50 applications were submitted to the first call for proposals opened between mid-September and mid-December 2018. After careful evaluation, nine projects were selected by the members of the open science strategic committee, joined for the occasion by representatives of the various faculties. You can find a short description of the laureate ideas below….”

Researchers committed to open-science efforts

“Placing collaboration above competition, Western researchers are giving 300 labs around the world the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the mouse brain in hopes of unlocking the secrets Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders in humans. Led by BrainsCAN, this is the latest and largest project undertaken by the neuroscience initiative in a push for open-science research….”

African Open Science Platform Survey

“This survey – which is the second survey distributed as part of the African Open Science Platform Pilot – will help to contribute to extensive awareness of what is happening on the continent in terms of data sharing and Open Science. It consists of 14 straightforward questions and should only take a few minutes to complete.  …”

AfricaOSH

“Africa OSH is a community of makers, hackers, practitioners and researchers in science and technology inclusive of government officials, private sector players and civil society across the African continent, the global south and the world. Africa OSH provides people interested in open science and hardware an alternative to traditional intellectual property (IP) and closed systems as a means to achieve locally adaptable technologies that will foster economic growth in Africa….”