“Since joining Hindawi last autumn, I have been impressed by my colleagues’ dedication to Open Science and to supporting research communities. We are working on open publishing infrastructures to lead the Open Science publishing agenda and partnering with service providers to bring benefits to our authors around the world.
In this vein, we are pleased to announce today that we are shifting our journal model and appointing Chief Editors on a selection of titles during 2019.
The aim is to improve the way the journals support their communities and is in direct response to conversations we have had with authors and Editorial Board Members and consultations with policy makers, funding agencies, leading databases and Open Access organizations. …”
“Hindawi today announces updates to its journals’ Editorial models to more fully serve their communities and the researchers that publish within them in the era of Open Access, Open Data, Open Infrastructure and Open Science. The open access publisher will be appointing Chief Editors on some titles during 2019 to champion both their journal and Open Science practices, such as data sharing, within the wider academic community. Hindawi is committed to fostering Open Science to help researchers make their research more easy to discover, understand and reuse. To drive this forward, Chief Editors will be directly involved in leading the transition of all journals to follow Open Science practices. As well as having responsibility for the journal’s Aims and Scope and editorial mission, Chief Editors’ will ensure that published articles are in line with the journal aims and that the journal’s output represents a contribution to the specific research community it serves….”
“The CODATA 2019 Conference will be held on 19-20 September 2019 in Beijing, China. This year’s conference theme is: Towards next-generation data-driven science: policies, practices and platforms.
The conference will follow a high-level workshop, 17-18 September 2019, on ‘Implementing Open Research Data Policy and Practice’ that will examine such challenges in China and elsewhere in the light of the emergence of data policies and in particular the China State Council’s Notice on ‘Measures for Managing Scientific Data’.
Science globally is being transformed by new digital technologies. At the same time addressing the major global challenges of the age requires the analysis of vast quantities of heterogeneous data from multiple sources. In response, many countries, regions and scientific domains have developed Research Infrastructures to assist with the management, stewardship and analysis. These developments have been stimulated by Open Science policies and practices, both those developed by funders and those that have emerged from communities. The FAIR principles and supporting practices seek to accelerate this process and unlock the potential of analysis at scale with machines. This conference provides a significant opportunity to survey and examine these developments from a global perspective.”
Abstract: AccessLabs are workshops with two simultaneous motivations, achieved through direct citizen-scientist pairings: (1) to decentralise research skills so that a broader range of people are able to access/use scientific research, and (2) to expose science researchers to the difficulties of using their research as an outsider, creating new open access advocates. Five trial AccessLabs have taken place for policy makers, media/journalists, marine sector participants, community groups, and artists. The act of pairing science academics with local community members helps build understanding and trust between groups at a time when this relationship appears to be under increasing threat from different political and economic currents in society. Here, we outline the workshop motivations, format, and evaluation, with the aim that others can build on the methods developed.
Abstract: Assessing scientists using exploitable metrics can lead to the degradation of research methods even without any strategic behavior on the part of individuals, via “the natural selection of bad science.” Institutional incentives to maximize metrics like publication quantity and impact drive this dynamic. Removing these incentives is necessary, but institutional change is slow. However, recent developments suggest possible solutions with more rapid onsets. These include what we call open science improvements, which can reduce publication bias and improve the efficacy of peer review. In addition, there have been increasing calls for funders to move away from prestige- or innovation-based approaches in favor of lotteries. We investigated whether such changes are likely to improve the reproducibility of science even in the presence of persistent incentives for publication quantity through computational modeling. We found that modified lotteries, which allocate funding randomly among proposals that pass a threshold for methodological rigor, effectively reduce the rate of false discoveries, particularly when paired with open science improvements that increase the publication of negative results and improve the quality of peer review. In the absence of funding that targets rigor, open science improvements can still reduce false discoveries in the published literature but are less likely to improve the overall culture of research practices that underlie those publications.
“Open Science is a multifaceted notion encompassing open access to publications, open research data, open source software, open collaboration, open peer review, open notebooks, open educational resources, open monographs, citizen science, or research crowdfunding in order to remove barriers in the sharing of scientific research output and raw data (FOSTER). In other words, the goal of the Open Science movement is to make scientific data a public good in contrast to the expansion of intellectual property rights over knowledge propagated by the paywalled dissemination model. Therefore, Open Science is more of a social and cultural phenomenon aiming to recover the founding principles of scientific research rather than an alternative form of knowledge exchange. It is important to emphasize that despite the fact that Open Science is currently most visible in the area of “hard sciences” (due to large data sets generated by high-throughput experiments and simulations), it is not limited to only the STEM fields — it is also applicable to other types of scientific research….
In order to support open data-driven research, academic librarians have to expand traditional library services and adopt new data-related roles, which will require expanding their qualifications beyond library science and subject degrees toward information technologies, data science, data curation, and e-science. This will lead to a deep transformation in librarians themselves….”
In view of the forthcoming publication of the Plan S’ revised Implementation Guidance, The Guild has published a position paper presenting its proposals for a successful transition towards Open Access. With these recommendations, The Guild builds on its submission to the Plan S consultation, contributing to a wider debate about how Plan S can help realise the ambitions of Open Science.