“Open science for some people it is just science done correctly. For others it is the revolutionary change in the whole academic culture. These different perspectives are highly dependent on your views on the role of science in society, who your advisers were which fields your were in, which career stages you reached, and where you live and work.
In this episode I talk with Dr. Jon Tennant about open science. He is a paleontologist who is now predominantly active in building an Open Science community. He has published several articles on open science and initiated the Open Science MOOC, among many other activities….”
Abstract: We conducted an audit of 60 clinical psychology journals, covering the first 2 quartiles by impact factor on Web of Science. We evaluated editorial policies in 5 domains crucial to reproducibility and transparency (prospective registration, data sharing, preprints, endorsement of reporting guidelines and conflict of interest [COI] disclosure). We examined implementation in a randomly selected cross-sectional sample of 201 articles published in 2017 in the “best practice” journals, defined as having explicit supportive policies in 4 out of 5 domains. Our findings showed that 15 journals cited prospective registration, 40 data sharing, 15 explicitly permitted preprints, 28 endorsed reporting guidelines, and 52 had mandatory policies for COI disclosure. Except for COI disclosure, few policies were mandatory: registration in 15 journals, data sharing in 1, and reporting guidelines for randomized trials in 18 and for meta-analyses in 15. Seventeen journals were identified as “best practice.” An analysis of recent articles showed extremely low compliance for prospective registration (3% articles) and data sharing (2%). One preprint could be identified. Reporting guidelines were endorsed in 19% of the articles, though for most articles this domain was rated as nonapplicable. Only half of the articles included a COI disclosure. Desired open science policies should become clear and mandatory, and their enforcement streamlined by reducing the multiplicity of guidelines and templates.
“In order to increase the contribution of open science to producing better science, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science convenes critical stakeholders to discuss the effectiveness of current incentives for adopting open science practices, current barriers of all types, and ways to move forward in order to align reward structures and institutional values. The Roundtable convenes two times per year and creates a venue for the exchange of ideas and joint strategic planning among key stakeholders. Each Roundtable meeting has a theme. The diverse themes target slightly different audiences but the core audience will consist of universities, government agencies, foundations, and other groups doing work related to open science. The Roundtable aims to improve coordination among stakeholders and increase awareness of current and future efforts in the broader open science community. The Roundtable will also convene one symposium per year, which may produce National Academies proceedings in brief….”
“LIBER’s Digital Skills for Library Staff & Researchers Working Group is supporting this transition in two ways: by building a digital skills list with a specific focus on Open Science and by highlighting Open Science training programmes relying on skills identification.
The first results of this combined approach were presented during an Open Science Essentials workshop at LIBER 2019: a follow up to the 2018 LIBER/Foster+ Workshop “Lets’ build the Skills” and complementary to the EOSCpilot & LIBER Webinar “Skills and Training in Open Science and the EOSC Ecosystem”….”
“This project is the central platform for the Network of (German-speaking) Open Science Initiatives (Netzwerk der Open-Science-Initiativen, NOSI). We’re providing protocols, links, and resources that might be of interest to others interested in Open Science.”
“From November 2018 – April 2019, LIBSENSE conducted workshops in each of the three major regions in Africa bringing the library and NREN communities together to define a shared agenda for progressing open science and open access in these regions. Each workshop, which contributed to priority setting in each region, also built upon the outcomes of preceding discussions.
To date, there have already been several concrete outcomes of the LIBSENSE initiative, including:
Terms of Reference for NREN-Library collaboration in African countries
Metadata guidelines for repositories
Plans for a regional repository hosting service
National and institutional policy templates
LIBSENSE will continue to assist countries and regions in Africa to undertake new activities and act as a forum for information exchange across the continent and amongst the different stakeholder communities….”
“Open Science stands for a new approach to the scientific process, based on cooperative work and new ways of making knowledge available. It is thus an umbrella term for various movements aiming to remove the barriers to sharing any kind of output, resources, methods or tools, at any stage of the research process (Figure 1).1 Here, we focus on the open access to scientific literature and to data because of their particularly high relevance to the scientific community in Switzerland, at which this factsheet is primarily addressed. Both Open Access and Open Data are important science policy topics in different parts of the world, but the developments in Europe are most pertinent for Switzerland. This factsheet therefore presents the issues at stake in the on-going discussion in Europe and Switzerland, points out opportunities and addresses challenges. The recommendations are guided by the key consideration to shape Open Access and Open Data so that they foster scientific progress and benefit society.”
Abstract: A common motivation for increasing open access to research findings and data is the potential to create economic benefits—but evidence is patchy and diverse. This study systematically reviewed the evidence on what kinds of economic impacts (positive and negative) open science can have, how these comes about, and how benefits could be maximized. Use of open science outputs often leaves no obvious trace, so most evidence of impacts is based on interviews, surveys, inference based on existing costs, and modelling approaches. There is indicative evidence that open access to findings/data can lead to savings in access costs, labour costs and transaction costs. There are examples of open science enabling new products, services, companies, research and collaborations. Modelling studies suggest higher returns to R&D if open access permits greater accessibility and efficiency of use of findings. Barriers include lack of skills capacity in search, interpretation and text mining, and lack of clarity around where benefits accrue. There are also contextual considerations around who benefits most from open science (e.g., sectors, small vs. larger companies, types of dataset). Recommendations captured in the review include more research, monitoring and evaluation (including developing metrics), promoting benefits, capacity building and making outputs more audience-friendly.
“A key political driver of open access and open science policies has been the potential economic benefits that they could deliver to public and private knowledge users. However, the empirical evidence for these claims is rarely substantiated. In this post Michael Fell, discusses how open research can lead to economic benefits and suggests that if these benefits are to be more widely realised, future open research policies should focus on developing research discovery, translation and the capacity for research utilisation outside of the academy….”
“The Serbian government has passed a new law on science and research that recognizes open science as a fundamental principle of science and research.
The new Law on Science and Research, passed on 8 July 2019, confirms Serbia’s commitment to open science. It comes just a year after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (MESTD), the main national funder of research in Serbia, adopted a national open science policy, the Platform for Open Science, mandating open science to all publicly funded research….”