Expertos reclaman revisar el sistema de evaluación de los investigadores para impulsar la ciencia abierta – Noticia – ISGLOBAL

“October 9, 2018

The review of the evaluation system of the research staff is essential to promote open science

The review of the evaluation system of the research staff is essential to promote open science

ISGlobal co-organizes a B · Debate on open science in the Spanish context and in Europe Experts and experts, convened by B · Debate , an initiative of Biocat and Obra Social “la Caixa”, agreed that the review of the evaluation system of research personnel is essential to promote open science , a movement that promotes a science more accessible to everyone, that is effective, reproducible and transparent.

 

Currently, many times the evaluation of a researcher’s career continues to focus on the number of publications and the impact factor of the scientific journals where his articles appear. Different international movements have already underlined the importance of revising this system to improve the way in which the quality of the results and the impact of the research are evaluated , such as the San Francisco Declaration of Evaluation of Research . Apart from the quantity, the evaluation of the research must also take into account the quality….”

Opening Science with Institutional Repository: A Case Study of Vilnius University Library

Abstract:  The future strategies for opening science have become important to libraries which serve scientific institutions by providing institutional repository infrastructures and services. Vilnius University Library provides such an infrastructure for Vilnius University, which is the biggest higher education institution in Lithuania (with more than 20,200 students, 1,330 academic staff members, and 450 researchers ), and manages services and infrastructure of the national open access repository eLABa and the national open access data archive MIDAS. As the new platforms of these repositories began operating in the beginning of 2015, new policies and routines for organizing work with scientific publications and data had to be implemented. This meant new roles for the Library and librarians, too. The University Senate approved the new Regulations of the Library on 13 June 2017 with the task to develop the scholarly communication tools dedicated to sustaining open access to information and open science. Thus, Vilnius University Library performs the leading role in opening science by providing strategic insights and solutions for development of services dedicated to researchers, students and the public in Lithuania. As it was not presented properly at the international level before, this article presents the case of Vilnius University Library which actively cooperates with other Lithuanian academic institutions, works in creating and coordinating policies, conducts research on the improvements and services of eLABa and MIDAS, and suggests and implements the integral solutions for opening science.

Zinke’s controversial, EPA-style ‘secret science’ order isn’t going over well with Democrats – ThinkProgress

“House Democrats are calling on Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to stand down from plans to reign in the use of confidential data when crafting agency policies, a controversial move that follows similar efforts to limit the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In a letter sent Thursday, House Natural Resources ranking member Raúl Grijalva and other representatives expressed “alarm” over a Sep. 28 “Promoting Open Science” order distributed to Interior Department staff. The order instructs staff to prioritize “publicly available, reproducible, peer-reviewed” science in their crafting of policy and decision-making….

Rather than helping ensure “the best available science” is used in policymaking, Grijalva and his co-signers say, approaches like the one taken by the Interior Department will only favor partisan interests….

“We are skeptical that this waiver provision is anything but another layer of protection for the fossil-fuel industry at the expense of scientific integrity,” the letter emphasizes, concluding by calling on Zinke to rescind the order….

Zinke’s “open science” order appears to be following the EPA’s lead. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a long-time denier of climate change, has used his position as House Science, Space, and Technology chairman to encourage so-called “secret science” orders without much success or support from his peers. Under former administrator Scott Pruitt, however, the EPA embraced such ideas and the agency has pushed ahead with efforts to implement limitations on science….”

Dem lawmakers request Interior chief rescind order on ‘open science’ | TheHill

“Democratic lawmakers are asking Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to rethink his secretarial order “Promoting Open Science,” fearing it will do just the opposite.

Four House Democrats, led by Rep. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to Zinke on Thursday urging him to rescind the Sept. 28 order that they worry will lead to gagging scientists….

Critics of the EPA rule call it the “secret science” rule and argue that it would exclude consideration of a number of important scientific studies whose evidence can’t be made fully public due to patient privacy concerns.

The lawmakers raised that concern in their letter to Zinke.

“Both policies threaten the suppression of scientific information not aligned with this administration’s agenda under the auspices of improving science based decision making,” the Democrats wrote….”

An Updated Methodology for the Open Science Monitor

“After an intense online debate and an excellent expert workshop, we?—?the Lisbon Council, ESADE Business School and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University?—?are happy to publish a revised methodology (soon to be posted on the official European Commission website). First and foremost, this is not the final methodology. It has become clear that open science is too dynamic and too difficult to measure for a “definitive” methodology. It is rather a second interim release?—?and it will require continuous collaboration with the open science community in the future, also in connection with other existing efforts by OpenAire, FAIR Metrics and the European Open Science Cloud….”

We will use Unpaywall data alongside Scopus data. Unpaywall has a very large footprint and will increase the coverage of the Open Science Monitor. And we will continue to look at and collaborate with Unpaywall in its new initiatives….

Secondly, we will make collaboration with the community not a one-off, but permanent. The commentable document worked well; we received more than 300 comments. Most of these comments are initial ideas that need clarification and refinement. We need more permanent and interactive ways to discuss. Hence, we have opened an Open Science Monitor Linkedin Groupto work on new indicators?—?anyone is able to join….”

What Is “Open Science?” Why the Future of Psychedelic Science Depends on It | Inverse

“There is a growing research literature suggesting psychedelics hold incredible promise for treating mental health ailments ranging from depression and anxiety to PTSD. But how do we know for sure?

The way forward for psychedelics is through “open science.” Researchers should pre-register their plans and share their data, as we have in our own research….”

Complaint to the European Ombudsman about Elsevier and the Open Science Monitor | Zenodo

A formal complaint to the European Commission Ombudsman regarding the relationship between Elsevier and the Open Science Monitor. Submitted to them on July 05, 2018.

The latest version now includes a full response from the European Commission. See the Annex file, which can be annotated/commented on using THIS LINK and Hypothes.is….”