OpenDataCube

The Open Data Cube (ODC) is an Open Source Geospatial Data Management and Analysis Software project that helps you harness the power of Satellite data. At its core, the ODC is a set of Python libraries and PostgreSQL database that helps you work with geospatial raster data….

?The ODC seeks to increase the value and impact of global Earth observation satellite data by providing an open and freely accessible exploitation architecture. The ODC project seeks to foster a community to develop, sustain, and grow the technology and the breadth and depth of its applications for societal benefit….”

SCOPE: A digital archives access interface

Abstract:  The Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) identified certain technological issues, namely extensive reference workflows and under-utilizing existing metadata, as significant barriers to access for its born-digital archives. In collaboration with Artefactual Systems, the CCA built SCOPE, a digital archives access interface. SCOPE allows for granular file- and item-level searching within and across digital archives, and lets users download access copies of the collection material directly to a local machine. SCOPE is a free, open-source tool. The beta version is available to the public, and a second phase is under-development as of Spring 2019.

Announcing Europe PMC’s PubSweet-based End-to-End Manuscript Submission workflow coming soon! : Collaborative Knowledge Foundation

“Europe PMC plan wide rollout of their full, end-to-end manuscript submission workflow using PubSweet technology, later this month! We’ll share more information as it becomes available on this and other PubSweet community projects, so please check back often….”

Bitcoin for the biological literature

“A colleague told Bajan about ScienceMatters, an open-access publishing platform that posts peer-reviewed short papers and single-observation studies — research that most journals would dismiss. Bajan submitted her work last October and it was accepted two weeks later.

That speed, as well as the subject matter, is unusual. But ScienceMatters is different in another way, too: it’s developing a peer-review process based on the Bitcoin blockchain technology — a public, but tamper-proof database of transactions shared across thousands of computers around the world….

Such tamper-proof records have obvious uses in science. Himmelstein is the author of Manubot, a piece of open-source software that automates the process of collating, formatting and publishing a scientific paper. Each time an author creates a version of the manuscript, the software logs that event on the Bitcoin blockchain.

This, Himmelstein says, allows researchers to establish definitive claims of precedence. “Imagine an authorship dispute where two authors claim to have both written the same thing,” he says. An indelible record of who wrote what, and when makes such disagreements moot….

According to Dave Kochalko, co-founder of the collaboration and citation platform Artifacts in Cambridge, Massachusetts, research produces a wealth of interesting material — such as data sets, single observations and hypotheses — in the long run-up to publication that doesn’t get cited until the final peer-reviewed article appears, if it does at all. At that point, credit comes only if other researchers cite that work, when their own research is published.

Artifacts provides a forum in which researchers can upload almost anything that they deem worth sharing, with each file logged to a blockchain. Users can set permissions so that their uploads are private, public or available to collaborators. (Services such as Figshare and Zenodo also provide such forums, but without the blockchain.)…”

Bitcoin for the biological literature

“A colleague told Bajan about ScienceMatters, an open-access publishing platform that posts peer-reviewed short papers and single-observation studies — research that most journals would dismiss. Bajan submitted her work last October and it was accepted two weeks later.

That speed, as well as the subject matter, is unusual. But ScienceMatters is different in another way, too: it’s developing a peer-review process based on the Bitcoin blockchain technology — a public, but tamper-proof database of transactions shared across thousands of computers around the world….

Such tamper-proof records have obvious uses in science. Himmelstein is the author of Manubot, a piece of open-source software that automates the process of collating, formatting and publishing a scientific paper. Each time an author creates a version of the manuscript, the software logs that event on the Bitcoin blockchain.

This, Himmelstein says, allows researchers to establish definitive claims of precedence. “Imagine an authorship dispute where two authors claim to have both written the same thing,” he says. An indelible record of who wrote what, and when makes such disagreements moot….

According to Dave Kochalko, co-founder of the collaboration and citation platform Artifacts in Cambridge, Massachusetts, research produces a wealth of interesting material — such as data sets, single observations and hypotheses — in the long run-up to publication that doesn’t get cited until the final peer-reviewed article appears, if it does at all. At that point, credit comes only if other researchers cite that work, when their own research is published.

Artifacts provides a forum in which researchers can upload almost anything that they deem worth sharing, with each file logged to a blockchain. Users can set permissions so that their uploads are private, public or available to collaborators. (Services such as Figshare and Zenodo also provide such forums, but without the blockchain.)…”

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….”

OASPA Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance – OASPA

“One such issue that OASPA sees currently as a significant barrier to the uptake of open access, and to other innovations in scholarly communication, is that the present system for evaluating researchers is most often based on which journals they publish in. Many research institutions have pledged their support for change by signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and, more importantly, some are now leading the way by putting this pledge into practice. It is therefore both welcome and essential that Plan S also is encouraging reform in research evaluation practices, as applied to recruitment, tenure and promotion, and grant awards. It is imperative that other funders join this effort and that funders work closely with institutions if such reform is to be implemented on a global scale.

 

OASPA’s main concern relating to Plan S, however, is that discussions and solutions continue to be focussed on the largest, mixed-model publishers. While it is this segment of the market on which funders’ attention – and spend – is concentrated, the vast majority of publishers within the so-called ‘Long Tail’ (the majority of OASPA’s members) appear to be absent from the focus of Plan S. Many of these publishers are too small to negotiate the kind of ‘transformative’ national Big Deals we are seeing for the largest publishers, while exclusively open access publishers without legacy subscription businesses are also unable to participate. Many are not even of sufficient size to make agreements directly with institutions….”

Public Access Submission System on Vimeo

“Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University, MIT, and 221B have developed the Public Access Submission System (PASS), which will support compliance with US funding agencies’ public access policies and institutional open access policies. By combining workflows between the two compliance pathways, PASS facilitates simultaneous submission into funder repositories (e.g., PubMedCentral) and institutional repositories. We intend to integrate a data archive so that researchers can submit cited data at the same time. PASS also features a novel technology stack including Fedora, Ember, JSON-LD, Elasticsearch, ActiveMQ, Java and Shibboleth (with an eye toward multi-institutional support). This talk will include a demonstration of PASS in action. The talk will also outline the steps by which we have engaged the university’s central administration (including the president’s office and the provost’s office) to provide funding, sponsorship for PASS and access to internal grants databases (e.g., COEUS) and engaged US funding agencies including the National Institutes of Health who have offered access to APIs for tracking and correlating submissions, and the National Science Foundation which discussed ways to integrate PASS and their reporting system in the future.”

If Software Is Funded from a Public Source, Its Code Should Be Open Source | Linux Journal

“If we pay for it, we should be able to use it….

But it’s important not to overstate the “free as in beer” element here. All major software projects have associated costs of implementation and support. Departments choosing free software simply because they believe it will save lots of money in obvious ways are likely to be disappointed, and that will be bad for open source’s reputation and future projects….

Moving to open-source solutions does not guarantee that personal data will not leak out, but it does ensure that the problems, once found, can be fixed quickly by government IT departments—something that isn’t the case for closed-source products. This is a powerful reason why public funds should mean open source—or as a site created by the Free Software Foundation Europe puts it: “If it is public money, it should be public code as well”.

The site points out some compelling reasons why any government code produced with public money should be free software. They will all be familiar enough to readers of Linux Journal. For example, publicly funded code that is released as open source can be used by different departments, and even different governments, to solve similar problems. That opens the way for feedback and collaboration, producing better code and faster innovation. And open-source code is automatically available to the people who paid for it—members of the public. They too might be able to offer suggestions for improvement, find bugs or build on it to produce exciting new applications. None of these is possible if government code is kept locked up by companies that write it on behalf of taxpayers….”