EUREKA by ScienceMatters

“EUREKA is a scientific review and rating platform fuelled by the EUREKA token. Blockchain has the capacity to open science and make research findings immutable, transparent and decentralised. EUREKA revolutionises the scientific publishing and reviewing process by making it more efficient and fair using the EUREKA token to compensate all parties involved. Scientific discoveries can now be openly rated and rewarded based on the quality of the research….

Scientific observations are timestamped, hashed and recorded on the Ethereum blockchain. This gives the author or inventor immediate ownership rights, and ensures scientists’ and researchers’ discoveries are tamper-proof….

Scientific observations undergo crowdsourced, peer-to-peer reviews which are transmitted and recorded on the EUREKA platform. The EUREKA platform will make use of crowdsourced wisdom and reviewers to get fast, accurate evaluations of the work, instead of being restricted to one or two reviewers, as is common practice….

The EUREKA platform’s crowdsourced scoring of scientific work will provide researchers as well as publishers with a new metric that can be used to evaluate submissions more swiftly. Preprints or observations with ratings and reviews will be archived through the EUREKA decentralised and distributed system. In cases where the author wants to publish in a traditional journal, the scores can be transferred to the journals. The test scores are also available to funders, universities and prize or awards committees….”

Is Europe about to create an OA label for universities as an incentive to fos…

“Norway has a suggestion for Europe:
http://www.uio.no/om/aktuelt/rektorbloggen/2018/position_paper_from_the_norwegian_universities_web.pdf

[W]e support the idea of a European university label for institutions that actively and successfully promote open science, open innovation and openness to the world. Institutions acquiring the label must document open science skills for project leaders, offer training programs in open science, implement the DORA-principles, support open innovation through digital solutions and promote open science throughout the entire research cycle. These principles should also be fully adapted and implemented in the evaluation processes. The involvement of citizens in projects and stimulating public engagement should be an embedded part of research projects.

The EC seems to like the idea:
https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/moedas-pins-hopes-renewed-innovation-agenda-going-budget-battle

The May 2 spending proposal from the European Commission made Moedas one of the biggest budget winners, with almost €100 billion earmarked for the next research programme, Horizon Europe….Getting countries into his corner, Moedas will know, is a prerequisite for realising his main policy goals, which have been years in preparation. Included in the list of initiatives presented to reporters were many recognisable ideas….The only genuinely new idea, and seemingly a suggestion from Norway, was to create an ‘open science label’ for universities to reward efforts to publish open access science. …”

Scienceroot | The first Blockchain-Based Scientific Ecosystem

“Our goal is to create an ecosystem where anyone in the scientific community around the globe will have the ability to gather funding, interact, discuss research ideas, collaborate and in the end, publish their work through a more efficient, intuitive and transparent platform….

The current system of attaining funding, collaboration, and publishing findings is outdated and inefficient. Scienceroot aims to leverage the decentralizing power of blockchain technology and incentivizing power of cryptoeconomics to solve the biggest problems with the status quo….”

Project AIUR by Iris.ai: Democratize Science through blockchain-enabled disintermediation

“There are a number of problems in the world of science today hampering global progress. In an almost monopolized industry with terrible incentive misalignments, a radical change is needed. The only way to change this is with a grassroots movement – of researchers and scientists, librarians, scientific societies, R&D departments, universities, students, and innovators – coming together. We need to remove the powerful intermediaries, create new incentive structures, build commonly owned tools to validate all research and build a common Validated Repository of human knowledge. A combination of blockchain and artificial intelligence provides the technology framework, but as with all research, the scientist herself needs to be in the center. That is what we are proposing with Project Aiur, and we hope you will join us….

The outlined core software tool of the community will be the Knowledge Validation Engine (KVE). It will be a fully-fledged technical platform able to pinpoint: ? the building blocks of a scientific text;

? what the reader needs to know to be able to understand the text;

? what are the text’s factual sources; and,

? what is the reproducibility level of the different building blocks.

The platform will take a scientific document in the form of a scientific paper or technical report as an input, and it will provide an analytical report presenting:

? the knowledge architecture of the document;

? the hypotheses tree supporting the presented document’s hypothesis;

? the support level found for each of the hypotheses on the hypotheses tree; and,

? their respective reproducibility. All of this will be based on the knowledge database of scientific documents accessible to the system at any given point in time (knowledge in an Open Access environment). …”

Bullied Into Bad Science: Leading individuals and institutions in adopting open practices to improve research rigour

“We are postdocs and a reader in the humanities and sciences at the University of Cambridge. We are concerned about the desperate need for publishing reform to increase transparency, reproducibility, timeliness, and academic rigour of the production and dissemination of scholarly outputs (see Young et al. 2016Smaldino & McElreath 2016).

We have identified actions that institutions and managers can take to better support ECRs (below). These actions are crucial for our success because we are eager to publish openly and at places that keep profits inside academia in accordance with many modern online publication venues (Logan 2017). However, ECRs are often pressured into publishing against their ethicsthrough threats that we would not get a job/grant unless we publish in particular journals (Carter et al. 2014Who is going to make change happen?Kent 2016; usually these journals are older and more familiar, have a print version, a high impact factor, and are not 100% open access). These out of date practices and ideas hinder ECRs rather than help us: evidence shows that publishing open access results in increased citations, media attention, and job/funding opportunities (McKiernan et al. 2016). Open dissemination of all research outputs is also a fundamental principle on which ECRs rely to fight the ongoing reproducibility crisis in science and thus improve the quality of their research.

To support ECRs in this changing publishing landscape, we encourage funders, universities, departments, and politicians to take the following actions (below) and to announce these actions in public statements….”

BOAI 15 Survey Report

“The 15th anniversary of the Budapest Open Access Initiative provided an excellent opportunity to take stock of global progress toward open access and to gauge the main obstacles still remaining to the widespread adoption of open access policies and practices. As part of this process, feedback was solicited through an open survey that was disseminated online, and that received responses from individuals in 60 countries around the world.

Markers of progress are clear. The lack of understanding of the concept of open access and a myriad of misconceptions that were pervasive at the time of the BOAI’s original convening have receded, as open access has become a widely accepted fact of life

in research and scholarship. These have been supplanted by concerns that are more operational and nuanced in nature, essentially moving from debates about the “what and why” of open access to the “how“—how to best get it done.

The survey showed two clear primary challenges. First and foremost, respondents noted the lack of meaningful incentives and rewards for scholars and researchers to openly share their work. This challenge resonated at both the global level (56% of respondents in Figure 1) and the local level (29.5% of respondents in Table 1). This was followed by concern over a lack of funds to pay for APCs or other open access-related costs (36% of respondents in Figure 1; 28.3% of respondents in Table 1).

The results of the survey indicate the transition from establishing open access as a concept—which the BOAI did for the first time in 2002—to making open the default for research and scholarship. These two key challenges point to areas where concerted effort needs to be focused to continue making progress towards open access. Strategies to align incentives and rewards for scholars to share their work openly and the need to construct affordable, sustainable, and equitable business models to support open access publishing must be embraced as primary working priorities by the open access community….”

Study on open science: monitoring trends and drivers

“The proposed study will build on existing evidence collected by the pilot open science monitor as well as other relevant and available studies. The open science monitor provided a first analysis of trends, drivers, barriers and incentives to open science in Europe. It also makes available, tests and applies a methodology for the collection of hard empirical data on open science trends. Based on this preparatory work, the contractors will design, draft, execute and deliver a full-fledged monitoring system in order to determine open science scope, nature, impacts on science and scientific knowledge, and its socio-economic impacts. In turn, this will provide an evidence-based view of evolution of open science. It should be able to facilitate policy making….”

Study on open science: monitoring trends and drivers

“The proposed study will build on existing evidence collected by the pilot open science monitor as well as other relevant and available studies. The open science monitor provided a first analysis of trends, drivers, barriers and incentives to open science in Europe. It also makes available, tests and applies a methodology for the collection of hard empirical data on open science trends. Based on this preparatory work, the contractors will design, draft, execute and deliver a full-fledged monitoring system in order to determine open science scope, nature, impacts on science and scientific knowledge, and its socio-economic impacts. In turn, this will provide an evidence-based view of evolution of open science. It should be able to facilitate policy making….”

2018 SPARC Program Plan – SPARC

“Our leadership work will be concentrated in three program areas: Open Access, Open Data, and Open Education. Additionally, to maximize progress, SPARC will support efforts that champion intellectual freedom, a free and open Internet, privacy, confidentiality, and equitable copyright and intellectual property policies.”