Global Persistent Identifiers for grants, awards, and facilities – Crossref

“Most funders already have local, internal grant identifiers. But there are over 15K funders currently listed in the aforementioned Open Funder Registry. The problem is that each funder has its own identifier scheme and (sometimes) API. It is very difficult for third parties to integrate with so many different systems. Open, global, persistent and machine-actionable identifiers are key to scaling these activities.

We already have a sophisticated open, global, interoperable infrastructure of persistent identifier systems for some key elements of scholarly communications. We have persistent identifiers for researchers and contributors (ORCID iDs), for data and software (DataCite DOIs), for journal articles, preprints, conference proceedings, peer reviews, monographs and standards (Crossref DOIs), and for Funders (Open Funder Registry IDs).

And there are similar systems under active development for research organizations, conferences, projects and resources reported in the biomedical literature (e.g. antibodies, model organisms). At a minimum, open, persistent identifiers address the inherent difficulty in disambiguating entities based on textual strings (structured or otherwise). This precision, in turn, allows automated cross-walking of linked identifiers through APIs and metadata which enable advanced applications….”

Global Persistent Identifiers for grants, awards, and facilities – Crossref

“Most funders already have local, internal grant identifiers. But there are over 15K funders currently listed in the aforementioned Open Funder Registry. The problem is that each funder has its own identifier scheme and (sometimes) API. It is very difficult for third parties to integrate with so many different systems. Open, global, persistent and machine-actionable identifiers are key to scaling these activities.

We already have a sophisticated open, global, interoperable infrastructure of persistent identifier systems for some key elements of scholarly communications. We have persistent identifiers for researchers and contributors (ORCID iDs), for data and software (DataCite DOIs), for journal articles, preprints, conference proceedings, peer reviews, monographs and standards (Crossref DOIs), and for Funders (Open Funder Registry IDs).

And there are similar systems under active development for research organizations, conferences, projects and resources reported in the biomedical literature (e.g. antibodies, model organisms). At a minimum, open, persistent identifiers address the inherent difficulty in disambiguating entities based on textual strings (structured or otherwise). This precision, in turn, allows automated cross-walking of linked identifiers through APIs and metadata which enable advanced applications….”

Peter Suber, Half a dozen reasons why I support the Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibl…

“1. I support its call to move beyond PDFs. This is necessary to bypass publisher locks and facilitate reuse, text mining, access by the visually impaired, and access in bandwidth-poor parts of the world. 

2. I applaud its recognition of no-fee or no-APC open-access journals, their existence, their value, and the fact that a significant number of authors will always depend on them. 

3. I join its call for redirecting funds now spent on subscription journals to support OA alternatives. 

4. I endorse its call to reform methods of research evaluation. If we want to assess quality, we must stop assuming that impact and prestige are good proxies for quality. If we want to assess impact, we must stop using metrics that measure it badly and create perverse incentives to put prestige ahead of both quality and access.

5. I support its call for infrastructures that are proof against privatization. No matter how good proprietary and closed-source platforms may initially be, they are subject to acquisition and harmful mutation beyond the control of the non-profit academic world. Even without acquisition, their commitment to OA is contingent on the market, and they carry a permanent risk of trapping rather than liberating knowledge. The research community cannot afford to entrust its research to platforms carrying that risk. 

6. Finally I support what it terms bibliodiversity. While we must steer clear of closed-source infrastructure, subject to privatization and enclosure, we must also steer clear of platform monocultures, subject to rigidity, stagnation, and breakage. Again, no matter how good a monoculture platform may initially be, in the long run it cannot be better than an ecosystem of free and open-source, interoperable components, compliant with open standards, offering robustness, modularity, flexibility, freedom to create better modules without rewriting the whole system, freedom to pick modules that best meet local needs, and freedom to scale up to meet global needs without first overcoming centralized constraints or unresponsive decision-makers. …”

Announcing HRA – A Different Kind of ORCID Consortium | ORCID

“Non-profit l funding organizations who participate in the Health Research Alliance (HRA) are joining together to form a new ORCID consortium.  This is our first fully-funder consortium, and a powerful example of how funding organizations coordinating around ORCID integration can realize substantial gains for researchers and program evaluation….ORCID’s consortia program, launched in 2015, now includes 17 consortia, 14 of which are national-scale ORCID adoption and implementation efforts involving primarily research institutions. The HRA consortium is particularly timely, launching as ORCID gears up to support a funder-focused program of activities in 2018….”

Open Science: The Next Frontier for Neurology

“What are One Mind’s open science principles?

To support Open Science for brain disease and injury, One Mind urges the international research community to adopt the following principles:

Provide informed consents for collection of medical data obtained from patients, which should permit use of their de-identified (anonymous) data for research related to a broad range of conditions — consistent with protecting patient privacy.

Use widely accepted common data elements and conform to the highest possible standards when clinical data is collected. This enables it to be used by the widest possible array of users, whether academic, medical, clinical or commercial.

Make data available to the research community as soon as possible after study completion, with the goal of opening data access within six months whenever possible.

Make data accessible to external researchers during the course of a study (subject to relevant data use agreements).

Give data generators proper attribution & credit from those who use their data.

Do not delay the publication of findings, as it may affect patient care.

Intellectual property should not stand in the way of research, but be used to incentivize material participation….”

Elsevier Embraces Data-Sharing Standards, in Step Toward Scientific Openness – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“The cause of scientific transparency and accuracy got a boost on Tuesday with the decision by the publishing giant Elsevier to endorse a broad set of standards for open articles and data. Elsevier agreed to add its 1,800 journals to the 3,200 that already accept the “Transparency and Openness Promotion” guidelines drafted in 2005 by a group of university researchers, funders and publishers. The standards expand article-citation practices so that authors get credit for making clear the data, methods, and materials needed for replicating their work….”

Promoting an Open Research Culture: The TOP Guidelines for Journals (version 2)

“By developing shared standards for open practices across journals, we hope to translate scientific norms and values into concrete actions and change the current incentive structures to drive researchers’ behavior toward more openness. Although there are some idiosyncratic issues by discipline, we sought to produce guidelines that focus on the commonalities across disciplines….”

Recording the past and the future in 3-D: News at IU: Indiana University

“The handheld scanner looks like an old-school video game controller, a clunky throwback to the early days of Atari. But these mobile 3-D scanners used by the staff in the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis University Library Center for Digital Scholarship are actually very advanced technology, and they are changing the way we record recent history, ancient history and even the future….Proving its place at the front of the 3-D digital archiving crowd, the Center for Digital Scholarship recently received a grant from LYRASIS — a nonprofit organization for information professionals — to develop standards for how digital archives are recorded….”