The announcement comes at a time when we are seeing a rising tide of preprint servers being launched, both by for-profit and non-profit organisations – a development all the more remarkable given scholarly publishers’ historic opposition to preprint servers. Indeed, so antagonistic to such services have publishers been that until recently they were often able to stop them in their tracks. “
“Wednesday, Oct 18, 2017 – 9:00am to 12:00pm
There are many actions researchers can take to increase the openness and reproducibility of their work. Please join us for a workshop, hosted by the Center for Open Science, to learn easy, practical steps researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. The workshop will be hands-on. Using example studies, attendees will actively participate in creating a reproducible project from start to finish.
- Project documentation
- Version control
- Pre-Analysis plans
- Open source tools like the Center for Open Science’s Open Science Framework to easily implement these concepts in a scientific workflow.”
“Please join us for a workshop, hosted by the Center for Open Science and JHU Data Management Services, to learn easy, practical steps researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work.
The workshop will be hands-on. (Please bring a laptop if possible.) Using an example study, attendees will actively participate in creating a reproducible project from start to finish.
Topics covered include:
- Project documentation
- Version control
- Pre-analysis plans
- Open source tools: in this specific instance, the Open Science Framework to easily implement these concepts in one easily accessible space”
“There is no central authority determining the validity of scientific claims. Accumulation of scientific knowledge proceeds via open communication with the community. Sharing evidence for scientific claims facilitates critique, extension, and application. Despite the importance of open communication for scientific progress, present norms do not provide strong incentives for individual researchers to share data, materials, or their research process. Journals can provide such incentives by acknowledging open practices with badges in publications.
There are circumstances, however, in which open practices are not possible or advisable. For example, sharing some human participant data could violate confidentiality. When badge criteria cannot be met, a description in place of the badge can articulate why. Badges do not define good practice; badges certify that a particular practice was followed. Disclosure makes explicit the conditions under which the ethic of openness is superseded by other ethical concerns. Here, we introduce three badges to acknowledge Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistration….”
“LawArXiv is an open access legal repository owned and maintained by members of the scholarly legal community .
The repository was developed by three law library consortia and an academic lead institution: Legal Information Preservation Alliance (LIPA), Mid-American Law Library Consortium (MALLCO), NELLCO Law Library Consortium, Inc. (NELLCO), Cornell Law Library.
The Center for Open Science serves as the technology partner and hosts lawarxiv.com through the Open Science Framework. Administrative and leadership support is provided in partnership with the Cornell Law Library….”
“The Center for Open Science (COS) is pleased to announce that it has added another branded service to its open source preprints service, OSF Preprints. The new service, called LawArXiv, provides free, open access, open source archives for legal research. LawArXiv is an open access legal repository supported and maintained by members of the scholarly legal community.”
Judy Luther offered an insightful birds-eye view of the burgeoning preprints landscape at Scholarly Kitchen yesterday. As she mentioned, the Center for Open Science is contributing to preprints with a free, open infrastructure to support preprint services across scholarly communities. Here’s a brief summary of where we are, where we are heading, and what it all means.
“Published in Science in 2015, the TOP [Transparency and Openness Promotion] guidelines include eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to adopt for their journal, and select a level of implementation for each standard. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards….”
“As Nosek tells it, John Arnold had read about the Reproducibility Project in The Chronicle of Higher Education and wanted to talk. By the following year, Nosek was cofounding an institution called the Center for Open Science with an initial $5.25 million grant from the Arnold Foundation. More than $10 million more in Arnold Foundation grants have come since. “It completely transformed what we could imagine doing,” Nosek says. Projects that Nosek had once envisioned as modest efforts carried out in his lab were now being conducted on an entirely different scale at the center’s startup-like offices in downtown Charlottesville, with some 70 employees and interns churning out code and poring over research. The skeletal software behind the data-sharing project became a slick cloud-based platform, which has now been used by more than 30,000 researchers….”