Journal transparency index will be ‘alternative’ to impact scores | Times Higher Education (THE)

“A new ranking system for academic journals measuring their commitment to research transparency will be launched next month – providing what many believe will be a useful alternative to journal impact scores.

Under a new initiative from the Center for Open Science, based in Charlottesville, Virginia, more than 300 scholarly titles in psychology, education and biomedical science will be assessed on 10 measures related to transparency, with their overall result for each category published in a publicly available league table.

The centre aims to provide scores for about 1,000 journals within six to eight months of their site’s launch in early February….”

Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract:  Scientific progress requires transparency and openness. The ability to critique, replicate and implement scientific findings depends on the transparency of the study design and methods, and the open availability of study materials, data and code. Journals are key stakeholders in supporting transparency and openness. This study aimed to evaluate 10 highest ranked pain journals’ authorship policies with respect to their support for transparent and open research practices. Two independent authors evaluated the journal policies (as at 27 May 2019) using three tools: the self-developed Transparency and Openness Evaluation Tool, the Centre for Open Science (COS) Transparency Factor and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest. We found that the journal policies had an overall low level of engagement with research transparency and openness standards. The median COS Transparency Factor score was 3.5 (IQR 2.8) of 29 possible points, and only 7 of 10 journals’ stated requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest aligned fully with the ICMJE recommendations. Improved transparency and openness of pain research has the potential to benefit all that are involved in generating and using research findings. Journal policies that endorse and facilitate transparent and open research practices will ultimately improve the evidence base that informs the care provided for people with pain.

 

Open Scholarship Knowledge Base

“The Open Scholarship Knowledge Base is a collaborative initiative to curate and share knowledge about the what, why, and how of open scholarship. This includes reviewing, consolidating, organizing, and improving the discoverability of content to support the education and application of open practices for all aspects of the research lifecycle….

Spearheaded by volunteers, the Open Scholarship Knowledge Base is a community of diverse individuals aligned by a shared goal to make learning and applying open research practices easier. It is being built by and for the community it aims to serve. Researchers, teachers, funders, librarians, and anyone wanting to open scholarship are welcome to edit, curate, and contribute to this community resource….”

OSF | Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology Wiki

“The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology is a collaboration between Science Exchange and the Center for Open Science, and is independently replicating a subset of experimental results from a number of high-profile papers in the field of cancer biology published between 2010-2012 using the Science Exchange network of expert scientific labs….”

The Case for an Institutionally Owned Knowledge Infrastructure

“Academic journals, the dominant dissemination platforms of scientific knowledge, have not been able to take advantage of the linking, transparency, dynamic communication and decentralized authority and review that the internet enables. Many other knowledge-driven sectors, from journalism to law, suffer from a similar bottleneck — caused not by a lack of technological capacity, but rather by an inability to design and implement efficient, open and trustworthy mechanisms of information dissemination.

Fortunately, growing dissatisfaction with current knowledge-sharing infrastructures has led to a more nuanced understanding of the requisite features that such platforms must provide. With such an understanding, higher education institutions around the world can begin to recapture the control and increase the utility of the knowledge they produce….

But signs suggest that the bright future envisioned in the early days of the internet is still within reach. Increasing awareness of, and dissatisfaction with, the many bottlenecks that the commercial monopoly on research information has imposed are stimulating new strategies for developing the future’s knowledge infrastructures. One of the most promising is the shift toward infrastructures created and supported by academic institutions, the original creators of the information being shared, and nonprofit consortia like the Collaborative Knowledge Foundation and the Center for Open Science….

The Case for an Institutionally Owned Knowledge Infrastructure

“Academic journals, the dominant dissemination platforms of scientific knowledge, have not been able to take advantage of the linking, transparency, dynamic communication and decentralized authority and review that the internet enables. Many other knowledge-driven sectors, from journalism to law, suffer from a similar bottleneck — caused not by a lack of technological capacity, but rather by an inability to design and implement efficient, open and trustworthy mechanisms of information dissemination.

Fortunately, growing dissatisfaction with current knowledge-sharing infrastructures has led to a more nuanced understanding of the requisite features that such platforms must provide. With such an understanding, higher education institutions around the world can begin to recapture the control and increase the utility of the knowledge they produce….

But signs suggest that the bright future envisioned in the early days of the internet is still within reach. Increasing awareness of, and dissatisfaction with, the many bottlenecks that the commercial monopoly on research information has imposed are stimulating new strategies for developing the future’s knowledge infrastructures. One of the most promising is the shift toward infrastructures created and supported by academic institutions, the original creators of the information being shared, and nonprofit consortia like the Collaborative Knowledge Foundation and the Center for Open Science….

PLOS, Center for Open Science, and Flu Lab collaborate to Open Influenza Research | The Official PLOS Blog

“The Flu Lab, the Center for Open Science (COS) and PLOS have announced a three-pronged collaboration to open influenza research and help tackle this perennial and massive threat to global health. PLOS ONE is publishing peer-reviewed research arising from a call for proposals funded and coordinated by the Flu Lab and COS. This will form part of a special collection, alongside commentaries and perspectives published by PLOS Biology and PLOS Pathogens.

The focus of these three prongs is emptying, and publishing, the “file drawer” of influenza research and doubling down on ensuring verification and reproducibility of this research, two notions that should never be in question for such a potentially devastating health risk. At PLOS we know that all science—including negative outcomes—informs the scientific record and this initiative will reduce the time and resources needed by current and future researchers to further advance the field….”

Opening Influenza Research

“Reproducible evidence is a signature strength of science, yet replications and negative results rarely appear in journals because cultural incentives emphasize novelty over verification (Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012). These behaviors must be addressed and amended in all areas of research, and especially as they relate to findings that can dramatically improve public health and education.

 

The Public Library of Science (PLOS), the Center for Open Science (COS), and Flu Lab are collaborating to bypass these detrimental incentives and to encourage the availability of all findings that contribute to the influenza body of knowledge. 

Through the Opening Influenza Research project, we invite the influenza research community to “empty the file drawers” and contribute to a thorough aggregation of open and accessible findings….”

Opening Influenza Research

“Reproducible evidence is a signature strength of science, yet replications and negative results rarely appear in journals because cultural incentives emphasize novelty over verification (Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012). These behaviors must be addressed and amended in all areas of research, and especially as they relate to findings that can dramatically improve public health and education.

 

The Public Library of Science (PLOS), the Center for Open Science (COS), and Flu Lab are collaborating to bypass these detrimental incentives and to encourage the availability of all findings that contribute to the influenza body of knowledge. 

Through the Opening Influenza Research project, we invite the influenza research community to “empty the file drawers” and contribute to a thorough aggregation of open and accessible findings….”

North American professors slow to embrace sharing research data | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Senior North American faculty appear to be slow in adopting online tools for research collaboration, suggesting academics rather than their journals are the chief obstacle to open access.

An analysis by the non-profit Center for Open Science found that its main scientist-to-scientist sharing tool was getting relatively weak adoption in the US and among the nation’s highest-ranking professors.

By country, the US and Canada were among the nations slowest to participate, while the UK and Australia were among the most receptive, according to the study of tenure-track faculty usage rates in psychology, the six-year-old centre’s initial target group….

Funding agencies were “starting to do more” to encourage data-sharing practices, while “the farthest behind are the universities”, which were generally too decentralised to impose data-sharing practices on their faculty, [Brian Nosek] said….”