The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform: Catching Up to Plan S and Going Further | The Official PLOS Blog

“It is worth pausing here for a brief aside about the distinction between open sharing, open publishing of research resources, and open access publishing of articles. All of these are important but for open science to be successful the distinction between them has to be clear.

Open sharing consists of making research resources available in a way they can be freely accessed and used. Sharing datasets in a repository or data sharing platform like Dryad, or code used for data analysis and visualization via a service like Github, are good examples. Sharing in this way rapidly disseminates resources and makes them available for use and adaptation by others as quickly as possible. Open publishing of research resources, however, involves the filtration of these resources through other researchers. These peer researchers make sure that the shared resource – whether it is data, code, single figures, or any of the plethora of resources developed throughout the scientific process – is in a form that is standard and easily usable by others, as well as presenting those resources in a curated form on a website or repository. Open access publishing of articles is the primary target of efforts like Plan S and relates to publishing scholarly articles in such a way that they are freely accessible and usable.

The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP), along with myriad other organizations, are developing the resources needed to enable open sharing, open publishing of research resources, and open publishing of articles. By doing so the CONP is helping open science and reduce the current inequalities in access to all of the tools and research outputs science needs to thrive….

Opening science requires the collective effort of funders, data sharing platforms, academic institutions, and individual scientists. Science doesn’t have to be opened all at once, but steps down the open road must be taken, and must be taken now. The CONP will provide tools and guidance, but scientific culture shift requires a concerted community effort.

Some first steps needed to enable the open publishing of all research resources include: (1) forging agreements and partnerships between journals and open science platforms to make it easy for scientists to share their data, publish it in a curated form, and link it to publications, (2) promotion and tenure policies at academic institutions that value the sharing and publishing of data on par with producing articles, (3) funding agencies that require (and enforce) sharing and publishing data, code, and materials associated with publications as a condition of receiving a grant, and (4) a commitment from scientists themselves to change the culture of science towards openly sharing and publishing as many of their resources as they can.”

 

In departure for NIH, Cancer Moonshot requires grantees to make papers immediately free | Science | AAAS

“The long-standing debate over open access to research results has been marked by a geographic divide. In Europe, some public funders have launched a high-profile open-access initiative, dubbed Plan S, that would ultimately require grantees to publish only in journals that immediately make papers free to all. But in the United States, federal agencies have stuck to a decade-old policy that allows grantees to publish in journals that keep papers behind a paywall for up to 1 year. Now, the divide is starting to blur, with one prominent U.S. research program starting to require immediate open access to the peer-reviewed publications it funds.

The policy is part of the Cancer Moonshot program at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland, the 7-year, $1.8 billion research initiative spearheaded in 2016 by then–Vice President Joe Biden after his son Beau died of brain cancer. Biden felt that broader data sharing would speed cancer research, and after hearing from open-access advocates he backed the concept for all cancer research papers. In a 2016 speech, Biden told the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR): “Imagine if… we said we will no longer conceal cancer’s secrets in… paywalled journals with restricted databases, and instead make all that we know open to everyone so that the world can join the global campaign to end cancer in our lifetimes?”

NCI officials embraced that idea, and drafted rules that require moonshot grantees to submit a plan for making their publications “immediately and broadly available to the public.”…

That is a big change from the current policy at the National Institutes of Health, NCI’s parent agency. NIH requires only that final papers be available through NIH’s full-text PubMedCentral site within 12 months of publication—a delay that publishers cherish, saying that it safeguards subscription revenues and keeps journals viable….

Singer says that, for now, NCI won’t expand the moonshot’s open-access requirement to other programs run by the $5.7 billion institute. “We consider this a pilot program and depending on [its] success … we’ll determine the next steps,” she says. But Heather Joseph, executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition in Washington, D.C., hopes the agency will go further….”

The Future of FAIR, as Told by the Past – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The scholarly record is evolving to incorporate a widening range of research outputs, with stakeholders, systems, practices, and norms both adapting to and shaping this evolution. Stewardship of research data has received particular attention, evidenced by an ever-thickening network of services, resources, and consensus- or standards-building activities dedicated to making data sets accessible and reusable. One prominent initiative is FAIR: a set of principles that describe how to make data sets Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. It is still early days for FAIR – the principles were introduced in a 2016 article in Scientific Data. The future of FAIR is therefore very much to be determined; however, publishers, funders, researchers, and other stakeholders can draw some helpful lessons from history….

Changing data management practices is just as much about changing mindset and culture as it is about technical solutions – perhaps more. FAIR is a valuable tool for advocacy, in the sense of communicating the high-level goals of open, reusable data. FAIR is a valuable resource for education, by providing a shared framework within which new perspectives on responsible data management can be formed – even if those perspectives are not uniform, or easily operationalized. And FAIR is a valuable marker for how seriously the community is taking up the issue of open data: even if repositories declare their data FAIR without formal compliance or certification protocols, at least they are gesturing to the importance of the issue, and maybe even doing something substantive about it.

So the experience of OAIS tells us we should not place all our emphasis on formal implementation of FAIR as the final yardstick of its value to the community. FAIR can be, and I expect will be, a powerful catalyst in moving the research data community as a whole in the right direction….”

Learning to Spot the Revealing Gaps in Our Public Data Sets

“As art installations go, it is low key: a filing cabinet filled with meticulously labelled hanging folders. Visitors are welcome to browse under any heading that sparks their interest: publicly available gun trace data; the Nanjing massacre death toll; English language rules internalised by native speakers; how much Spotify pays each artist per play of song. The folders are all empty.

The work, titled “The Library of Missing Datasets”, is by Mimi Onuoha, an artist and adjunct professor at New York University. The aim, she says, is to expose the “blank spots in spaces that are otherwise saturated with data”. The blanks can reveal hidden biases in a society….”

FAIRsFAIR Open Consultation: FAIR Data Policies and Practices | FAIRsFAIR

“Want research in Europe to be more FAIR? Your views count! Please complete one or both of our surveys! FAIRsFAIR Open Consultation is open until September 20, 2019

FAIRSsFAIR is looking to assess the skills, practices, services and policies required to make  research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. 

HELP US IDENTIFY GOOD PRACTICE AND MIND THE GAPS!

If you support research data management or provide related services we’d like to hear from you. Your opinions will inform decision-making around FAIR governance in the European Science Cloud and we’ll help you implement them in your organisation….”

FAIRsFAIR Open Consultation: FAIR Data Policies and Practices | FAIRsFAIR

“Want research in Europe to be more FAIR? Your views count! Please complete one or both of our surveys! FAIRsFAIR Open Consultation is open until September 20, 2019

FAIRSsFAIR is looking to assess the skills, practices, services and policies required to make  research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. 

HELP US IDENTIFY GOOD PRACTICE AND MIND THE GAPS!

If you support research data management or provide related services we’d like to hear from you. Your opinions will inform decision-making around FAIR governance in the European Science Cloud and we’ll help you implement them in your organisation….”

How Americans view research and findings| Pew Research Center

“The Pew Research Center survey asked about several factors that could potentially increase – or decrease – trust in research findings and recommendations. The two steps that inspire the most confidence among members of the public are open access to data and an independent review.

A majority of U.S. adults (57%) say they trust scientific research findings more if the researchers make their data publicly available. Another 34% say that makes no difference, and just 8% say they are less apt to trust research findings if the data is released publicly….

People with higher levels of science knowledge are especially likely to say that open access to data and an independent review boost their confidence in research findings. For example, 69% of those with high science knowledge say that having data publicly available makes them trust research findings, versus 40% of those with low science knowledge….”

 

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials in PTSD: an overview | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

“This study underscores the importance of timely and accurate publication and dissemination of trial results, in order to avoid the potential waste of resources and to ensure research integrity and patient safety. We suggest that authors and journal editors adhere to conditions set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and that more diligent data sharing is encouraged through prospective trial registration and trial reporting websites….”