“In order to better coordinate a repository ecology that includes multitudinous individual systems, and synthesize staff knowledge and expertise that spans decades, the Repository Principles subgroup of CUL’s Repository Executive Group (RepoExec) has created this open handbook of repository principles and strategies.
The handbook provides support for both new and existing repository managers, comprising both recommended practices and specifically identified action steps that will allow them to track their progress and identify gaps. Each section of the handbook covers a different strategic area of repository management, standing largely on its own and linking to other sections when appropriate. Although there is no primary section order, we recommend starting with Repository Scope and Service Planning.
The handbook specifically addresses principles and practices pertaining to digital repositories, where a digital repository can be defined as: a system, the purpose of which is to store, present, and preserve a collection of data for which the library provides services. That is, the term refers specifically to the application as opposed to the content (collections, objects and metadata) within.
Additionally, the handbook is designed to engender a larger conversation about repository management practices, both at Cornell and beyond. As such, it is a living document that RepoExec will continue to edit and update in response to changes in the repository landscape and feedback from readers. While the handbook points to Cornell-specific service centers for providing in-house services and consulting, it is our hope that the document may be useful to a readership beyond the Cornell University Library….”
“The “Texas Toolkit for OER Course Markings (a living guide)” is a living document that can help colleges and universities develop and implement processes to share information with students about courses that use open education resources (OER). This project expands the toolkit to include case studies representing a variety of approaches to OER course markings, brief stories from the perspectives of various stakeholders, and a more robust analysis of stakeholders, options, and barriers. Items slated for further exploration include platform specs, talking points for stakeholder groups, graphic illustrations and flow charts, communication opportunities and roadblocks, branding considerations, and impact….”
“The Open Science Network is a shared open protocol on the blockchain where researchers, universities, companies with R&D budgets and government institutions can interact effectively with lower barriers to entry and reduced friction in each step of the process….
Everything will be publishable without a pre-approval process beyond basic validation to prevent network spam. All research that scientists consider ready for the world will exist in a continuum state instead of the binary unpublished/published state of the current ecosystem. Research verification will help determine valuable findings, but everything will be open and available by default….”
Abstract: The evidence-based policy movement promotes the use of empirical evidence to inform policy decision-making. While this movement has gained traction over the last two decades, several concerns about the credibility of empirical research have been identified in scientific disciplines that use research methods and practices that are commonplace in policy analysis. As a solution, we argue that policy analysis should adopt the transparent, open, and reproducible research practices espoused in related disciplines. We first discuss the importance of evidence-based policy in an era of increasing disagreement about facts, analysis, and expertise. We then review recent credibility crises of empirical research (difficulties reproducing results), their causes (questionable research practices such as publication biases and p-hacking), and their relevance to the credibility of evidence-based policy (trust in policy analysis). The remainder of the paper makes the case for “open” policy analysis and how to achieve it. We include examples of recent policy analyses that have incorporated open research practices such as transparent reporting, open data, and code sharing. We conclude with recommendations on how key stakeholders in evidence-based policy can make open policy analysis the norm and thus safeguard trust in using empirical evidence to inform important policy decisions.
“…Readers who visit the Free Read Press website can download and distribute books by experienced authors, many of whom are connected with USC, at no cost and with no usage restrictions. In addition to work by Dane and Rowe, who is professor of English, American studies and ethnicity, and comparative literature, contributors include Distinguished Professor of English Percival Everett, Aerol Arnold Professor Emeritus of English Jim Kincaid, and Richard Fliegel, associate dean for undergraduate programs. Unlike traditional printing houses, there is little editing, and authors can make changes to their work at any time. For readers who prefer the texture of a crisp page over the digital swipe, Free Read Press has partnered with printers to sell physical copies of each book at cost….”
“5 days in February 2018: A group of 14 authors will come together at the TIB in Hannover and create an open living handbook on Open Science training. Professionals from various areas of expertise will collect and share their experiences on multiplying Open Science.”
“This archive contains the dump of the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC, http://opencitations.net) triplestore (Blazegraph, https://www.blazegraph.com/, licensed in GPLv2) containing all the data of the corpus, and created regularly every month.”
First, identify the basic propositions in the field or sub-field you want to cover. To start small, identify the basic propositions you want to defend in a given article.
Second, create a separate OA web page for each proposition. For now, don’t worry about the file format or other technicalities. What’s important is that the pages should (1) be easy to update, (2) carry a time-stamp showing when they were last updated, and (3) give each proposition a unique URL. Let’s call them “proposition pages”.
Third, start filling in each page with the evidence in support of its proposition. If some evidence has been published in an article or book, then cite the publication. When the work is online (OA or TA), add a link as well. Whenever you can link directly to evidence, rather than merely to publications describing evidence, do that. For example, some propositions can be supported by linkable data in an open dataset. But because citations and data don’t always speak for themselves, consider adding some annotations to explain how cited pieces of evidence support the given proposition.
Each supporting study or piece of evidence should have an entry to itself. A proposition page should look more like a list than an article. It should look like a list of citations, annotated citations, or bullet points. It should look like a footnote, perhaps a very long footnote, for the good reason that one intended use of a proposition page is to be available for citation and review as a compendious, perpetually updated, public footnote. …”
“This page is for elaboration of the individual FAIR Principles, the rationale behind them and the reason they are worded the way they are. This is also a living document. The Principles are not intended to be static, and have not be “ratified”. The principles may change, based on community input and discussion of suggestions among the FAIR Principles Stewardship group. …”