Open Educational Resources: Building Collaborative Bridges: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  Dr. Sarah W. Sutton presented the experiences of Emporia State University’s Open Educational Resource (OER) task force, particularly its collaborations with both internal and external stakeholders, as well as the results of its work as a case study. She focused on sharing how collaborations with stakeholders influenced the process, choices, and outcomes of the task force (particularly those that are transferable and may have benefits for other institutions of higher education).

 

Open Educational Resources: Building Collaborative Bridges: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  Dr. Sarah W. Sutton presented the experiences of Emporia State University’s Open Educational Resource (OER) task force, particularly its collaborations with both internal and external stakeholders, as well as the results of its work as a case study. She focused on sharing how collaborations with stakeholders influenced the process, choices, and outcomes of the task force (particularly those that are transferable and may have benefits for other institutions of higher education).

 

Decentralized Science. Bringing transparency to academic peer reviewing

“P2P Models explores a new way of building collaborative platforms harnessing the blockchain. We are building a software framework to build decentralized infrastructure for collaborative economy organizations that do not depend on central authorities….

We are a team based at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), developing an ERC Granted research project led by Samer Hassan, Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and Associate Professor at UCM. Thus, we combine research and software development efforts, and we have to navigate the jungle of academic papers and publications and survive the academic’s “publish or perish” curse.  As do many others, we think academic publication and peer reviewing can be improved in many ways, such as its fairness, quality, performance, cost, etc. Moreover, an oligopoly of publishers owns more than half of the market, making a large profit from the free work of editors, reviewers and authors. Fortunately, in P2P Models we are studying how blockchain based solutions can help us improve the governance and value distribution in online communities, and we decided to apply our own proposals to improve science publication and peer reviewing. This is how the Decentralized Science project was born, as an effort to solve the problems we were facing in academia and promote the values of Open Access and Open Science movements with the tools we were designing and researching in the P2P Models project….”

Decentralized Science. Bringing transparency to academic peer reviewing

“P2P Models explores a new way of building collaborative platforms harnessing the blockchain. We are building a software framework to build decentralized infrastructure for collaborative economy organizations that do not depend on central authorities….

We are a team based at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), developing an ERC Granted research project led by Samer Hassan, Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and Associate Professor at UCM. Thus, we combine research and software development efforts, and we have to navigate the jungle of academic papers and publications and survive the academic’s “publish or perish” curse.  As do many others, we think academic publication and peer reviewing can be improved in many ways, such as its fairness, quality, performance, cost, etc. Moreover, an oligopoly of publishers owns more than half of the market, making a large profit from the free work of editors, reviewers and authors. Fortunately, in P2P Models we are studying how blockchain based solutions can help us improve the governance and value distribution in online communities, and we decided to apply our own proposals to improve science publication and peer reviewing. This is how the Decentralized Science project was born, as an effort to solve the problems we were facing in academia and promote the values of Open Access and Open Science movements with the tools we were designing and researching in the P2P Models project….”

Building new societies: Insights and predictions from the 5th Wiley Society Member Survey – Roscoe – 2020 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Ten years ago, research conducted by the Biosciences Federation found that 60% of responders said they read OA journals, and 25% said that they published in them. Although a minority had claimed to have published in more than one OA journal, ‘they were not always able to distinguish between (fully or optionally) OA journals and other resources’ (Morris & Thorn, 2009). In fact, 31% of the journals mentioned were not OA journals at all. Over the course of our annual surveys, we have seen the understanding and significance of OA increase. In this year’s survey, 80% recognized the description of open research and 78% open science, for example, and only hybrid OA received the relatively low recognition rating of 61%. OA has moved from being a side issue to one of central importance, particularly among students, ECRs, and those in Africa and Central Asia. In last year’s survey, supporting OA was the sixth most important thing a society should do (65%), far behind publishing a journal (89%) and providing education and training (83%). In the current survey, it is the top service of which members want to see more. There is less interest in the USA (47%) and among senior members (61%), but if you are a student (85%) based in Africa (84%) or have less than 5?years’ experience (75%), then increased OA publishing is a major motivation towards society membership (see Fig. 6)….”

Building new societies: Insights and predictions from the 5th Wiley Society Member Survey – Roscoe – 2020 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Ten years ago, research conducted by the Biosciences Federation found that 60% of responders said they read OA journals, and 25% said that they published in them. Although a minority had claimed to have published in more than one OA journal, ‘they were not always able to distinguish between (fully or optionally) OA journals and other resources’ (Morris & Thorn, 2009). In fact, 31% of the journals mentioned were not OA journals at all. Over the course of our annual surveys, we have seen the understanding and significance of OA increase. In this year’s survey, 80% recognized the description of open research and 78% open science, for example, and only hybrid OA received the relatively low recognition rating of 61%. OA has moved from being a side issue to one of central importance, particularly among students, ECRs, and those in Africa and Central Asia. In last year’s survey, supporting OA was the sixth most important thing a society should do (65%), far behind publishing a journal (89%) and providing education and training (83%). In the current survey, it is the top service of which members want to see more. There is less interest in the USA (47%) and among senior members (61%), but if you are a student (85%) based in Africa (84%) or have less than 5?years’ experience (75%), then increased OA publishing is a major motivation towards society membership (see Fig. 6)….”

Open forensic science* | Journal of Law and the Biosciences | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  The mainstream sciences are experiencing a revolution of methodology. This revolution was inspired, in part, by the realization that a surprising number of findings in the bioscientific literature could not be replicated or reproduced by independent laboratories. In response, scientific norms and practices are rapidly moving towards openness. These reforms promise many enhancements to the scientific process, notably improved efficiency and reliability of findings. Changes are also underway in the forensic. After years of legal-scientific criticism and several reports from peak scientific bodies, efforts are underway to establish the validity of several forensic practices and ensure forensic scientists perform and present their work in a scientifically valid way.

In this article, the authors suggest that open science reforms are distinctively suited to addressing the problems faced by forensic science. Openness comports with legal and criminal justice values, helping ensure expert forensic evidence is more reliable and susceptible to rational evaluation by the trier of fact. In short, open forensic science allows parties in legal proceedings to understand and assess the strength of the case against them, resulting in fairer outcomes. Moreover, several emerging open science initiatives allow for speedier and more collaborative research.

Open Software Means Kinder Science – Scientific American Blog Network

“As a marine ecologist, I never expected I would one day advocate that science should operate more like the tech industry.

This is not about “moving fast and breaking things.” For me, it is about openness. 

Open software, both a driver and a result of Silicon Valley’s success, has been game-changing for me as a scientist. Its transformative power has improved my ability to analyze data and collaborate with other scientists….

My own transformation from scientist to open science champion has emboldened me to help enable others, and to help bring the kindness of the open software community to science. That is the whole idea behind the Openscapes, an organization I founded to advocate for open practices in environmental science. The idea is to empower early career scientists with existing open tools and communities, focusing on the research group, the campus and beyond….”

Open Practices and Resources for Collaborative Digital Pathology

Abstract:  In this paper, we describe open practices and open resources in the field of digital pathology with a specific focus on approaches that ease collaboration in research and education settings. Our review includes open access journals and open peer review, open-source software (libraries, desktop tools, and web applications), and open access collections. We illustrate applications and discuss current limitations and perspectives.

Open Practices and Resources for Collaborative Digital Pathology

Abstract:  In this paper, we describe open practices and open resources in the field of digital pathology with a specific focus on approaches that ease collaboration in research and education settings. Our review includes open access journals and open peer review, open-source software (libraries, desktop tools, and web applications), and open access collections. We illustrate applications and discuss current limitations and perspectives.