Association Science2 (Science for Science)

“Our objectives are:

to promote the dissemination of high-quality research without private intermediaries, primarily through the creation of top-level open access journals with low article-processing charges (€500/article + VAT);
to prioritize standards of excellence and complete transparency in the process of open dissemination of science;
to promote the training of early career scientists from around the world, prioritizing excellence….”

Exploring factors that influence the practice… | HRB Open Research

Abstract:  Background: There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers. However, limited research has been conducted on the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research.

Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data.
Results: 14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within ‘Valuing Open Science’, participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public. Within ‘Creating a Culture of Open Science’ participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices.
Conclusion: ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science. Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

DEI Project in Latin America: Plan and preliminary findings | Global OER Graduate Network (GO-GN)

“DEI Project in Latin America: Plan and preliminary findings” by Carina Bossu and Viviane Vladimirschi was presented at the 2 March 2021 GO-GN webinar. Blog posts:

Proyecto DEI en Latinoamérica: Plan y resultados preliminares: http://go-gn.net/webinars/proyecto-dei-en-latinoamerica-plan-y-resultados-preliminares/
Projeto DEI na América Latina–Plano e dados preliminares: http://go-gn.net/webinars/projeto-dei-na-america-latina-plano-e-dados-preliminares/
DEI Project in Latin America: Plan and preliminary findings: http://go-gn.net/webinars/dei-project-in-latin-america-plan-and-preliminary-findings/

DEI Project in Latin America: Plan and preliminary findings | Global OER Graduate Network (GO-GN)

“DEI Project in Latin America: Plan and preliminary findings” by Carina Bossu and Viviane Vladimirschi was presented at the 2 March 2021 GO-GN webinar. Blog posts:

Proyecto DEI en Latinoamérica: Plan y resultados preliminares: http://go-gn.net/webinars/proyecto-dei-en-latinoamerica-plan-y-resultados-preliminares/
Projeto DEI na América Latina–Plano e dados preliminares: http://go-gn.net/webinars/projeto-dei-na-america-latina-plano-e-dados-preliminares/
DEI Project in Latin America: Plan and preliminary findings: http://go-gn.net/webinars/dei-project-in-latin-america-plan-and-preliminary-findings/

cOAlition S webinar: The Rights Retention Strategy and what it means for EU13 & Associated Countries – Young Academy of Europe

“Join us for this live interactive webinar, organised in partnership by the Young Academy of Europe and ENYAs in EU13 and Associated Countries: Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Albania, Israel, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey and Belarus….”

Wellcome Open Research: a summary of year 4 | Wellcome Open Research Blog

“In 2020 the Wellcome Open Research (WOR) publishing platform reached a significant milestone when it became the single most used venue for Wellcome-funded researchers to share their research findings.   

In this blog post, Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research, Wellcome, and Michael Markie, Publishing Director, F1000, provide an analysis of publishing activity on the WOR platform and preview some of the initiatives we have planned for 2021….

Speed of publication remains one of the platform’s unique selling points. Table 3, below, shows that most articles are published within 26 days of being submitted and receive the first peer review report some 21 days later. Once an article has received two “approved” statuses from reviewers (or one “approved” and two “approved with reservation” statuses) articles are submitted for indexing in PubMed, Scopus and other bibliographic databases….”

Frontiers | Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society | Research Metrics and Analytics

Abstract:  Open science (OS) is of paramount importance for the improvement of science worldwide and across research fields. Recent years have witnessed a transition toward open and transparent scientific practices, but there is still a long way to go. Early career researchers (ECRs) are of crucial relevance in the process of steering toward the standardization of OS practices, as they will become the future decision makers of the institutional change that necessarily accompanies this transition. Thus, it is imperative to gain insight into where ECRs stand on OS practices. Under this premise, the Open Science group of the Max Planck PhDnet designed and conducted an online survey to assess the stance toward OS practices of doctoral candidates from the Max Planck Society. As one of the leading scientific institutions for basic research worldwide, the Max Planck Society provides a considerable population of researchers from multiple scientific fields, englobed into three sections: biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics and technology, and human and social sciences. From an approximate total population of 5,100 doctoral candidates affiliated with the Max Planck Society, the survey collected responses from 568 doctoral candidates. The survey assessed self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of different OS practices, namely, open access publications, open data, preregistrations, registered reports, and replication studies. ECRs seemed to hold a generally positive view toward these different practices and to be interested in learning more about them. Furthermore, we found that ECRs’ knowledge and positive attitudes predicted the extent to which they implemented these OS practices, although levels of implementation were rather low in the past. We observed differences and similarities between scientific sections. We discuss these differences in terms of need and feasibility to apply these OS practices in specific scientific fields, but additionally in relation to the incentive systems that shape scientific communities. Lastly, we discuss the implications that these results can have for the training and career advancement of ECRs, and ultimately, for the consolidation of OS practices.

 

Chinese PhD Students’ Perceptions of Predatory Journals: A Survey Study | Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Abstract:  This study investigates the attitudes of Chinese PhD students toward predatory journals. Data were gathered using an online questionnaire to which 332 Chinese PhD students responded. Our main conclusions are 1) in the sciences, technology, and medicine, respondents frequently confused predatory journals with open access journals; 2) in the humanities and social sciences, the respondents identified only Chinese-language (not English-language) journals as predatory and made a number of misidentifications; and 3) most respondents indicated that they would not submit papers to predatory journals, mainly because doing so would hurt their reputation, yet the minority who were willing to do so mentioned easy acceptance and a short wait time for publication as the top reasons for considering it.