Open Up – the Mission Statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab on Open Science

Abstract:  The present paper is the mission statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab regarding Open Science. As early-career researchers (ECRs) in the lab, we first state our personal motivation to conduct research based on the principles of Open Science. We then describe how we incorporate four specific Open Science practices (i.e., Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Access) into our scientific workflow. In more detail, we explain how Open Science practices are embedded into the so-called ‘co-pilot’ system in our lab. The ‘co-pilot’ researcher is involved in all tasks of the ‘pilot’ researcher, that is designing a study, double-checking experimental and data analysis scripts, as well as writing the manuscript. The lab has set up this co-pilot system to increase transparency, reduce potential errors that could occur during the entire workflow, and to intensify collaborations between lab members. Finally, we discuss potential solutions for general problems that could arise when practicing Open Science.

Open Up – the Mission Statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab on Open Science

Abstract:  The present paper is the mission statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab regarding Open Science. As early-career researchers (ECRs) in the lab, we first state our personal motivation to conduct research based on the principles of Open Science. We then describe how we incorporate four specific Open Science practices (i.e., Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Access) into our scientific workflow. In more detail, we explain how Open Science practices are embedded into the so-called ‘co-pilot’ system in our lab. The ‘co-pilot’ researcher is involved in all tasks of the ‘pilot’ researcher, that is designing a study, double-checking experimental and data analysis scripts, as well as writing the manuscript. The lab has set up this co-pilot system to increase transparency, reduce potential errors that could occur during the entire workflow, and to intensify collaborations between lab members. Finally, we discuss potential solutions for general problems that could arise when practicing Open Science.

The allure of the journal impact factor holds firm, despite its flaws | Nature Index

“Many researchers still see the journal impact factor (JIF) as a key metric for promotions and tenure, despite concerns that it’s a flawed measure of a researcher’s value….

 

A recent survey of 338 researchers from 55 universities in the United States and Canada showed that more than one-third (36%) consider JIFs to be “very valued” for promotions and tenure, and 27% said they were “very important” when deciding where to submit articles….

[N]on-tenured and younger researchers, for whom RPT matters most, put more weight on JIFs when deciding where to publish….

According to Björn Brembs, a neuroscientist from the University of Regensburg, in Germany, who reviewed the study for eLife, the continuing deference to the JIF shows how scientists can be highly critical in their own subject domain, yet “gullible and evidence-resistant” when evaluating productivity. “This work shows just how much science is in dire need of a healthy dose of its own medicine, and yet refuses to take the pill,” he says….”

Early Career Advisory Board: Q&A on career and publishing | JCB

“In terms of publication models, there is a trend toward open access and exclusively digital distribution, which I support, as I suspect is true for most of my generation. What is not clear is how this will ultimately work out financially while still maintaining a rich ecosystem of high-quality publications, a parallel problem to that now plaguing print journalism. It may ultimately require an adjustment to how grant budgets are allocated in order to cover open access costs without negatively impacting other research activities, but this will likely not happen until there is a crisis. Unfortunately, we may need to ride it out until the overall community, including funding agencies, realize you can’t demand open access and keep professionally staffed journals without changes to the funding ecosystem….”

KU Libraries receive Institute of Museum and Library Services grant | Libraries

“The University of Kansas Libraries, along with North Carolina State University Libraries and Illinois School of Information Sciences, are pleased to announce a $247,128 grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

KU Libraries and their partners will develop, populate and pilot the Scholarly Communications Notebook (SCN) — an open educational resource index and repository. The SCN will serve as the location for an active, inclusive, empowered community of practice for teaching scholarly communications to early-career librarians. …”

Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations | bioRxiv

Abstract:  Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.

So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change? – Nicholas – 2019 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Interestingly, open science, which is something that many ECRs are still only waking up to as a concept, is the next most unchanging aspect. The large gap between positive attitudes (30%) and more practice (14%) is partly explained by the fact that it is only just obtaining traction and partly because of fears over tenure and reputation. Take Spanish ECRs, for instance, where assessment policies and reputational concerns – absolutely critical, of course, to ECRs in obtaining secure employment – conspire to prevent the ready adoption of open science in practice. That is not to say that all ECRs are completely happy with all the component parts of open science. Thus, they tend not welcome the visibility open peer review brings with it as it could have reputational consequences, as one French ECR said: ‘Open Peer Review is tricky because you engage your own reputation as a reviewer’. Open data can be a poisoned chalice as well because ECRs do not want to give away their data until they have fully exploited it, as one Spanish ECR told us: ‘Sharing data is good for verification and reproducibility, but we should wait before we do this until they have been completely exploited to avoid losing our competitive edge’. Nevertheless, a number of counties (e.g. France and Poland) are rolling out open science national plans, and funders will expect compliance down the line….

Returning to the question posed at the very beginning of the study, whether ECRs are the harbingers of change, weighting up all the evidence, the answer has to be yes, albeit a slightly qualified yes. The drivers of change are social media, open science, and collaboration propelled by ECRs’ Millennium generation beliefs. …

Indeed, there may be plenty of papers exhorting ECRs to embrace open practices (Eschert, 2015; Gould, 2015; McKiernan et al., 2016), but no research robustly showing that ECRs are in fact rushing to do this. Of course, most of these studies predate the Harbingers study, so, maybe, things have changed in the interim, which explains why the results of this study, indicating that the scholarly walls have been breached in places, and ECRs have planted one foot in the future, is at odds with the research of many of our peers. …”

You’ve completed your review – now get credit with ORCID | The Official PLOS Blog

For more than five years, PLOS authors have used ORCID to make their professional lives easier. Now reviewers at PLOS can take advantage of the same benefits to track their contributions, claim credit, and build up their research profiles….

Starting today, reviewers can enter their ORCID iD in the Editorial Manager submission system for all PLOS journals and opt-in to automatically get credit when they complete a review, the same way they would for their published articles. The ORCID reviewer record does not contain details about the specific manuscript and we’ve introduced a delay, so reviewers can track their work even while retaining their anonymity….”

You’ve completed your review – now get credit with ORCID | The Official PLOS Blog

For more than five years, PLOS authors have used ORCID to make their professional lives easier. Now reviewers at PLOS can take advantage of the same benefits to track their contributions, claim credit, and build up their research profiles….

Starting today, reviewers can enter their ORCID iD in the Editorial Manager submission system for all PLOS journals and opt-in to automatically get credit when they complete a review, the same way they would for their published articles. The ORCID reviewer record does not contain details about the specific manuscript and we’ve introduced a delay, so reviewers can track their work even while retaining their anonymity….”

Interview with Michael Markie, Director of Publishing at F1000 | Eurodoc

In this interview, Michael Markie, Director of Publishing at F1000, will discuss a new concept for an open publishing platform that aims to facilitate faster, more efficient publishing, as well as making the whole publication process more transparent through Open Data and Open Peer Review….”