“Currently, innovative ideas are abundant in science, yet we are still short of practical tools to implement these ideas in everyday practice. A tool is practical if it can achieve its aim without requiring too much or no extra effort from the user. The consideration of user experience, efficiency, and user-friendliness is still weak in the development of scientific tools. In this workshop, three early career researchers will present their innovations that aim to improve scientific practice in an efficient way and we invite the audience to a discussion to formalise our thinking about the development of new tools….”
“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….”
• We constructed a corpus of RCT publications annotated with CONSORT checklist items.
• We developed text mining methods to identify methodology-related checklist items.
• A BioBERT-based model performs best in recognizing adequately reported items.
• A phrase-based method performs best in recognizing infrequently reported items.
• The corpus and the text mining methods can be used to address reporting transparency….”
Abstract: Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science.
“Trust in academic journal articles is based on similar expectations. Journals carry out editorial processes from peer review to plagiarism checks. But these processes are highly heterogeneous in how, when, and by whom they are undertaken. In many cases, it’s not always readily apparent to the outside observer that they take place at all. And as new innovations in peer review and the open research movement lead to new experiments in how we produce and distribute research products, understanding what events take place is an increasingly important issue for publishers, authors, and readers alike.
With this in mind, the DocMaps project (a joint effort of the Knowledge Futures Group, ASAPbio, and TU Graz, supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute), has been working with a Technical Committee to develop a machine-readable, interoperable and extensible framework for capturing valuable context about the processes used to create research products such as journal articles. This framework is being designed to capture as much (or little) contextual data about a document as desired by the publisher: from a minimum assertion that an event took place, to a detailed history of every edit to a document….”
“NERL members are among the most prestigious and productive research institutions in the United States, with researchers at NERL-affiliated institutions producing an estimated 10-12% of the most important and impactful scholarship in the world. We are committed to leveraging our influence to achieve global sustainability, parity, and access in scholarly publishing. Ensuring a sustainable ecosystem for scholarly communications is crucial across our institutions for impact, access, and preservation. When we say we demand a better deal, we mean more than a good price. In keeping with NERL’s support for The MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts, we are committed to contracts that allow for maximum flexibility and options for researchers. As partners in the scholarly communication ecosystem, publishers and libraries share in the challenges of unprecedented health and economic crises, and our shared priority must be opening access to scholarship as our best way of supporting solutions to those crises….”
“The NERL Consortium issued a statement, “NERL Demands a Better Deal,” articulating the values NERL will adopt in negotiating agreements with publishers. The statement, which originated in the NERL Program Council and which has generated broad support across the NERL community, outlines the following core values in service to an open, equitable, and healthy academic publishing ecosystem:
Transparency: NERL commits to transparency of the negotiating process and will share details of discussions, outcomes, and cost whenever possible to demonstrate leadership for academic libraries. We commit to demanding transparency from our vendor partners and will prioritize vendor partners who honor this commitment.
Sustainability: NERL negotiates for terms that ensure greater sustainability, pursuing opportunities to support collective infrastructure and collective ownership. We prioritize agreements that move past historical pricing models and precedent. We encourage smarter, better, and often smaller deals that do not increase cost with unrequested content while providing clear and transparent pricing models.
Equity: NERL negotiates for terms that support the rights of all researchers to participate in the scholarly communications ecosystem as knowledge creators; to do so requires partnership between libraries and publishers to eliminate barriers. We work to ensure that costs to researchers and institutions are aligned with the costs of publishing, so everyone has access to open access publishing.
Reproducibility: NERL agreements uphold Author’s Rights, ensuring no forced copyright transfer from author to publisher, computational rights for researchers to use articles in text mining or other practices, and the right to deposit articles in institutional repositories.
Flexibility: We will encourage and prioritize NERL Agreements that incentivize emerging, efficient, and sustainable business models. We seek meaningful and creative alternatives that support the dissemination and preservation of the scholarly record. …”
“Changes are afoot in the way the scientific community is approaching the practice and reporting of research. Spurred by concerns about the fundamental reliability (i.e., replicability), or rather lack thereof, of contemporary psychological science (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, 2015), as well as how we go about our business (e.g., Gelman & Loken, 2014), several recommendations have been furthered for increasing the rigor of the published research through openness and transparency. The Journal has long prized and published the type of research with features, like large sample sizes (Fraley & Vazire, 2014), that has fared well by replicability standards (Soto, 2019). The type of work traditionally published here, often relying on longitudinal samples, large public datasets (e.g., Midlife in the United States Study), or complex data collection designs (e.g., ambulatory assessment and behavioral coding) did not seem to fit neatly into the template of the emerging transparency practices. However, as thinking in the open science movement has progressed and matured, we have decided to full?throatedly endorse these practices and join the growing chorus of voices that are encouraging and rewarding more transparent work in psychological science. We believe this can be achieved while maintaining the “big tent” spirit of personality research at the Journal with a broad scope in content, methods, and analytical tools that has made it so special and successful all of these years. Moving forward, we will be rigorously implementing a number of procedures for openness and transparency consistent with the Transparency and Open Science Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.
The TOP Guidelines are organized into eight standards, each of which can be implemented at three levels of stringency (Nosek et al., 2015). In what follows, we outline the initial TOP Standards Levels adopted by the Journal and the associated rationale. Generally, we have adopted Level 2 standards, as we believe these strike a desirable balance between compelling a high degree of openness and transparency while not being overly onerous and a deterrent for authors interested in the Journal as an outlet for their work….”
This presentation was given by Johan Rooryck during the Open Access Talk on 29 October 2020. Johan Rooryck, Professor at Leiden University and Executive Director of cOAlition S, briefly outlines the rationale for the principles of Plan S. Beyond that, he discusses its implementation for all grants awarded by cOAlition S funders from 1 January 2021, including the Horizon Europe framework. In his talk, Johan Rooryck covers the following questions: Which conditions do you need to fulfil to publish in a journal of your choice under Plan S? What can the newly developed Journal Checker Tool do for you? How does the recent Rights Retention Strategy help you to keep the rights to your Author Accepted Manuscript? In addition, Johan Rooryck mentions a number of other projects initiated by cOAlition S, such as the Price Transparency Framework to ensure that prices for publishing services become more transparent and fair or the commission of a study to identify concrete funding mechanisms to support and strengthen diamond journals and their platforms. The lecture “Plan S and funding – What is going to change?” was held as part of the Open Access Talk online series of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network.
Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic has exposed not only the lack of preparation to combat the deadly disease, but also the nature of response by governments worldwide. This article analyses how some governments suppress science reporting in the Asia Pacific region during the pandemic. It also highlights how the political interference in science undermines liability and openness leading to the lack of freedom to express facts honestly.