Datasharing: obsolete? impossible in times of GDPR ? Or mandatory in science?! – Mischak – – European Journal of Clinical Investigation – Wiley Online Library

“All the above facts and issues contribute to the reluctance towards data sharing that is a prominent problem ever since, as in general nobody is tempted to invite severe critique. In addition, data sharing also takes away ownership of the data from the individual scientist, which also does not raise the interest in data sharing, even if this practice in fact is ethical, especially if data are generated using public or social security money.

This situation has recently substantially worsened, as a result of the introduction of the general data protection rule (GDPR) in Europe, which is echoed by similar yet not as detrimental legal frameworks in other countries. The introduction of GDPR, while theoretically likely starting from the positive aim to protect individuals from exploitation, by now has had a severe negative impact on science (and likely also on other areas, not the topic of this article) [1]. GDPR has been (ab)used to refuse sharing of raw data. As a result, interpretation of the actual data collected in a study is left solely to the scientists conducting the study, any re-evaluation or attempt to reproduce results by the scientific community is not possible in such a case, e.g. [2,3]. Additional negative side-effects are that the data, even though generated with public funding, are not accessible for the public who actually paid for the generation of these data in the first place. The consequence is also that similar data have to be generated again, in case they are required for any further experiment. Such an approach is inappropriate, and should neither be tolerated by (public) funders of studies, nor be supported by publishers….”

Transitioning punctum books to Open Source Infrastructure · punctum books

“Without open source digital infrastructure, open access publishing has no long-term chance of truly remaining open, that is, not only free to read but also free to write, free to edit, and free to publish. Without a commitment to make, as much as possible, the entire book production pipeline open, the decision of who gets to write and who gets to read will always remain beholden to actors that do not consider the public good their first priority.

An overarching profit motive of any of the vendors that punctum books uses as part of its pipeline posits a risk for our open access ideal: we are as weak as our most commercial link. Furthermore, the implementation of GDPR in the European Union obliges us to be much more careful with what happens with the personal data of our authors and readers – and rightfully so. Like knowledge, privacy is a public good that is at odds with the idea of profit maximalization. The open source community, on the contrary, embraces the public sharing of knowledge while safeguarding the human right to privacy.

Our first step was to find a replacement of the technically most complicated part of the book production process, the book design itself. This brought us to the good folks of Editoria, who are very close to cracking the nut of creating an open source online collaborative environment for the editing of scholarly texts combined with an output engine that creates well designed EPUB, HTML, PDF, and ICML output formats.

Through the COPIM project of Scholarled, punctum books was also already involved in the development of a metadata database and management system (under the codenames Thoth and Hapi) that will be the first free and open source system to generate ONIX, MARC, and KBART records….”

Transitioning punctum books to Open Source Infrastructure · punctum books

“Without open source digital infrastructure, open access publishing has no long-term chance of truly remaining open, that is, not only free to read but also free to write, free to edit, and free to publish. Without a commitment to make, as much as possible, the entire book production pipeline open, the decision of who gets to write and who gets to read will always remain beholden to actors that do not consider the public good their first priority.

An overarching profit motive of any of the vendors that punctum books uses as part of its pipeline posits a risk for our open access ideal: we are as weak as our most commercial link. Furthermore, the implementation of GDPR in the European Union obliges us to be much more careful with what happens with the personal data of our authors and readers – and rightfully so. Like knowledge, privacy is a public good that is at odds with the idea of profit maximalization. The open source community, on the contrary, embraces the public sharing of knowledge while safeguarding the human right to privacy.

Our first step was to find a replacement of the technically most complicated part of the book production process, the book design itself. This brought us to the good folks of Editoria, who are very close to cracking the nut of creating an open source online collaborative environment for the editing of scholarly texts combined with an output engine that creates well designed EPUB, HTML, PDF, and ICML output formats.

Through the COPIM project of Scholarled, punctum books was also already involved in the development of a metadata database and management system (under the codenames Thoth and Hapi) that will be the first free and open source system to generate ONIX, MARC, and KBART records….”

OKFN Open Science Mailing List will close on 31 Jan 2020 – where to next?

“Open Knowledge Foundation will be closing down their mailman lists by January 31st, 2020….Instead they will focus on offering a Discourse forum (https://discuss.okfn.org) which already has an open science category: https://discuss.okfn.org/c/working-groups/open-science

There are two things for members of this list to think about: 1 – where are the important conversations on open science happening now? What new lists should we join as this one closes and are there gaps that need to be filled? 2 – where to preserve the list archives? Open Knowledge Foundation do not plan to do so publicly and there is value (I think) in preserving conversations dating back 12 years to a time when open science was at a completely different level of development. If anyone has ideas or could help with archiving that would be great – I have asked for a copy to be kept but I don’t know in what form it will arrive!

As a very early member of this list I think it played an important role in developing an open science community that has spun into many active and exciting communities around the world. Moving on is not a bad thing and there are so many more communication channels to connect on open science topics than back in 2008 – I’d love to hear your recommendations! …

The decision has come about for three reasons:

 1. Managing the mailing lists and keeping the infrastructure up to date represents an effort in terms of resources and administration time that Open Knowledge Foundation is unable to meet going forward.

2. GDPR: EU legislation now requires us to have an active and current knowledge of the data held on our websites, as well as the consent of the subscribers regarding the use of their personal data, to ensure GDPR compliance. Unfortunately, Mailman mailing lists don’t comply with this Directive, which means we can’t use this tool any more.

3. We are currently implementing a new strategy within Open Knowledge Foundation which will focus the organisation on several key themes, namely Education, Health and Work. We want to keep fostering conversations but let groups choose what the best platform is for that.”

GDPR and the research process: What you need to know : OpenAIRE blog

“GDPR has a dual objective, protecting the data subject and, at the same time, increasing the free and lawful flow of data. By adhering to the GDPR principles, the research community is able to ensure maximum protection of personal data while maximizing the potential of opening research to the world.”