Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model — NEJM

“Multi-institutional randomized clinical trials have been a feature of oncology research in the United States since the 1950s. Since that time, cancer-treatment trials have been continuously funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a program that has evolved to become the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Currently, approximately 19,000 patients with cancer participate in NCTN clinical trials each year. Approximately 70,000 additional patients with cancer are enrolled each year in treatment trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.1,2

It is important to honor and reward the altruism of patients who participate in clinical trials. One way to do so is to share the data gathered in clinical trials with other researchers in a responsible and meaningful way. The cancer research community, encouraged by recommendations from the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot, is finally moving data sharing forward from its traditional, largely unfunded, place at the end of the long list of clinical research responsibilities to center stage.

There are a number of reasons why it has it taken more than 60 years for this issue to receive the attention that it deserves. Although the incentives for doing so may differ, competitive forces lead both academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies to protect data and to use data exclusively for their purposes. This approach protects their intellectual property and also shields the primary study team and the sponsor if the release of data from a trial for analysis by others leads to conclusions or interpretations that the primary researchers deem to be misleading or erroneous. When the academic and monetary stakes are high, the chance of this situation occurring is real. Another reason for the delay is that the protection of research participants dictates that confidentiality is the highest priority, and this risk may be greater with wide sharing of the new data-dense individual data sets that are required in order to develop personalized medicine approaches. Finally, and probably most important of all, data sharing has been hampered by a lack of resources, including access to enabling data systems technology, bioinformatics expertise, and legal agreements that facilitate sharing.”

Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model — NEJM

“Multi-institutional randomized clinical trials have been a feature of oncology research in the United States since the 1950s. Since that time, cancer-treatment trials have been continuously funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a program that has evolved to become the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Currently, approximately 19,000 patients with cancer participate in NCTN clinical trials each year. Approximately 70,000 additional patients with cancer are enrolled each year in treatment trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.1,2

It is important to honor and reward the altruism of patients who participate in clinical trials. One way to do so is to share the data gathered in clinical trials with other researchers in a responsible and meaningful way. The cancer research community, encouraged by recommendations from the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot, is finally moving data sharing forward from its traditional, largely unfunded, place at the end of the long list of clinical research responsibilities to center stage.

There are a number of reasons why it has it taken more than 60 years for this issue to receive the attention that it deserves. Although the incentives for doing so may differ, competitive forces lead both academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies to protect data and to use data exclusively for their purposes. This approach protects their intellectual property and also shields the primary study team and the sponsor if the release of data from a trial for analysis by others leads to conclusions or interpretations that the primary researchers deem to be misleading or erroneous. When the academic and monetary stakes are high, the chance of this situation occurring is real. Another reason for the delay is that the protection of research participants dictates that confidentiality is the highest priority, and this risk may be greater with wide sharing of the new data-dense individual data sets that are required in order to develop personalized medicine approaches. Finally, and probably most important of all, data sharing has been hampered by a lack of resources, including access to enabling data systems technology, bioinformatics expertise, and legal agreements that facilitate sharing.”

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”

O S P R I – Open Source Pedagogy, Research + Innovation

“OSPRI (Open Source Pedagogy, Research + Innovation) is an education innovation model inspired by open source principles and methodologies. Jointly housed in Duke University’s Social Science Research Institute and Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative with generous support from Red Hat, OSPRI develops interdisciplinary, project-based, student-centered curricular and co-curricular learning environments that empower students to be engaged agents of their learning and life pathways.

OSPRI is rooted in the open source values of open knowledge and access to information and promotes the use and generation of open educational resources. Focused on authentic, personalized learning, OSPRI’s curriculum design underscores the open source principles of collaboration and transparency, inclusion and diversity, and iterative and agile creation. In addition to developing an open source curricular pathway, OSPRI’s open learning ecosystem includes: collaborating with industry partners to create experiential, mentored learning; supporting student open source innovation project teams, hackathons, and challenges; presenting workshops on topics related to open pedagogy and open source culture and development processes; contributing to open access publications; and leading academic summits on making open the default position for teaching and learning, communicating, and creating within and beyond academia….”

Interview with PLOS ONE Academic Editor- Dee Carter | EveryONE

Dee Carter‘s lab at the University of Sydney, Australia focuses on eukaryotic microorganisms, in particular disease-causing pathogens. Since these organisms are more closely related to humans than bacteria or viruses for instance, it is challenging to find treatments that don’t damage the host at the same time. Her research revolves around understanding pathogen diversity using population and evolutionary genetic analysis, and on understanding cellular responses to toxins and stresses using transcriptomic and proteomic approaches. Dee graduated from the University of Otago, New Zealand, with a BSc and undertook her PhD at Imperial College London, UK, where she worked on the plant pathogen Phytophtohora infestans. She then did postdocs at the Faculte de Medicine de Montpellier, France and in the US at Roche Molecular Systems, Alameda, California and the University of Berkeley, under the combined mentorship of Dr Thomas White and Professsor John Taylor. She has been at the University of Sydney since 1995. Dee joined the PLOS ONE Editorial Board as Academic Editor at the launch of the journal in 2006.”

Hal Varian on how the Web challenges managers | McKinsey & Company

“Back in the early days of the Web, every document had at the bottom, “Copyright 1997. Do not redistribute.” Now every document has at the bottom, “Copyright 2008. Click here to send to your friends.” …In the old organization, you had to have this whole army of people digesting information to be able to feed it to the decision maker at the top. But that’s not the way it works anymore: the information can be available across the ranks, to everyone in the organization. And what you need to ensure is that people have access to the data they need to make their day-to-day decisions. And this can be done much more easily than it could be done in the past. And it really empowers the knowledge workers to work more effectively….”

Berkeley commits to accelerating universal open access, signs the OA2020 Expression of Interest – UC Berkeley Library News

“The University Library at UC Berkeley took a major step today in its commitment to achieving universal open access for scholarly journal literature by signing the OA2020 Expression of Interest, in collaboration with UC Davis and UC San Francisco.”

Panelists discuss JATS for Reuse for OASPA Webinar – OASPA

“JATS4R (JATS for Reuse) is an inclusive group of publishers, vendors, and other interested organisations who use the NISO Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) XML standard. On Monday 13th March, 2017, OASPA hosted a webinar on the history, goals and recent work of JATS4R, the importance of participation and outreach around JATS4R, and to provide a platform for discussions on how the initiative can be advanced in the future.”