Category: Open Science

"Persistent, Global Identity for Scientists via ORCID"

August E. Evrard et al. have self-archived "Persistent, Global Identity for Scientists via ORCID."

Here's an excerpt:

Scientists have an inherent interest in claiming their contributions to the scholarly record, but the fragmented state of identity management across the landscape of astronomy, physics, and other fields makes highlighting the contributions of any single individual a formidable and often frustratingly complex task. The problem is exacerbated by the expanding variety of academic research products and the growing footprints of large collaborations and interdisciplinary teams. In this essay, we outline the benefits of a unique scholarly identifier with persistent value on a global scale and we review astronomy and physics engagement with the Open Researcher and Contributor iD (ORCID) service as a solution.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Why Principal Investigators Funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Publish in the Public Library of Science Journals"

Nancy Pontika has published "Why Principal Investigators Funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Publish in the Public Library of Science Journals" in Information Research.

Here's an excerpt:

The Institutes-funded investigators submitted to the Public Library of Science journals because they favour the high impact factor, fast publication speed, fair peer-review system and the articles/ immediate open access availability.

Conclusions. The requirements of the National Institutes' public access policy do not influence the investigators' decision to submit to one of the Public Library of Science journals and do not increase their familiarity with open access publishing options.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Science 2.0 Repositories: Time for a Change in Scholarly Communication"

Massimiliano Assante, et al. have published "Science 2.0 Repositories: Time for a Change in Scholarly Communication" in D-Lib Magazine.

Here's an excerpt:

Information and communication technology (ICT) advances in research infrastructures are continuously changing the way research and scientific communication are performed. Scientists, funders, and organizations are moving the paradigm of "research publishing" well beyond traditional articles. The aim is to pursue an holistic approach where publishing includes any product (e.g. publications, datasets, experiments, software, web sites, blogs) resulting from a research activity and relevant to the interpretation, evaluation, and reuse of the activity or part of it. The implementation of this vision is today mainly inspired by literature scientific communication workflows, which separate the "where" research is conducted from the "where" research is published and shared. In this paper we claim that this model cannot fit well with scientific communication practice envisaged in Science 2.0 settings. We present the idea of Science 2.0 Repositories (SciRepos), which meet publishing requirements arising in Science 2.0 by blurring the distinction between research life-cycle and research publishing. SciRepos interface with the ICT services of research infrastructures to intercept and publish research products while providing researchers with social networking tools for discovery, notification, sharing, discussion, and assessment of research products.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Nevermind the Data, Where Are the Protocols?"

David Crotty has published "Nevermind the Data, Where Are the Protocols?" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

This is more complicated than you might think. The smallest variations in technique or reagents can lead to major differences in results. The scant information offered by most journals' Materials and Methods sections makes replication fairly impossible. Often when describing a technique, an author will merely cite a previous paper where they used that technique…which also cites a previous paper, which also cites a previous paper and the wild goose chase is on. Methodologies evolve over time, and even if you can track down the original source of the technique, it likely has changed a great deal over the years.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

Open Science Commons

The European Grid Infrastructure has released Open Science Commons.

Here's an excerpt:

With this paper, the European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) proposes the Open Science Commons as a new approach to digital research, tackling policy challenges and embracing open science as a new paradigm for knowledge creation and collaboration. EGI invites organisations from the research landscape to join it in this journey to develop these concepts, and through them to advance the implementation of the European Research Area.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

All Harvard Schools Now Have Open Access Policies

With the adoption of an open access policy in June by the Harvard Medical School, all Harvard schools now have open access policies.

Here’s an excerpt from the announcement:

Harvard Medical School adopted an open-access policy on June 18, 2014, by a unanimous vote of the Faculty Council. The new policy covers both "quad"-based and clinical faculty. Now all Harvard schools have open-access policies.

Like the other Harvard policies, the Medical School policy insures that faculty members automatically retain a license to share their research papers freely through DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), the University’s open-access repository. Faculty also have the option to waive this license for any article, preserving their freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice. When faculty write articles covered by the Medical School policy and the policy at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), they need only deposit once to comply with both.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"Journals and ‘Journals’: Taking a Deeper Look"

Walt Crawford has published "Journals and 'Journals': Taking a Deeper Look" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

This essay builds on the July 2014 Cites & Insights investigation by including full article counts for the thousands of OA journals in Beall's lists (that is, those that actually publish articles!) and those published by OASPA members, extending the article counts back to 2011, and modifying the groups of journals to be more meaningful.

It also introduces the rough numbers for the new set of Gold OA journals that will form the heart of Part 2 of this two-part essay (the December 2014 C&I), namely more than three thousand journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 7, 2014 that aren't in one of the other two sets, that do have enough English in the interface for me to analyze them and that are not on biology-related or human medicine-related topics.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"Putting Open Science into Practice: A Social Dilemma?"

Kaja Scheliga and Sascha Friesike have published "Putting Open Science into Practice: A Social Dilemma?" in First Monday.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Digital technologies carry the promise of transforming science and opening up the research process. We interviewed researchers from a variety of backgrounds about their attitudes towards and experiences with openness in their research practices. We observe a considerable discrepancy between the concept of open science and scholarly reality. While many researchers support open science in theory, the individual researcher is confronted with various difficulties when putting open science into practice. We analyse the major obstacles to open science and group them into two main categories: individual obstacles and systemic obstacles. We argue that the phenomenon of open science can be seen through the prism of a social dilemma: what is in the collective best interest of the scientific community is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual scientist. We discuss the possibilities of transferring theoretical solutions to social dilemma problems to the realm of open science.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"Research Data Sharing: Developing a Stakeholder-Driven Model for Journal Policies"

Paul Sturges et al. have self-archived "Research Data Sharing: Developing a Stakeholder-Driven Model for Journal Policies."

Here's an excerpt:

The Journal Research Data (JoRD) Project was a JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) funded feasibility study on the possible shape of a central service on journal research data policies. The objectives of the study included, amongst other considerations: to identify the current state of journal data sharing policies and to investigate the views and practices of stakeholders to data sharing. The project confirmed that a large percentage of journals do not have a policy on data sharing, and that there are inconsistencies between the traceable journal data sharing policies. Such a state leaves authors unsure of whether they should deposit data relating to articles and where and how to share that data. In the absence of a consolidated infrastructure for the easy sharing of data, a journal data sharing model policy was developed. The model policy was developed from comparing the quantitative information gathered from analysing existing journal data policies with qualitative data collected from the stakeholders concerned. This article summarises the information gathered, outlines the process by which the model was developed and presents the model journal data sharing policy in full.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"PLOS Data Policy: Catalyst for a Better Research Process"

Emma Ganley has published "PLOS Data Policy: Catalyst for a Better Research Process" in College & Research Libraries News.

Here's an excerpt:

PLOS is seeking to ensure the ongoing utility of research, as making a paper openly accessible is enhanced enormously if that paper is linked seamlessly to the data from which it was constructed. In a time when post-publication peer review is more prevalent and data frequently come under intense public scrutiny, with whistle-blowers, blogs, and websites dedicated to investigating the validity and veracity of scientific publications, requiring access to the relevant data leads to a more rigorous scientific record.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

The Evolution of Open Access: What Might Happen Next?

The University of Maryland Libraries have released a video of a presentation by Heather Joseph, The Evolution of Open Access: What Might Happen Next? Her presentation slides are also available.

Here's an excerpt:

As Open Access becomes established as a permanent fixture in the scholarly communication area, the challenges and opportunities presented by the Open environment increase in scale and complexity. This talk will examine some of the key trends pointing towards additional opportunities for large-scale change in not only how we access and use scholarly research outputs – but also how they are disseminated, curated and evaluated. Heather Joseph serves as the Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), an international coalition of academic and research libraries working to expand the global, cost-effective digital communication of research results. As SPARC's Director since 2005, Ms. Joseph leads the strategic and operational activities of the organization, and has focused SPARC's efforts on supporting emerging publishing models, enabling digital archives, and establishing open access policies on the national and international levels.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"E-Science as a Catalyst for Transformational Change in University Research Libraries"

Mary E. Piorun has self-archived her dissertaion "E-Science as a Catalyst for Transformational Change in University Research Libraries."

Here's an excerpt:

Changes in how research is conducted, from the growth of e-science to the emergence of big data, have lead to new opportunities for librarians to become involved in the creation and management of research data, at the same time the duties and responsibilities of university libraries continue to evolve. This study examines those roles related to e-science while exploring the concept of transformational change and leadership issues in bringing about such a change. Using the framework established by Levy and Merry for first- and second-order change, four case studies of libraries whose institutions are members in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) are developed.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"SCOAP3 Lifts Off: An Interview with Ann Okerson"

David Wojick has published "SCOAP3 Lifts Off: An Interview with Ann Okerson" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

Q: SCOAP3 seems pretty complicated to me. As I understand it they make deals with leading particle physics journals, so that when those libraries that participate in SCOAP3 pay the article publishing charges, everyone's subscription price is either lowered or eliminated, depending on whether some or all of the articles are paid for. Is that correct?

A: Roughly put, that's true. "They" are "we" in this case. Let me note here that without the interest and participation of the publishers, SCOAP3 would not have launched on January 1st, already with hundreds of 2014 articles in the SCOAP3 repository at CERN and now flowing in on a daily basis. The SCOAP3 Technical Working Group developed, in conjunction with the Steering Committee, a set of criteria that formed the basis for publisher participation. Publishers received the Invitation to Tender and responded by describing in detail the way in which they would participate and at what cost per article.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Open Science Win: Johnson & Johnson Clinical Trial Data Sharing Agreement

Johnson & Johnson has announced a clinical trial data sharing agreement with the Yale School of Medicine.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Johnson & Johnson today announced that its subsidiary, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, has entered into a novel agreement with Yale School of Medicine's Open Data Access (YODA) Project that will extend its commitment to sharing clinical trials data to enhance public health and advance science and medicine. Under the agreement, YODA will serve as an independent body to review requests from investigators and physicians seeking access to anonymized clinical trials data from Janssen, the pharmaceutical companies of Johnson & Johnson, and make final decisions on data sharing. This is the first time any company has collaborated with a completely independent third party to review and make decisions regarding every request for clinical data.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why Instrumentalist Arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science Are Not Enough"

The Impact of Social Science has republished Eric Kansa's "It's the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why Instrumentalist Arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science Are Not Enough."

Here's an excerpt:

Neoliberal universities primarily serve the needs of commerce. They need to churn out technically skilled human resources (made desperate for any work by high loads of debt) and easily monetized technical advancements. . . .

How can something so wonderful and right as "openness" further promote Neoliberalism? After all, aren't we the rebels blasting at the exhaust vents of Elsevier's Death Star? But in selling openness to the heads of foundations, businesses, governments and universities, we often end up adopting the tropes of Neoliberalism. As a tactic, that's perfectly reasonable. As a long-term strategy, I think it's doomed.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Congress Madates Open Access for Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies

The passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 mandates open access for federal agencies under the Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Senate subcommittee with research budgets of $100 million or more.

Here's an excerpt from the bill:

SEC. 527. Each Federal agency, or in the case of an agency with multiple bureaus, each bureau (or operating division) funded under this Act that has research and development expenditures in excess of $100,000,000 per year shall develop a Federal research public access policy that provides for—

  • the submission to the agency, agency bureau, or designated entity acting on behalf of the agency, a machine-readable version of the author's final peer-reviewed manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals describing research supported, in whole or in part, from funding by the Federal Government;
  • free online public access to such final peer-reviewed manuscripts or published versions not later than 12 months after the official date of publication; and
  • compliance with all relevant copyright laws.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"The Political Economy of Federally Sponsored Data"

Bart Ragon has published "The Political Economy of Federally Sponsored Data" in the latest issue of the Journal of eScience Librarianship.

Here's an excerpt:

Librarian involvement in the Open Access (OA) movement has traditionally focused on access to scholarly publications. Recent actions by the White House have focused attention on access on the data produced from federally sponsored research. Questions have emerged concerning access to the output of federally sponsored research and whether it is a public or private good. Understanding the political battle over access to federally funded research is closely tied to the ownership of the peer review process in higher education and associated revenue streams, and as a result, interest groups seeking to influence government regulation have politicized the issues. As a major funder of research in higher education, policies from the federal government are likely to drive change in research practices at higher education institutions and impact library services. The political economy of federally sponsored research data will shape research enterprises in higher education and inspire a number of new services distributed throughout the research life cycle.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing

An open access, editable version of Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing is available.

Here's an excerpt:

This book will give researchers, scientists, decision makers, politicians, and stakeholders an overview on the basics, the tools, and the vision behind the current changes we see in the field of knowledge creation. It is meant as a starting point for readers to become an active part in the future of research and to become an informed party during the transition phase. This is pivotal, since research, as a sensitive, complex process with many facets and millions of participants, hierarchies, personal networks, and structures, needs informed participants.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

figshare for Institutions Launched

figshare has launched an instiutional service for research data.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

figshare today announces the launch of 'figshare for Institutions'—a simple and cost-effective software solution for academic and higher education establishments to both securely host and make publicly available its academic research outputs. figshare, allows academic institutions to publish, share and get credit for their research data, hosting videos, datasets, posters, figures and theses in a cost-effective way.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought"

Benedikt Fecher and Sascha Friesike have self-archived "Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses a multitude of assumptions about the future of knowledge creation and dissemination. Based on a literature review, this paper aims at structuring the overall discourse by proposing five Open Science schools of thought: the infrastructure school (which is concerned with the technological architecture), the public school (which is concerned with the accessibility of knowledge creation), the measurement school (which is concerned with alternative impact measurement), the democratic school (which is concerned with access to knowledge) and the pragmatic school (which is concerned with collaborative research).

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Science-Metrix Releases Three Reports on Open Access

Science-Metrix has released three reports on open access: Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels—2004-2011, Open Data Access Policies and Strategies in the European Research Area and Beyond, and Open Access Strategies in the European Research Area.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The first report measures the availability of scholarly publications in 22 fields of knowledge across the European Research Area, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and the United States, between 2004 and 2011. . . .

The second report, focusing on open access policies, showed a growing trend in the adoption of such policies by governments and other funding bodies. . . .

The third report found that open access to scientific data is less developed and more difficult to implement than open access to scholarly publications, both in terms of policies and infrastructure.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

e-InfraNet: ‘Open’ as the Default Modus Operandi for Research and Higher Education

The the e-InfraNet project has released e-InfraNet: 'Open' as the Default Modus Operandi for Research and Higher Education.

Here's an excerpt:

The basis for the policy framework is an overview of the current 'Open' landscape outlining contexts, drivers, achievements and effects of the various 'opens', as well as a number of common issues. Because of this commonality, coordinating the vision and approach can benefit all 'opens' individually, and contribute to the development of 'Open' as the default modus operandi for the research and higher education sectors. A pragmatic approach to the implementation of the vision will ensure the necessary flexibility to adjust for the diversity in the various 'opens' themselves and in their geographic and disciplinary contexts.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"If We Share Data, Will Anyone Use Them? Data Sharing and Reuse in the Long Tail of Science and Technology"

Jillian C. Wallis, Elizabeth Rolando, and Christine L. Borgman have published "If We Share Data, Will Anyone Use Them? Data Sharing and Reuse in the Long Tail of Science and Technology" in PLOS ONE.

Here's an excerpt:

Research on practices to share and reuse data will inform the design of infrastructure to support data collection, management, and discovery in the long tail of science and technology. These are research domains in which data tend to be local in character, minimally structured, and minimally documented. We report on a ten-year study of the Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. We found that CENS researchers are willing to share their data, but few are asked to do so, and in only a few domain areas do their funders or journals require them to deposit data. Few repositories exist to accept data in CENS research areas.. Data sharing tends to occur only through interpersonal exchanges. CENS researchers obtain data from repositories, and occasionally from registries and individuals, to provide context, calibration, or other forms of background for their studies. Neither CENS researchers nor those who request access to CENS data appear to use external data for primary research questions or for replication of studies. CENS researchers are willing to share data if they receive credit and retain first rights to publish their results. Practices of releasing, sharing, and reusing of data in CENS reaffirm the gift culture of scholarship, in which goods are bartered between trusted colleagues rather than treated as commodities.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Helping to Open Up: Improving Knowledge, Capability and Confidence in Making Research Data More Open

The Research Information and Digital Literacies Coalition has released Helping to Open Up: Improving Knowledge, Capability and Confidence in Making Research Data More Open.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The report describes a framework for how to address this challenge when designing training and support for opening data, within the broader questions of RDM. Recommendations are set out, relating to:

– putting opening data at the heart of policy

– putting opening data at the heart of training

– deepening and broadening the training

– identifying and disseminating best practice in opening data

– developing institutional and community support

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

G8 Science Ministers Issue Statement Supporting Open Access

The G8 science ministers have issued a statement that includes sections supporting open access.

Here's an excerpt:

Open enquiry is at the heart of scientific endeavour, and rapid technological change has profound implications for the way that science is both conducted and its results communicated. It can provide society with the necessary information to solve global challenges. We are committed to openness in scientific research data to speed up the progress of scientific discovery, create innovation, ensure that the results of scientific research are as widely available as practical, enable transparency in science and engage the public in the scientific process. We have decided to support the set of principles for open scientific research data outlined below as a basis for further discussions.

i. To the greatest extent and with the fewest constraints possible publicly funded scientific research data should be open, while at the same time respecting concerns in relation to privacy, safety, security and commercial interests, whilst acknowledging the legitimate concerns of private partners.

ii. Open scientific research data should be easily discoverable, accessible, assessable, intelligible, useable, and wherever possible interoperable to specific quality standards.

iii. To maximise the value that can be realised from data, the mechanisms for delivering open scientific research data should be efficient and cost effective, and consistent with the potential benefits.

iv. To ensure successful adoption by scientific communities, open scientific research data principles will need to be underpinned by an appropriate policy environment, including recognition of researchers fulfilling these principles, and appropriate digital infrastructure.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap