224 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2023
  2. Oct 2023
  3. Sep 2023
  4. Aug 2023
  5. Jul 2023
    1. Since I think this is such an important issue for science, I have been working to create a system to do this which launched in the summer of 2022, called Octopus.ac with the backing of Research England. In a way, it’s pulling together the attempts to avoid publication bias and incentives for questionable research practices of initiatives such as the Journal for Negative Results, Registered Reports, or F1000, the faster sharing offered by preprint servers, and the breaking up of narrative formats championed by similar platforms such as ResearchEquals. A holistic approach, though, I think is important. Researchers need to know where the version of record is and how their work will be judged in order to know where to write for and how to write.

      [[Octopus.ac]] is a potential alternative to [[ResearchEquals]] for open publishing founded by [[Alexandra Freeman]]. Appears to be attempting to avoid the tension for academic journals to be both "informative" and "persuasive". Seems to fall within the general [[open science]] movement.

    1. In the case of ResearchEquals the author must pay if they want to have their work published using a more restrictive Creative Commons license. Octopus also employs Creative Commons licenses, but requires one which allows derivative works. The publication types in Octopus are based on the eight stages of scientific research: Research Problem Rationale/Hypothesis Method Results Analysis Interpretation Real World Application Peer Review For ResearchEquals there are many more publication types and they are called modules. Thus, enabling the publication of text, data, code and media. With both platforms, each publication is assigned its own DOI. __ATA.cmd.push(function() { __ATA.initDynamicSlot({ id: 'atatags-26942-64c40660082d9', location: 120, formFactor: '001', label: { text: 'Advertisements', }, creative: { reportAd: { text: 'Report this ad', }, privacySettings: { text: 'Privacy', } } }); });

      Compares the difference between [[Octopus.ac]] and [[ResearchEquals]] platforms in the [[open science]] movement. Looks like Octopus is more strictly matching the [[eight stages of scientific research]], whereas RE allows for more options (including "publication of text, data, code and media.") Notably, each platform gives a [[DOI]] to each publication.


      Does each module in RE get it's own DOI?

      Likewise, does each publication type in Octopus get it's own DOI?

      Do either of these address the concern of other academics "scooping" each other's work?

    1. [[Octopus.ac]] is a potential alternative to [[ResearchEquals]], but notably doesn't mention RE anywhere on it's site (whereas RE does mention Octopus.ac in it's FAQs). Specifically, it's comparison is here.

      Each of their platforms seem to be related to the [[open science]] movement.

    1. See also: Got 15 minutes and want to learn Git? git + LaTeX workflow at StackOverflow Writing the PhD thesis: the tools Part I Collaborating with LaTeX and git at ShareLaTeX blog - a great and comprehensive tutorial What are the advantages of using version control (git, CVS etc) in LaTeX documents - TeX.SE https://tex.stackexchange.com/search?q=version+control

      Some links to resources on using [[LaTeX]] and [[Git]] suggested by [[Piotr Migdal]].

      This was part of his top-voted answer to "Why use [[version control system]]s for writing a paper?" on the [[Academia]] [[StackExchange]] site.

      Was looking into the tools available for [[open science]] collaborations.

    1. People absolutely try. I can't name the journals that try these off the top of my head, but as you can see from that Wikipedia section, there are journals that: Do double-blind peer review (authors don't know who the reviewers are, and vice versa) Do triple-blind peer review (authors & editors & reviewers don't know who each other are) Do open peer review (everyone knows who everyone else is) Do open peer reports (reviews are published together with the paper) Do open participation (reviewers self-select to review the paper) Do post-publication peer review (every paper is published, reviews are done after publication) Do results-blind peer review (reviewers receive a manuscript where the results & conclusions are omitted) Do two-stage results-blind peer review (review done in two stages; in the first stage reviewers don't know the results/conclusions, in the second stage they do) Do novelty-blind peer review (reviewers are specifically instructed not to comment on whether the paper is novel, only if it is correct) The fact that the traditional model has endured is a sign of how robust it is. Everyone knows it is flawed, but nobody has been able to come up with a better model. ShareShare a link to this answer (Includes your user id)Copy linkCC BY-SA 4.0 Edit Follow Follow this answer to receive notifications answered Jan 5 at 7:58 Allure

      A response by [[Allure]] to an [[Academia]] [[StackExchange]] question about alternative publishing models for scientific experiments that help deal with the [[replication crisis]].

      In the comments, Allure suggests that journals that "Do results-blind peer review (reviewers receive a manuscript where the results & conclusions are omitted)" encourage publishing "non-significant results".

    1. How to protect scientific open research from being patented?

      A helpful question on [[Academia]] [[StackExchange]] about preventing [[open science]] research from being patented.

      The top answer from [[Gilles 'SO- stop being evil']] suggests simply publishing one's research protects it (since the disclosure counts as prior art.

      So even if an someone invents something, you publishing it stops someone from being able to file a patent on it (except in countries that have a grace period for inventors, like the US).

      The only risk remaining is that you (or fellow inventor you worked with) take advantage of the grace period in countries that have this.

      Some research institutions (public or private) have a formal practice of defensive publications: publish potential inventions that they don't intent to patent as soon as possible, in order to block anyone else from patenting them. Technically, any publication is a public disclosure, including an arXiv preprint, a blog post, or even a research seminar if it's legally open to external visitors. However, since it's easier to fight a patent before it's granted, it is advantageous to make it easy for patent examiners to find the defensive publication.

      If you're concerned about someone filing a patent on something you discovered, or for that matter anything that you know about, you can watch patent applications. Patent applications are published for a period of at least a few months, during which time anyone can point the patent examiner to something that they consider to be prior art. Stack Exchange participates in this process through their Patents site where people can coordinate prior art searches.

  6. www.researchequals.com www.researchequals.com
    1. How is ResearchEquals different from Octopus? Isn't it the same? We get that question a lot! Octopus is indeed similar. The main differences are: ResearchEquals allows you to link any steps together, Octopus has a specific order of events ResearchEquals allows for a wide variety of steps (focus on provenance), Octopus has 8 specific ones (focused on empirical cycles mostly) It's a flavor difference mostly. Like onion rings and calamari.

      What [[ResearchEquals]] claims is different between it's platform and that of [[Octopus.ac]].

    1. Learned about this because

      [[ResearchEquals]] is a Liberate Science GmbH project, which is funded by the [[Shuttleworth Foundation]] until the end of 2022.

  7. Jun 2023
    1. This analysis will result in the form of a new knowledge-based multilingual terminological resource which is designed in order to meet the FAIR principles for Open Science and will serve, in the future, as a prototype for the development of a new software for the simplified rewriting of international legal texts relating to human rights.

      software to rewrite international legal texts relating to human rights, a well written prompt and a few examples, including the FAIR principles will let openAI's chatGPT do it effectively.

  8. May 2023
  9. Apr 2023
    1. Information Creation as a Process

      Information (or knowledge) creation is a *continuous* process. Scientific publication could (maybe should) be continuously be updated as presented in the following book chapter:

      HELLER, Lambert, THE, Ronald and BARTLING, Sönke, 2014. Dynamic Publication Formats and Collaborative Authoring. In: BARTLING, Sönke and FRIESIKE, Sascha (eds.), Opening Science. Online. Springer International Publishing. pp. 191–211. [Accessed 11 January 2014]. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_13

  10. Dec 2022
  11. Nov 2022
    1. In an Open Science context,  “infrastructure” -- the "structures and facilities" -- refers to the scholarly communication resources and services, including software, that we depend upon to enable the scientific and scholarly community to collect, store, organise, access, share, and assess research.
    1. Creating video tutorials has been hard when things are so in flux. We've been reluctant to invest time - and especially volunteer time - in producing videos while our hybrid content and delivery strategy is still changing and developing. The past two years have been a time of experimentation and iteration. We're still prototyping!

      Have you thought about opening the project setting and the remixing to educators or even kids? That could create additional momentum.

      A few related resources you might want to check out for inspiration: Science Buddies, Seesaw, Exploratorium

  12. Oct 2022
  13. Sep 2022
    1. In 1990, 15.1 percent of the poor were residingin high- poverty neighborhoods. That figure dropped to 10.3 percent by 2000,rose to 13.6 percent for 2010, and then fell to 11.9 percent for 2015.

      Is there a long term correlation between these rates and political parties? Is there a potential lag time between the two if there is?

  14. Aug 2022
  15. Jul 2022
    1. It draws together data scientists, experimental and statistical methodologists, and open science activists into a project with both intellectual and policy dimensions.

      open science activists

    1. This perspective has been called an “emblematic worldview”; it is clearly visible in the iconography ofmedieval and Renaissance art, for example. Plants and animals are not merely specimens, as in modernscience; they represent a huge raft of associated things and ideas.

      Medieval culture had imbued its perspective of the natural world with a variety of emblematic associations. Plants and animals were not simply specimens or organisms in the world but were emblematic representations of ideas which were also associated with them.

      example: peacock / pride

      Did this perspective draw from some of the older possibly pagan forms of orality and mnemonics? Or were the potential associations simply natural ones which (re-?)grew either historically or as the result of the use of the art of memory from antiquity?

  16. Jun 2022
    1. But systems of schooling and educational institutions–and much of online learning– are organized in ways that deny their voices matter. My role is to resist those systems and structures to reclaim the spaces of teaching and learning as voice affirming. Voice amplifying.

      Modeling annotation and note taking can allow students to see that their voices matter in conversation with the "greats" of knowledge. We can and should question authority. Even if one's internal voice questions as one reads, that might be enough, but modeling active reading and note taking can better underline and empower these modes of thought.

      There are certainly currents within American culture that we can and should question authority.

      Sadly some parts of conservative American culture are reverting back to paternalized power structures of "do as I say and not as I do" which leads to hypocrisy and erosion of society.

      Education can be used as a means of overcoming this, though it requires preventing the conservative right from eroding this away from the inside by removing books and certain thought from the education process that prevents this. Extreme examples of this are Warren Jeff's control of religion, education, and social life within his Mormon sect.

      Link to: - Lawrence Principe examples of the power establishment in Western classical education being questioned. Aristotle wasn't always right. The entire history of Western science is about questioning the status quo. (How can we center this practice not only in science, but within the humanities?)

      My evolving definition of active reading now explicitly includes the ideas of annotating the text, having a direct written conversation with it, questioning it, and expanding upon it. I'm not sure I may have included some or all of these in it before. This is what "reading with a pen in hand" (or digital annotation tool) should entail. What other pieces am I missing here which might also be included?

    1. Open Science

      Open science and citizen science are complementary, for citizen science openness has to be even more discussed for the benefits of participants

  17. Apr 2022
  18. Mar 2022
  19. Jan 2022
  20. Dec 2021
    1. AIMOS. (2021, November 30). How can we connect #metascience to established #science fields? Find out at this afternoon’s session at #aimos2021 Remco Heesen @fallonmody Felipe Romeo will discuss. Come join us. #OpenScience #OpenData #reproducibility https://t.co/dEW2MkGNpx [Tweet]. @aimos_inc. https://twitter.com/aimos_inc/status/1465485732206850054

  21. Nov 2021
    1. it builds on the following key pillars: open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructures, science communication, open engagement of societal actors and open dialogue with other knowledge systems.

      penerbitan makalah di jurnal open access jelas hanyasebagian kecil saja dari lima pilar kunci: open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructures, science communication, open engagement of societal actors.

    2. Deploying appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

      rekomendasi pertama: membuat instrumen monev untuk implementasi sains terbuka pada level nasional di negara masing-masing. >> ini akan dan telah terbukti juga menggunakan layanan komersial.

    1. "The Guide to Social Science Data Preparation and Archiving is aimed at those engaged in the cycle of research, from applying for a research grant, through the data collection phase, and ultimately to preparation of the data for deposit in a public archive: " from tweet

  22. Oct 2021
  23. Sep 2021
  24. Jul 2021
  25. Jun 2021
  26. May 2021
  27. Apr 2021
    1. Robson, S. G., Baum, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., Beitner, J., Brohmer, H., Chin, J., Jasko, K., Kouros, C., Laukkonen, R., Moreau, D., Searston, R. A., Slagter, H. A., Steffens, N. K., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Nudging Open Science. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zn7vt

  28. Mar 2021
    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 5). In 4 days: SciBeh workshop ‘Building an online information environment for policy relevant science’ Join us! Topics: Crisis open science, interfacing to policy, online discourse, tools for research curation talks, panels, hackathons https://t.co/SPeD5BVgj3… I https://t.co/kQClhpHKx5 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1324286406764744704

  29. Feb 2021
  30. Jan 2021
    1. Ways will be found to make communities sustainable,

      Ways will also be found to legibilize the deliberately inscrutable. With biomed funding so centralized, forces can be applied to increase the adoption of practices like data sharing and open science.

  31. Dec 2020
  32. Nov 2020
  33. Oct 2020
    1. The ideas here make me think that being able to publish on one's own site (and potentially syndicate) and send/receive webmentions may be a very useful tool within open science. We should move toward a model of academic samizdat where researchers can publish their own work for themselves and others. Doing this will give them the credit (and job prospects, etc.) while still allowing movement forward.