131 Matching Annotations
  1. 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.

    1. High-level bodies such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the European Commission have called for science to become more open and endorsed a set of data-management standards known as the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles.
    1. The plan is to use the site to share surveys, interviews, and researcher notes.

      Note to self: I need to keep documenting examples of these open labs, open notebooks, etc. in the open science area.

      [also on boffosocko.com]

  2. Sep 2020
    1. Hennessy, E. A., Acabchuk, R., Arnold, P. A., Dunn, A. G., Foo, Y. Z., Johnson, B. T., Geange, S. R., Haddaway, N. R., Nakagawa, S., Mapanga, W., Mengersen, K., Page, M. J., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Welch, V., & McGuinness, L. A. (2020). Ensuring Prevention Science Research is Synthesis-Ready for Immediate and Lasting Scientific Impact [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ptg9j

  3. Aug 2020
  4. Jul 2020
  5. Jun 2020
  6. May 2020
  7. Apr 2020
    1. ``Debugging is parallelizable''. Although debugging requires debuggers to communicate with some coordinating developer, it doesn't require significant coordination between debuggers. Thus it doesn't fall prey to the same quadratic complexity and management costs that make adding developers problematic.

      contrast this to physical manufacturing: Gereffi's typology of manufacturing Manufacturing today is rarely evolved to the modular stage for complex projects (such as code), and yet it proceeds across oceans, machinery, and---more frequently---across languages. Programming standardizes the languages of production while allowing the languages of collaboration to be multiple. These multiples are the parallel clusters around the world hacking away at their own thing. They are friends, they are scientists, they are entrepreneurs, they are all of the above.

  8. Feb 2020
    1. "We are at a time where some people doubt the validity of science," he says. "And if people feel that they are part of this great adventure that is science, I think they're more inclined to trust it. And that's really great."

      These citizen scientists in Finland helped identify a new type of "northern light". Basically, 2 people were able to take a shot of the same display at the same second, 60 miles apart, allowing for depth resolution.

  9. Jan 2020
    1. Overall, we received 60 submissions for the Call for Poster Presentations. Among the high amount of excellent abstracts, the programme committee decided to accept 20 abstracts for poster presentations.

      Even a normal conference in the geo-sciences is more open than this "open science" conference. There is a limited amount of time for speakers, but why would anyone deny someone the possibility to present a poster and try to find an audience for their research? There is no scientific need for this gate keeping.

  10. Dec 2019
    1. Four databases of citizen science and crowdsourcing projects —  SciStarter, the Citizen Science Association (CSA), CitSci.org, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (the Wilson Center Commons Lab) — are working on a common project metadata schema to support data sharing with the goal of maintaining accurate and up to date information about citizen science projects.  The federal government is joining this conversation with a cross-agency effort to promote citizen science and crowdsourcing as a tool to advance agency missions. Specifically, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in collaboration with the U.S. Federal Community of Practice for Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing (FCPCCS),is compiling an Open Innovation Toolkit containing resources for federal employees hoping to implement citizen science and crowdsourcing projects. Navigation through this toolkit will be facilitated in part through a system of metadata tags. In addition, the Open Innovation Toolkit will link to the Wilson Center’s database of federal citizen science and crowdsourcing projects.These groups became aware of their complementary efforts and the shared challenge of developing project metadata tags, which gave rise to the need of a workshop.  

      Sense Collective's Climate Tagger API and Pool Party Semantic Web plug-in are perfectly suited to support The Wilson Center's metadata schema project. Creating a common metadata schema that is used across multiple organizations working within the same domain, with similar (and overlapping) data and data types, is an essential step towards realizing collective intelligence. There is significant redundancy that consumes limited resources as organizations often perform the same type of data structuring. Interoperability issues between organizations, their metadata semantics and serialization methods, prevent cumulative progress as a community. Sense Collective's MetaGrant program is working to provide a shared infastructure for NGO's and social impact investment funds and social impact bond programs to help rapidly improve the problems that are being solved by this awesome project of The Wilson Center. Now let's extend the coordinated metadata semantics to 1000 more organizations and incentivize the citizen science volunteers who make this possible, with a closer connection to the local benefits they produce through their efforts. With integration into Social impact Bond programs and public/private partnerships, we are able to incentivize collective action in ways that match the scope and scale of the problems we face.

  11. Sep 2019
    1. Google Translate translation into English:

      Freedom of information. The movement behind Open Science will soften the academic evaluation culture and pull researchers out of the clutches of journals. Interview with one of the movement's front figures, the "detached paleontologist" Jon Tennant.

      All data is born free


      More and more researchers are frustrated by the state of science in 2019. Academic journals have too much power over research, they say. Many test results cannot be reproduced. And they are tired of being measured and weighed with a wealth of numbers that quantify the fruits of their labor. In a revolt against the prevailing norms, a growing number of dissatisfied scientists are gathering in these years behind the Open Science movement. People are angry about many things: publishers' profit margins. The time it takes to publish in journals. The way they are evaluated. Open Science is a reaction to all that, a counter-movement that brings together the frustration of a big wave that no one really knows what stands for or where to go, says British Jon Tennant, one of the leading proponents of the movement. Tennant has paused a promising career in paleontology and travels around the world as a "looser" for years to spread the enthusiasm for an open science. In particular, he has been noted as the founder of Open Science MOOC, an online community and educational platform in the field. He is currently visiting the University of Southern Denmark. The broad group of supporters ranges from those who simply want scars to make all academic articles freely available on the web, to those who want to revolutionize the work of researchers. They strive to engage colleagues in every aspect of their work, for example, by exchanging ideas, releasing early data, or the crowdsource editing process. Several organizations and scientists are joining the cause in these years. The movement is particularly characterized by iniciacives such as Plan S, a project to release all government-funded research from 2021, which is, among other things, larger by the European Commission. Also, foundations such as the Gates Foundation have promoted the ideas by forcing all beneficiaries to share their data. Common to followers is that they will bring modern research closer to the real purpose of science, as they see it: to increase the knowledge base of society by working in groups rather than in silos. Several of them have now started pointing fingers at the universities' growing evaluation culture as the main obstacle to achieving that goal. It distorts researchers' motivation and creates an unhealthy environment, they say. The biggest problem today is how scientists are measured and who has control over that evaluation system, Jon Tennant believes. Researchers are to a greater extent measured by how much and how much they publish than what they publish. It gives wrong incentives. At the same time, the evaluation process itself is guided by the commercial interests of a narrow group of publishers who do not always share the researchers' interests. Today, scientists are not in control of systems, and that is a major problem, he elaborates.

      JON Tennant and the Open Science movement will do away with what German sociologist Steffen Mau has dubbed “the quantification culture of science. Over the past few decades, many universities have begun to adapt their culture to live up to the rankings and scoring systems that give prestige in the field. In the researchers' everyday life, factors such as circulation rates and h-indices (a measure of a researcher's influence) as well as the impact factors of journals, for example, have gained great importance for their career and reputation among colleagues. The voices behind Open Science want a new model. It must promote quality research and be responsible to the community rather than narrow interests. The first step is to expand access to academic articles. Researchers need to be able to build on everyone's work, and private publishers should not have the power over the product, they say. According to advocates like Jon Tennant, we should also open up the entire scientific process by using the Internet better. The journals must still have a place in the system, but today their old-fashioned model stands in the way of communicating our research effectively. We are not taking advantage of network technology opportunities well enough, he says. From a new idea arises, until the method is developed, data is obtained and the conclusions are available, everyone should be able to follow and propose improvements, the invitation reads. For example, researchers should publish their plans for new projects before they begin collecting data (a so-called pre-registration) and should be encouraged to share their results before the article is published (a micro-publication). But as long as publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature have power over researchers' careers, researchers lack the incentive to collaborate openly and inspire each other, Jon Tennant believes. A more open and free process could also solve the reproducibility crisis in science by making studies more transparent. At the same time, it has the potential to prevent large amounts of time wasting, as researchers will be able to see other people's failed projects before starting their own. OPEN Science is part of a larger modern movement, which, according to Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, is "the first since 1789 to invent a whole new freedom of value information. There is the idea that data has the right to be free and that humans should not restrict its movements. The mindset is the phloxof behind projects like Wikipedia, Google and Open Source in software programming. Based on that logic, the power must lie with the community and not a narrow group of editors when the quality of the researchers' work needs to be assessed (for it must, after all). We should not discard the peer review model, merely reform it, says Jon Tennant: We still need to evaluate the quality of research, but we should take advantage of opportunities in online community and networking. However, a new evaluation culture has its own pitfalls, and the biggest uncertainties about the Open Science agenda stem from this. Prestigious journals such as Nature and Science give scientists and lay people confidence that their articles are trustworthy. Everyone needs these kinds of pointers when navigating the academic world. At the same time, there is no guarantee that the quality of research will increase when the masses decide. The risk of a democratic evaluation system is that it creates a new and more intense quantification cult, where research articles are instead measured on colleagues' ratings, as we know it from services like Uber and Tripadvisor. Competition for prestige is an inevitable part of any industry, and today's race will simply be replaced by a new one - on other terms. Here, other studies will lose the battle, probably those with a narrower appeal. The established institutions have an ambivalent relationship with the Open Science movement. Leaders at universities and publishers positively mention it in closed forums, Jon Tennant says, but would rather stick to their existing benefits as long as they can. They also hesitate because the consequences of the new regime are unpredictable. Everyone is scared to move like the first, he says.

    2. Original content in Danish:

      Informationsfrihed. Bevægelsen bag Open Science vil mildne den akademiske evalueringskultur og trække forskerne ud af tidsskrifternes kløer. Interview med en af bevægelsens frontfigurer, den «løsgående palæontolog» Jon Tennant.

      Alle data er født frie


      Flere og flere forskere er frustrerede over videnskabens tilstand anno 2019. Udgiverne af akademiske tidsskrifter har for stor magt over forskningen, siger de. Mange forsøgsresultater kan ikke reproduceres. Og de er trætte af at blive målt og vejet med et væld af tal, som kvantificerer frugten af deres arbejde. I et oprør mod de herskende normer samler et stigende antal utilfredse forskere sig i disse år bag bevægelsen Open Science. Folk er vrede over mange ting: Udgivernes profitmargener. Tiden, der tager at publicere i tidsskrifter. Måden, de bliver evalueret på. Open Science er en reaktion mod alt det, en modbevægelse, der samler frustrationen i en stor bølge, som ingen rigtigt ved, hvad står for, eller hvor bevæger sig hen, fortæller britiske Jon Tennant, en af de førende fortalere for bevægelsen. Tennant har sat en lovende karriere inden for palæonrologien på pause og rejser verden rundt som «løsgænger« for ar udbrede begejstringen for en åben videnskab. Han har især gjort sig bemærket som stifter af Open Science MOOC, et online fællesskab og uddannelsesplatform på området. I disse måneder er han på besøg på Syddansk Universitet. Den brede gruppe af støtter spænder fra dem, der blot ønsker ar gøre alle akademiske artikler frit tilgængelige på nettet, til dem, som ligefrem vil revolucionere forskernes arbejde. De stræber efter at indvie kolleger i alle aspekter af deres arbejde, for eksempel ved at udveksle ideer, frigive tidlige data eller crowdsource redigeringsprocessen. Adskillige organisationer og videnskabsfolk slutter sig til sagen i disse år. Bevægelsen er især kendetegnet ved iniciaciver som Plan S, et projekt om at frigive al statsfinansieret forskning fra 2021, der blandt andet størres af EU-Kommissionen. Også fonde som Gates Foundation har fremmet ideerne ved at tvinge alle støttemodtagere til at dele deres data. Fælles for tilhængerne er, at de vil bringe den moderne forskning tættere på videnskabens ækte formål, som de ser der: at forøge samfundets vidensbase ved at arbejde i flok frem for i siloer. Flere af dem er nu begyndt at pege fingre ad universiteternes voksende evalueringskultur som den vigtigste hindring til at nå det mål. Den forvrænger forskernes motivation og skaber er usundt miljø, siger de. Det største problem i dag er, hvordan forskere bliver målt, og hvem der har kontrollen over det evalueringssystem, mener Jon Tennant. Forskere bliver i højere grad målt på, hvor og hvor meget de publicerer, end hvad de udgiver. Det giver forkerte incitamencer. Samtidig er selve evalueringsprocessen styret af kommercielle interesser hos en snæver gruppe udgivere, som ikke altid deler forskernes interesser. I dag er forskerne ikke i kontrol over systemer, og det er et stort problem, uddyber han.

      JON Tennant og Open Science-bevægelsen vil gøre op med det, som den tyske sociolog Steffen Mau har døbt "kvantificeringskulturen i videnskaben. Over de seneste årtier er mange universiteter begyndt ar tilpasse deres kultur for at leve op til de ranglister og pointsystemer, som giver prestige på feltet. l forskernes hverdag har faktorer som cirationsrater og h-indeks (en målestok for en forskers indflydelse) samt tidsskrifternes impact factors for eksempel opnået stor betydning for deres karriere og anseelse blandt kolleger. Stemmerne bag Open Science ønsker en ny model. Den skal fremme kvalitetsforskning og være ansvarlig over for fællesskabet frem for snævre interesser. Første skridt er ar udbrede adgangen til akademiske artikler. Forskere skal kunne bygge videre på alles arbejde, og private udgivere bør ikke have magten over produktet, siger de. I følge talsmænd som Jon Tennant bør vi også åbne hele den videnskabelige proces op ved at bruge internettet bedre. Tidsskrifterne skal fortsat have en plads i systemet, men idag står deres gammeldags model i vejen for at kommunikere vores forskning effektivt. Vi udnytter slet ikke netværksteknologiens muligheder godt nok, siger han. Fra en ny ide opstår, til metoden udvikles, data indhentes, og konklusionerne foreligger, skal alle kunne følge med og foreslå forbedringer, lyder opfordringen. Forskere bør for eksempel publicere deres planer for nye projekter, inden de går i gang med at indsamle data (en såkalt førregistrering) , og de skal opfordres til at dele deres resultater, før artiklen udkommer (en mikroudgivelse). Men så længe udgivere som Elsevier og Springer Nature har magt over forskernes karrierer, mangler forskerne incitamentet ril at samarbejde åbent og inspirere hinanden, mener Jon Tennant. En mere åben og fri proces vil også kunne løse reproducerbarhedskrisen i videnskaben ved at gøre studier mere transparente. Samtidig har det potentialet til at forhindre store mængder tidsspilde, da forskere vil kunne se andres fejlslagne projekter, før de begynder deres eget. OPEN Science er del af en større moderne bevægelse, som ifølge den israelske historiker Yuval Noah Harari er "den første siden 1789, der har opfundet en helt ny værdiinformationsfrihed. Der er ideen om, ar data har ret til at være frit, og at mennesker ikke bør begrænse dets bevægelser. Tankesættet udgør fllosofien bag projekter som Wikipedia, Google og Open Source inden for softwareprogrammering. Ud fra den logik skal magten ligge hos fællesskabet og ikke en smal gruppe af redaktører, når kvaliteten af forskernes arbejde skal vurderes (for der skal den trods alt). Vi skal ikke kassere peer review-modellen, blot reformere den, siger Jon Tennant: Vi skal stadig evaluere kvaliteten af forskningen, men vi bør udnytte mulighederne i online fællesskab og netværk. En ny evalueringskultur har dog sine egne faldgruber, og de største usikkerheder ved agendaen i Open Science stammer herfra. Prestigefyldte tidsskrifter som Nature og Science giver forskere og lægfolk tillid til, at deres artikler er troværdige. Alle har brug for den slags pejlemærker, når de skal navigere i den akademiske verden. Der er samtidig ingen garanti for, at forskningens kvalitet stiger, når masserne bestemmer. Risikoen ved et demokratisk evalueringssysrem er, at det skaber en ny og mere intens kvantificeringskult, hvor forskningsarcikler istedet måles på kollegernes ratinger, som vi kender det fra tjenester som Uber og Tripadvisor. Konkurrencen om prestige er en uundgåelig del af enhver branche, og dagens ræs vil blot erstattes af et nyt – på andre præmisser. Her vil andre studier tabe kampen, formentlig dem med en smallere appel. De etablerede institutioner har et ambivalent forhold til Open Science-bevægelsen. Ledere hos universiteter og udgivere omtaler den positivt i lukkede fora, fortæller Jon Tennant, men vil helst holde fast i deres eksisterende fordele, så længe de kan. De tøver også, fordi konsekvenserne af det nye regime er uforudsigelige. Alle er bange for ar flytte sig som de første, siger han.

  12. Jul 2019
  13. Jun 2019
  14. Apr 2019