98 Matching Annotations
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

      By RASMUS EGMONT FOSS

      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

      Af RASMUS EGMONT FOSS

      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.

  5. Jul 2019
  6. Jun 2019
  7. May 2019
    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.
  8. Apr 2019
    1. A Vision for Scholarly Communication Currently, there is a strong push to address the apparent deficits of the scholarly communication system. Open Science has the potential to change the production and dissemination of scholarly knowledge for the better, but there is no commonly shared vision that describes the system that we want to create.

      A Vision for Scholarly Communication

  9. Mar 2019
    1. The main purpose of the Discovery IN is to provide interfaces and other user-facing services for data discovery across disciplines. We explore new and innovative ways of enabling discovery, including visualizations, recommender systems, semantics, content mining, annotation, and responsible metrics. We apply user involvement and participatory design to increase usability and usefulness of the solutions. We go beyond academia, involving users from all stakeholders of research data. We create FAIR and open infrastructures, following the FAIR principles complemented by the principles of open source, open data, and open content, thus enabling reuse of interfaces and user-facing services and continued innovation. Our main objectives are:
    1. Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Access publishing and Open Science MENU

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Center for Open Science

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Science MOOC

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Science Directory

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

      base de datos

    1. October 21 - 27, 2019

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

      RSS

    1. How open science helps researchers succeed

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

      DOI:10.7554/eLife.16800 PMCID: PMC4973366 PMID: 27387362 OA

    1. Open Science Grid About News Contact

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Science Prize

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Science Manifesto

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Festival de la ciencia abierta y participativa

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Science Days

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

    1. Open Research Facilitating faster and more effective research discovery

      lavaylanda

      bioinformacion

      infovestigacion

      curso

      ciencia abierta

  10. Feb 2019
    1. Research methodologies and methods used must be open for full discussion and review by peers and stakeholders.

      So does this mean totally open? As in publish your protocols open?

    1. every individual has the means to decide how their knowledge is governed and managed to address their needs
    2. knowledge commons

      The idea of a "knowledge commons" was referenced in the book, "Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture" by Eric Holt-Giménez in the context of agroecological knowledge inherent in agrarian communities in Latin America.

  11. Jan 2019
    1. This is one of the most important decisions in an EFA (Thompson, 2004; Warne & Larsen, 2014), and these decisions can make g artificially easier or harder to identify.

      Deciding the number of factors to retain can be extremely subjective. But that was why it was so important to pre-register our work. We wanted to choose methods for making this decision before seeing the data so that no one could accuse of us of trying to monkey with the data until we got the results we wanted.

    2. For the sake of transparency, we find it important to explicitly state deviations from our preregistration protocol. First, in our preregistration, we stated that we would search for (cognitive OR intelligence) AND the name of a continent or population. However, searching for a continent was not feasible in finding data sets. We also had difficulty generating a list of population groups (e.g., ethnic groups, tribal groups) that would be useful for our search procedures.

      This was my second time I pre-registered the study and the first time my student co-author had. We are still getting the hang of it.

  12. Dec 2018
    1. Le commerce de l’échange savant dont les règles, les formes et les lieux peuvent être mis en cartes produit diverses sortes de validations qui permettent à leurs bénéficiaires d’entrer dans la négociation de situations matérielles : l’expression République des Lettres couvre, et mêle tout à la fois ces formes, ces lieux et un bon nombre de ces situations. Alors que l’échange et la validation des savoirs par les institutions académiques sont soumis à des conditions d’accès étroites et à des délais de publication encore plus longs pour les mémoires reçus par les sociétés que pour ceux de leurs propres membres, les périodiques savants s’ouvrent à des contributions d’origines très diverses qu’ils publient rapidement.

      cohabitation et complémentarité des formes de communication savante (voir l'intervention de Judith). Le périodique apparaît comme une ouverture.

  13. Nov 2018
    1. Freedom of intramural expression means that teaching personnel is not only allowed to teach according to their knowledge, but that they can take part in the administration of their institutions. This is supported by the freedom of extramural expression, which gives teachers the capacity to share their research outcomes and disseminate the knowledge acquired.

      participation in activities to share research outcomes.

    1. Researchers now typically engage in a range of ‘questionable research practices’ in the hunt for the glory of publication, with such conditions leading to mental health issues in a higher proportion than any other industry.  

      'publish or perish' culture creating mental health issues.

    1. At the same time, we now have several years of experience launching and running new and innovative publications in broad fields. For example, PeerJ – the Journal of Life & Environmental Sciences covers all of biology, the life sciences, and the environmental sciences in a single title; whilst PeerJ Computer Science is targeted towards a more well-defined community. In 2013 we also launched a preprint server (PeerJ Preprints) which covers all the areas in which we publish; and we have developed a comprehensive suite of journal and peer-review functionalities.

      New journals released by PeerJ

    1. To ensure that research findings are shared widely and are made freely available at the time of publication, Wellcome and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have today (Monday) joined cOAlition S (opens in a new tab) and endorsed the principles of Plan S.

      First charitable funders to join Plan-S

    1. Open Science has the potential to make the scientific enterprise more inclusive, and bridge North-South divides in research,

      Open science towards reducing the north-south divide

  14. Sep 2018
    1. Each aspect of the scientific cycle—research design, data collection, analysis, and publication—can and should be made more transparent and accessible.

      Cmp. article draft from 2011 related to science in general, not particularly for education science.

  15. Jun 2018
    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]

    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.

  16. Sep 2017
    1. We’re delighted to announce that the California Digital Library has been awarded a 2-year NSF EAGER grant to support active, machine-actionable data management plans (DMPs).
  17. Jun 2017
    1. protected platform whereby many expert reviewers could read and comment on submissions, as well as on fellow reviewers’ comments

      Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.

    2. intelligent crowd reviewing

      Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.

  18. May 2017
    1. Commons search results display text that has been extracted from PDFs to show search terms in context. If preprints are displayed, they can be displayed as PDFs. All pages are tagged with schema.org meta tags to ensure that content is discoverable.
  19. Feb 2017
    1. Centre for Integrative Neuroscience and Neurodynamics

      This is the most awesomest research Centre ever!!

  20. Dec 2016
    1. Montreal Neurological Institute

      sharing all data associated with its research; no patents for 5 yrs (see video) - first major research institute of it's kind - check if this is really true?

    2. European Union, Japan and the United States

      Find out specifically which of these are "open" and if they are all focused on neuroscience?

  21. Oct 2016
    1. Democratizing science does not mean settling questions about Nature by plebiscite, any more than democratizing politics means setting the prime rate by referendum. What democratization does mean, in science as elsewhere, is creating institutions and practices that fully incorporate principles of accessibility, transparency, and accountability. It means considering the societal outcomes of research at least as attentively as the scientific and technological outputs. It means insisting that in addition to being rigorous, science be popular, relevant, and participatory.
  22. Sep 2016
  23. Aug 2016
  24. maurice1979-blog.tumblr.com maurice1979-blog.tumblr.com
    1. Hi there, I am using this open source tool to promote open science by make open annotations directly on the was as a platform for collaboration. You also can jot down your comments in the context where it belongs.

  25. Jun 2016
    1. VIA EFF

      Open access: All human knowledge is there—so why can’t everybody access it? (Ars Techica)

      Excellent report on the state of academic publishing— and why so much of it is still locked down.

      NOTE

      if we can Not access the works we fund, we can Neither annotate all knowledge.

      And this case, it may pertain the most crucial body of all our knowledge — the knowledge upon what we are to found our own futures for us all. What is to be recognized as "the Human knowledge", whilst yet unknown by almost everyone us Humans ourselves.>

    2. A history of open access academic publishing from the early 1990s to 2016.

    1. “papers are the only scientific artifacts that are guaranteed to be preserved.”

      Under the current mode of action.

  26. May 2016
    1. Writing and submission. The process of compiling findings, writing accompanying narrative and making this available for public view and scrutiny can be simplified by the use of new improved software. These tools can help identify relevant papers through increasingly powerful learning algorithms (e.g. F1000Workspace, Mendeley, Readcube). They can also enable collaborative authoring (e.g. F1000Workspace, Overleaf, Google docs), and provide formatting tools to simplify the process of structuring an article to ensure all the necessary underlying information has been captured (e.g. F1000Workspace, EndNote). Submission for posting as a preprint, and/or for formal publication and peer review, should be as simple as a single click.

      How can an "Open Science Platform" be built upon proprietary tools only? Maybe is meaning of "open" to define here?

  27. Jan 2016
    1. While there are some features shared between a university repository and us we are distinctly different for the following reasons: We offer DOIs to all content published on The Winnower All content is automatically typeset on The Winnower Content published on the winnower is not restricted to one university but is published amongst work from peers at different institutions around the world Work is published from around the world it is more discoverable We offer Altmetrics to content  Our site is much more visually appealing than a typical repository  Work can be openly reviewed on The Winnower but often times not even commented on in repositories. This is not to say that repositories have no place, but that we should focus on offering authors choices not restricting them to products developed in house.

      Over this tension/complementary between in house and external publishing platforms I wonder where is the place for indie web self hosted publishing, like the one impulsed by grafoscopio.

      A reproducible structured interactive grafoscopio notebook is self contained in software and data and holds all its history by design. Will in-house solutions and open journals like The Winnower, RIO Journal or the Self Journal of Science, support such kinds of publishing artifacts?

      Technically there is not a big barrier (it's mostly about hosting fossil repositories, which is pretty easy, and adding a discoverability and author layer on top), but it seems that the only option now is going to big DVCS and data platforms now like GitHub or datahub alike for storing other research artifacts like software and data, so it is more about centralized-mostly instead of p2p-also. This other p2p alternatives seem outside the radar for most alternative Open Access and Open Science publishers now.

    1. open Science

      Die Auswirkungen des digitalen Wandels in der Forschung erforschr der Leibniz-Forschungsverbund Science 2.0. Die derzeit 37 Partner bearbeiten die Forschungsschwerpunkte „Neue Arbeitsgewohnheiten“, „Technologieentwicklung“ und „Nutzungsforschung“. Damit untrennbar verbunden sind die aktuellen Entwicklungen im Hinblick auf die Öffnung des gesamten Wissenschaftsprozesses oder Teilen davon („Open Science“)

      http://www.leibniz-science20.de/

  28. Dec 2015
    1. We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

      We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.

  29. Aug 2015
    1. However, if an open access version of a text is available, this must always be treated as the primary text. Here the commercial version of the text becomes the secondary version and it should always be cited second and in a manner that makes this completely clear. For instance, after the primary reference to the full text, you could write: ‘Also available as: ….’

      Would be interesting to write a tool that could take a paper as input and replace all citations with references to freely available versions