Tag Archives: open science

CFP “Global Researchers on Open Access Experience” panel, UC Davis, May 25-26

Are you a researcher in California who hails from the Global South? Are you interested in practicing open research – open access to your publications, sharing your data or software publicly, etc.? Do your experiences practicing open research differ in the U.S. compared to other countries you’ve worked in, particularly in the Global South? If so, we invite you to submit an abstract to a panel on “Global Researchers on OA Experience” which will be part of the conference on “An Open Digital Global South: Risks and Rewards.” The conference will be held at the University of California, Davis on May 25-26, 2017 and is sponsored by the Innovating Communication in Scholarship project (http://icis.ucdavis.edu).
 
This conference explores the promises and risks of openness in scholarship in relationship to the Global South. Research and scholarship are increasingly adopting ‘open’ models of practice and sharing, as open access publications, open data, and open source software. This openness supports improved research reusability, reproducibility, and visibility. Scholarly ‘openness’ is intended to facilitate the free flow of information, to address barriers to equitable access, and to foster global intellectual conversations. Do attempts at promoting openness in scholarship create new forms of exclusion or hierarchy in various regions of the world? How are Southern scholars and publishers’ experiences with open access and open data taken into account within conversations on developing standards and models for ‘open’ scholarship in the Global North? Are there unanticipated opportunities or risks created through the implementation of models for open data, open software, or open access to research?
 
The panel, “Global Researchers on OA Experience,” looks at how individual researchers experience the limitations and possibilities of open research practices on a day-to-day basis. In California, in particular, our research community reflects the global nature of scholarship, with many researchers hailing from the Global South. The diversity of experiences, perspectives, and knowledges enriches the university through expanding possibilities for innovation and research. How have international scholars’ open practices been shaped by working and studying at institutions in the Global North?  This panel will serve as a conversation between local researchers on their experiences with open practices and how these are inflected or informed by their work in both the Global South and North.
 
Please submit 150 word abstracts describing your experiences with open practices—open data, open access, open source software—and how you handled issues related to gaining access to publications and research findings in universities in your country of origin as compared to your current university  to Alexandra Lippman (alippman@ucdavis.edu) or Michael Wolfe (mrwolfe@ucdavis.edu)by May 3rd.

Today’s Open Science Reading: the Open Science Reviewer’s Oath

Well this certainly is interesting: The Open Science Peer Review Oath – F1000Research.  This emerged apparently from the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop.  The “Oath” is summarized in the following text from a box in their paper:

Box 1. While reviewing this manuscript:

  1. I will sign my review in order to be able to have an open dialogue with you
  2. I will be honest at all times
  3. I will state my limits
  4. I will turn down reviews I am not qualified to provide
  5. I will not unduly delay the review process
  6. I will not scoop research that I had not planned to do before reading the manuscript
  7. I will be constructive in my criticism
  8. I will treat reviews as scientific discourses
  9. I will encourage discussion, and respond to your and/or editors’ questions
  10. I will try to assist in every way I ethically can to provide criticism and praise that is valid, relevant and cognisant of community norms
  11. I will encourage the application of any other open science best practices relevant to my field that would support transparency, reproducibility, re-use and integrity of your research
  12. If your results contradict earlier findings, I will allow them to stand, provided the methodology is sound and you have discussed them in context
  13. I will check that the data, software code and digital object identifiers are correct, and the models presented are archived, referenced, and accessible
  14. I will comment on how well you have achieved transparency, in terms of materials and methodology, data and code access, versioning, algorithms, software parameters and standards, such that your experiments can be repeated independently
  15. I will encourage deposition with long-term unrestricted access to the data that underpin the published concept, towards transparency and re-use
  16. I will encourage central long-term unrestricted access to any software code and support documentation that underpin the published concept, both for reproducibility of results and software availability
  17. I will remind myself to adhere to this oath by providing a clear statement and link to it in each review I write, hence helping to perpetuate good practice to the authors whose work I review.

I note – I reformatted the presentation a tiny bit here.   The Roman numerals in the paper annoyed me.  Regardless of the formatting, this is a pretty long oath.  I think it is probably too long.  Some of this could be reduced.  I am reposting the Oath below with some comments:

  1. I will sign my review in order to be able to have an open dialogue with you.  I think this is OK to have in the oath. 
  2. I will be honest at all times. Seems unnecessary.
  3. I will state my limits. Not sure what this means or how it differs from #4.  I would suggest deleting or merging with #4.
  4. I will turn down reviews I am not qualified to provide.  This is good though not sure how it differs from #3. 
  5. I will not unduly delay the review process. Good. 
  6. I will not scoop research that I had not planned to do before reading the manuscript. Good. 
  7. I will be constructive in my criticism. Good. 
  8. I will treat reviews as scientific discourses.  Not sure what this means or how it is diffeent from #9. 
  9. I will encourage discussion, and respond to your and/or editors’ questions.  Good though not sure how it differs from #8. 
  10. I will try to assist in every way I ethically can to provide criticism and praise that is valid, relevant and cognisant of community norms. OK though this seems to cancel the need for #7. 
  11. I will encourage the application of any other open science best practices relevant to my field that would support transparency, reproducibility, re-use and integrity of your research.  Good.  Seems to cancel the need for #13, #14, #15, #16. 
  12. If your results contradict earlier findings, I will allow them to stand, provided the methodology is sound and you have discussed them in context. OK though I am not sure why this raises to the level of a part of the oath over other things that should be part of a review. 
  13. I will check that the data, software code and digital object identifiers are correct, and the models presented are archived, referenced, and accessible.  Seems to be covered in #11. 
  14. I will comment on how well you have achieved transparency, in terms of materials and methodology, data and code access, versioning, algorithms, software parameters and standards, such that your experiments can be repeated independently. Seems to be covered in #11. 
  15. I will encourage deposition with long-term unrestricted access to the data that underpin the published concept, towards transparency and re-use. Seems to be covered in #11. 
  16. I will encourage central long-term unrestricted access to any software code and support documentation that underpin the published concept, both for reproducibility of results and software availability. Seems to be covered in #11. 
  17. I will remind myself to adhere to this oath by providing a clear statement and link to it in each review I write, hence helping to perpetuate good practice to the authors whose work I review.  Not sure this is needed.

The paper then goes on to provide what they call a manifesto.  I very much prefer the items in the manifesto over those in the oath:

  • Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review – I will write under my own name
  • Principle 2: I will review with integrity
  • Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism
  • Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for good science practice
  • Principle 5: Support other reviewers

In fact I propose here that the authors considering reversing the Oath and the Manifesto.  What they call the Manifesto shoud be the Oath.  It is short.  And works as an Oath.  The longer, somewhat repetitive list of specific details would work better as the basis for a Manifesto.

Anyway – the paper is worth taking a look at.  I support the push for more consideration of Open Science in review though I am not sure if this Oath is done right at this point.
http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?tag=open-science
icis.ucdavis.edu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-43
44374
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZVMY6U7BYAHBQB4Y4I5ZLBVQECJPAU2Y
<urn:uuid:9b200df6-f0d8-4a9f-a19d-b54d5850300a>
2017-10-17T17:05:28Z
169.237.215.165
text/html
sha1:EZKELABBIMU7SG3A5MITWQBIBXIWD633
<urn:uuid:b31d14d8-8ad1-4b3c-94fe-e4fab1ceacaa>
http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?tag=open-science
length
response
<urn:uuid:db060a77-690a-4400-a9ff-509932d9d2f3>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-178-236-198.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-43
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf