News – Call for proposals: Risks and Trust in pursuit of a well functioning Persistent Identifier infrastructure for research – News – Knowledge Exchange

“As part of its work on Open Science, the Knowledge Exchange (KE) are currently exploring the role of Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) within modern-day research. To better understand what is needed to build and exploit a well-functioning PID infrastructure for research, we wish to commission a consultant to undertake further investigation, analysis and recommendations, to identify best possible strategic and operational paths to achieve a well-functioning PID infrastructure for Knowledge Exchange (KE) member states and beyond.

We are inviting consultants to submit proposals to undertake work around ‘PIDs: Risk and Trust’. Detailed information around the background and scope of the PIDs: Risk and Trust work is provided below, along with suggested timelines for completion, selection criteria and contact details for key personal….”

Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.

Methods

We describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal’s policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.

Discussion

The TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation.

Imposters and Impersonators in Preprints: How do we trust authors in Open Science? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The prevalence of fictitious authorship across preprints is still unknown, and the writers’ motivations are opaque in most cases. This nefarious behavior within the open science arena raises many questions in need of discussing….”

Has the pandemic changed public attitudes about science? | Impact of Social Sciences

“At a structural level, the public faith in science’s trustworthiness and value can also be ‘future proofed’ through ongoing initiatives to make scientific research open and transparent, enhanced efforts to ensure a more diverse and inclusive scientific workforce and other efforts to improve science from within. Initiatives working in this direction include increased adoption of open science policies by research funders and global public policy that promotes more socially responsible research and innovation. Indeed, this moment of strong public support may be the perfect opportunity for long-needed structural reforms to make research more socially responsible and sustainable. In other words, it’s time to fix the roof while the sun is shining!”

Can open data increase younger generations’ trust in democratic institutions? A study in the European Union

Abstract:  Scholars and policy makers are giving increasing attention to how young people are involved in politics and their confidence in the current democratic system. In a context of a global trust crisis in the European Union, this paper examines if open government data, a promising governance strategy, may help to boost Millennials’ and Generation Z trust in public institutions and satisfaction with public outcomes. First, results from our preliminary analysis challenge some popular beliefs by revealing that younger generations tend to trust in their institutions notably more than the rest of the European citizens. In addition, our findings show that open government data is a trust-enabler for Millennials and Generation Z, not only through a direct link between both, but also thanks to the mediator role of citizens’ satisfaction. Accordingly, public officers are encouraged to spread the implementation of open data strategies as a way to improve younger generations’ attachment to democratic institutions.

 

Science Communication in the Context of Reproducibility and Replicability: How Nonscientists Navigate Scientific Uncertainty · Issue 2.4, Fall 2020

Abstract:  Scientists stand to gain in obvious ways from recent efforts to develop robust standards for and mechanisms of reproducibility and replicability. Demonstrations of reproducibility and replicability may provide clarity with respect to areas of uncertainty in scientific findings and translate into greater impact for the research. But when it comes to public perceptions of science, it is less clear what gains might come from recent efforts to improve reproducibility and replicability. For example, could such efforts improve public understandings of scientific uncertainty? To gain insight into this issue, we would need to know how those views are shaped by media coverage of it, but none of the emergent research on public views of reproducibility and replicability in science considers that question. We do, however, have the recent report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which provides an overview of public perceptions of uncertainty in science. Here, I adapt that report to begin a conversation between researchers and practitioners, with the aim of expanding research on public perceptions of scientific uncertainty. This overview draws upon research on risk perception and science communication to describe how the media influences the communication and perception of uncertainty in science. It ends by presenting recommendations for communicating scientific uncertainty as it pertains to issues of reproducibility and replicability.

Forms of trust inside the scholarly networks of the 21st century

Abstract:  This article is the result of mobility and talks about mobility in terms of building affective trust relations. Starting from the perspective that interpersonal trust is a multidimensional construct with both cognitive and affective dimensions, this article attempts to demonstrate that in the scholarly world interpersonal trust manifests its cognitive dimension through the citation culture, while scholarly mobility is a way of forming affective based trust.

In the academic community trust must exist both in the knowledge of the individual with whom one collaborates (cognitive trust) but also in his intentions (affective trust). That the selection process of collaborators is sometimes based on personal networks and style of behaviour is a truth that is not very often said out loud but which in a theoretical perspective in the social sciences translates in terms of social capital and trust. Networks are useful when having to build international consortiums in order to apply for a research grant. But networks are built up in time, just like a trust relation is built up in time. in time of planning This is why mobility is a way of thinking ahead, g one’s future professional collaborations.

Open access for both scientific articles and research databases is also discussed in this article in terms of the manifestation of trust inside the scholarly community. Neither open access nor mobility can be seen as manifestations of altruist behaviour. The premise behind social capital is that individuals invest in social relations with expected returns in mind [U. Mobility is an investment with an expected return. It is a time of both personal and professional growth
https://openscience.cmb.med.rug.nl/?cat=5807
openscience.cmb.med.rug.nl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
88038
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5EC4EX2VU7M2QRSXYYGSRJERMEFCGNM3
<urn:uuid:e00b29f1-6b14-4506-970c-981ca470ac93>
2021-07-28T23:57:30Z
129.125.2.210
text/html
sha1:QYTTW67E46CRHCYAFMAMF3XUA24PARX5
<urn:uuid:01a28347-16ff-499d-a3aa-be5f99c64ce7>
https://openscience.cmb.med.rug.nl/?cat=5807
response
<urn:uuid:e01b7568-edc9-440a-8cd1-1ea21a9fe174>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-228.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/