Archives des mots-clés : open science

Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking

Statut

“Context

Biobanks are important resources which enable large-scale genomic research with human samples and data, raising significant ethical concerns about how participants’ information is managed and shared. Three previous studies of the Canadian public’s opinion about these topics have been conducted. Building on those results, an online survey representing the first study of public perceptions about biobanking spanning all Canadian provinces was conducted. Specifically, this study examined qualitative views about biobank objectives, governance structure, control and ownership of samples and data, benefit sharing, consent practices and data sharing norms, as well as additional questions and ethical concerns expressed by the public.

Results

Over half the respondents preferred to give a one-time general consent for the future sharing of their samples among researchers. Most expressed willingness for their data to be shared with the international scientific community rather than used by one or more Canadian institutions. Whereas more respondents indicated a preference for one-time general consent than any other model of consent, they constituted less than half of the total responses, revealing a lack of consensus among survey respondents regarding this question. Respondents identified biobank objectives, governance structure and accountability as the most important information to provide participants.

Respondents’ concerns about biobanking generally centred around the control and ownership of biological samples and data, especially with respect to potential misuse by insurers, the government and other third parties. Although almost half the respondents suggested that these should be managed by the researchers’ institutions, results indicate that the public is interested in being well-informed about these projects and suggest the importance of increased involvement from participants. In conclusion, the study discusses the viability of several proposed models for informed consent, including e-governance, independent trustees and the use of exclusion clauses, in the context of these new findings about the views of the Canadian public.”

URL : Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking

DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0129893

The Tao of Open Science for Ecology

Statut

“The field of ecology is poised to take advantage of emerging technologies that facilitate the gathering, analyzing, and sharing of data, methods, and results. The concept of transparency at all stages of the research process, coupled with free and open access to data, code, and papers, constitutes “open science.” Despite the many benefits of an open approach to science, a number of barriers to entry exist that may prevent researchers from embracing openness in their own work. Here we describe several key shifts in mindset that underpin the transition to more open science. These shifts in mindset include thinking about data stewardship rather than data ownership, embracing transparency throughout the data life-cycle and project duration, and accepting critique in public. Though foreign and perhaps frightening at first, these changes in thinking stand to benefit the field of ecology by fostering collegiality and broadening access to data and findings. We present an overview of tools and best practices that can enable these shifts in mindset at each stage of the research process, including tools to support data management planning and reproducible analyses, strategies for soliciting constructive feedback throughout the research process, and methods of broadening access to final research products.”

URL : The Tao of Open Science for Ecology

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.549v1

Open Science and peer-review in the humanities

Statut

“The purpose of this paper is to consider alternatives to the traditional system of peer review. I will argue that new methods of review should be more in accordance with the principles of Open Science. Current modes of carrying out peer review are functioning as barriers against more transparent ways of doing research. I will focus on peer reviewing as it is done in the humanities. These sciences seem to be clinging particularly tight to traditional ways of publishing and doing peer review. After looking at traditional peer review and the troubles related to it, I will discuss alternative ways of reviewing scholarly material. The anonymity of reviewers and authors, the appropriate time to make papers public, and how to reward reviewers are topics that are of importance in this context.”

URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/24136/

Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communicating Research Data in Archaeology

Statut

“We present a case study of data integration and reuse involving 12 researchers who published datasets in Open Context, an online data publishing platform, as part of collaborative archaeological research on early domesticated animals in Anatolia. Our discussion reports on how different editorial and collaborative review processes improved data documentation and quality, and created ontology annotations needed for comparative analyses by domain specialists. To prepare data for shared analysis, this project adapted editor-supervised review and revision processes familiar to conventional publishing, as well as more novel models of revision adapted from open source software development of public version control. Preparing the datasets for publication and analysis required significant investment of effort and expertise, including archaeological domain knowledge and familiarity with key ontologies. To organize this work effectively, we emphasized these different models of collaboration at various stages of this data publication and analysis project. Collaboration first centered on data editors working with data contributors, then widened to include other researchers who provided additional peer-review feedback, and finally the widest research community, whose collaboration is facilitated by GitHub’s version control system. We demonstrate that the “publish” and “push” models of data dissemination need not be mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they can play complementary roles in sharing high quality data in support of research. This work highlights the value of combining multiple models in different stages of data dissemination.”

URL : Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communicating Research Data in Archaeology

Alternative URL : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/9.1.57

Reproducibility, Correctness, and Buildability: the Three Principles for Ethical Public Dissemination of Computer Science and Engineering Research

Statut

“We propose a system of three principles of public dissemination, which we call reproducibility, correctness, and buildability, and make the argument that consideration of these principles is a necessary step when publicly disseminating results in any evidence-based scientific or engineering endeavor. We examine how these principles apply to the release and disclosure of the four elements associated with computer science research: theory, algorithms, code, and data. Reproducibility refers to the capability to reproduce fundamental results from released details. Correctness refers to the ability of an independent reviewer to verify and validate the results of a paper. We introduce the new term buildability to indicate the ability of other researchers to use the published research as a foundation for their own new work. This is more broad than extensibility, as it requires that the published results have reached a level of completeness that the research can be used for its stated purpose, and has progressed beyond the level of a preliminary idea. We argue that these three principles are not being sufficiently met by current publications and proposals in computer science and engineering, and represent a goal for which publishing should continue to aim. We introduce standards for the evaluation of reproducibility, correctness, and buildability in relation to the varied elements of computer science research and discuss how they apply to proposals, workshops, conferences, and journal publications, making arguments for appropriate standards of each principle in these settings. We address modern issues including big data, data confidentiality, privacy, security, and privilege. Our examination raises questions for discussion in the community on the appropriateness of publishing works that fail to meet one, some, or all of the stated principles.”

URL : http://research.kristinrozier.com/papers/RozierRozierEthics2014.pdf

GigaDB promoting data dissemination and reproducibility Often…

Statut

GigaDB: promoting data dissemination and reproducibility :

“Often papers are published where the underlying data supporting the research are not made available because of the limitations of making such large data sets publicly and permanently accessible. Even if the raw data are deposited in public archives, the essential analysis intermediaries, scripts or software are frequently not made available, meaning the science is not reproducible. The GigaScience journal is attempting to address this issue with the associated data storage and dissemination portal, the GigaScience database (GigaDB). Here we present the current version of GigaDB and reveal plans for the next generation of improvements. However, most importantly, we are soliciting responses from you, the users, to ensure that future developments are focused on the data storage and dissemination issues that still need resolving.”

URL : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950661/

Access to Research Inputs Open Science Versus the…

Statut

Access to Research Inputs: Open Science Versus the Entrepreneurial University :

“The viability of modern open science norms and practices depend on public disclosure of new knowledge, methods, and materials. However, increasing industry funding of research can restrict the dissemination of results and materials. We show, through a survey sample of 837 German scientists in life sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences, that scientists who receive industry funding are twice as likely to deny requests for research inputs as those who do not. Receiving external funding in general does not affect denying others access. Scientists who receive external funding of any kind are, however, 50% more likely to be denied access to research materials by others, but this is not affected by being funded specifically by industry.”

URL : http://ssrn.com/abstract=2407437