« 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. »
Étiquette : open science
« 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
« 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 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 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
« Modern information and communication technologies, together with a cultural upheaval within the research community, have profoundly changed research in nearly every aspect. Ranging from sharing and discussing ideas in social networks for scientists to new collaborative environments and novel publication formats, knowledge creation and dissemination as we know it is experiencing a vigorous shift towards increased transparency, collaboration and accessibility. Many assume that research workflows will change more in the next 20 years than they have in the last 200. This book provides researchers, decision makers, and other scientific stakeholders with a snapshot of the basics, the tools, and the underlying visions that drive the current scientific (r)evolution, often called ‘Open Science.’ »
URL : http://microblogging.infodocs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/opening_science.pdf
Related URL : http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8
The aim of the present article is to discuss several consequences of the Open Science from a perspective of science communication and philosophy of communication. Apart from the purely communicative and philosophical issues, the paper deals with the questions that concern the science populariza- tion process through social media (especially Twitter and blogs).
The article consists of three sections: the first one suggests a definition of science communication and social media, the second examines the transformation of science in the Age of the Internet and considers the influence of social media on science communication, the third and final one presents some case studies and philosophical observations.
The most important conclusion to be reached here is that the social media have changed science and science communication. Twitter and blogs as novelty tools of science communication can be useful and meaningful for both science and society. Furthermore, social media can be used to facilitate broader involvement of citizens in the discussion about science.
URL : http://teorievedy.flu.cas.cz/index.php/tv/article/view/172