Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
215 lines (186 loc) · 15.7 KB

OpenCon-satellite-Leipzig-2015.md

File metadata and controls

215 lines (186 loc) · 15.7 KB

This document provides the basis for a talk at the OpenCon 2015 satellite event at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive Brain Sciences in Leipzig on December 10, 2015. For a report on the meeting, see here.

Hashtag

#opencon

Title

Open research, peer review and the role of funders

License

CC0/ Public Domain; all kinds of sharing and feedback welcome; attribution appreciated

Some quotes

Comments on previous talks

Lambert Heller

Mike Eisen

Kai Geschuhn

Jimmy Wales

Introduction

What is Open research?

  • Video introduction
    • scientists sharing their research with the world as soon as they record it for themselves

What means open in this context?

  • Open Definition
  • no limits to the kind of contexts (e.g. academic, non-commercial) in which the shared research can be reused and adapted

What means research?

  • systematic inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge (for the benefit of humanity)

What means recording in this context?

  • the collection of information about a particular piece of research that is sufficiently detailed that people (and increasingly machines) trained in this domain of knowledge can interpret and assess this research in light of existing knowledge and past, ongoing or future research

What means sharing (with the world) in this context?

  • providing access to the recorded research by means available to the widest possible audience
  • with reuse rights as per the Open Definition

What means assessment in this context?

  • evaluating whether
    • the planning, execution and recording of a particular body of research is appropriate to the research subject
    • any conclusions drawn from the research are appropriate based on the available records
    • the research is novel/ exciting/ buzzword-compliant (often)
    • the research addresses problems relevant outside academia (rarely)

#Peer review

  • exists for both proposed research (e.g. research grants, or applications for measurement time at research facilities) and performed research (e.g. classical publications, database entries, project reports)
  • traditionally non-public, but with a good deal of experimentation lately, especially in the context of scholarly publications
    • point in time:
      • before drafting
      • during drafting
      • before submission (to journals, funders, preprint servers, databases, code repositories etc.)
      • after submission
      • after publication
    • mode:
      • submissions
        • known to reviewers
        • known or not to public
      • authors
        • known or not to reviewers
        • known to public after publication
      • reviewers
        • known or not to authors
        • known or not to public after publication
      • reviews
        • known or not to authors
        • known or not to public after publication

What is NIH?

Data science at NIH

Sharing policies relevant to NIH

At the international level

At the U.S. Federal level

At the HHS level

At the NIH level

  • 27 of them, e.g. the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
  • The report on the strategic vision for the National Library of Medicine recommends that NLM should
    • "be a leader and innovator in open science efforts worldwide"
    • "lead efforts to support and catalyze open science, data sharing, and research reproducibility, striving to promote the concept that biomedical information and its transparent analysis are public"
    • and, in particular, "lead efforts to promulgate and implement best practices in open source, open science, standards, and data harmonization, forming partnerships across communities, stakeholder organizations, agencies, and countries" as well as "be an active participant in the design and oversight of programs that incentivize and celebrate the open sharing of data and resources."

Data management plans

Food for thought

Open Science Prize

Questions?

See also