Fed up with the status quo of research culture, in 2017 a group of early career researchers (ECRs) at University of Cambridge launched the Bullied into Bad Science campaign. Now joined by over 100 ECRs from around the globe and those that support them, this campaign has kickstarted a movement to establish a fairer, more open and ethical research and publication environment. In this workshop, we will discuss the campaign, share how to get involved, and capitalize on its energy to come together for an interactive conversation and brainstorming session on the ideal future of research culture. We will consider research culture broadly to include, but not limited to, topics such as collaboration, research integrity, publishing, openness, incentives, and career paths.
The workshop we be structured using the visual materials and format of the Royal Society’s Visions of 2035 initiative. Offered at over 20 events and attended by more than 1000 participants, Visions of 2035 challenges participants using speculative design scenarios to creatively imagine the ideal research culture of the future. As a group we will extend this model to consider not only the future, but also propose approaches for application today at our own institutions and organizations. Since the research culture involves and impacts everyone, we encourage participation from all meeting attendees across all career stages.
What if you could use an Open Science platform enabling you to seamlessly write with colleagues and instantly publish both your Articles and Definitions without leaving it? And what if the wider community of peers could then give the most transparent and diverse feedback by openly review both Articles and Definitions?
What if we took discoverability as seriously as accessibility? What if, instead of Google-scholar like long and meaningless lists of search results, you can get a visual answer to your query over scientific publications? What if you can immediately identify important concepts related to a topic and separate relevant from irrelevant content with respect to your information need?
Come with us and discover two new and innovative tools, Qeios and Open Knowledge Maps, addressing the starting and the ending point of a new, open scholarly communication: writing and discovery. They do all the above and more.
We shall have two different hands-on sessions
1) try a new way of integrating scholarly Definitions as the building blocks of your new piece of research and have it checked by the wider community of peers.
2) go for the Scientific Scavenger Hunt and improve your discovery skills. Together with other participants, you will try and complete tasks on knowledge maps within a time limit. You follow hints on knowledge maps that lead you to the correct answer.
How can editors, researchers, libraries, publishers and funders collaborate to flip existing journals to open access? In the next few years, the transition of subscription/hybrid journals to full open access will accelerate. Plan S has formulated a commitment that this has to seriously begin in 2020. This worries all stakeholders in scholarly communication for different reasons. We will explore different proven approaches and more specifically discuss the various steps in the transition to Fair Open Access.
Plan S aims to accelerate the transition to open access by imposing stricter open access rules on funded researchers. This has an effect on many actors, including institutions and their libraries. They will have to think about if and how to support Plan S, how to achieve transformative
agreements, how to advise researchers, and more.
This workshop is intended to bring together ideas and opinions on how institutions and libraries could and should relate to Plan S. Using the information available on possible concrete ways for researchers to achieve compliance for their publications (many of which are already exist and are proven in practice), what are the roles and responsibilities for institutions to support them in that? How do we make sure that the goal of Plan S is achieved while ensuring a diverse and sustainable open access landscape?
After getting an overview of Plan S and after hearing the participants’ perspectives on Plan S, the group will explore known problems and approaches. We will also look at the points raised in (public) input provided by institutions during the consultation around Plan S, and discuss how the position of institutions is influenced by their national contexts, the disciplines they serve and other factors.
Topics to be discussed can range from:
At the end of the workshop, we will have an overview of possible actions and choices on the topics above, with some criteria that institutions can apply to their Plan S implementation processes.
While this workshop focuses on the implications of plan S for institutions (and their libraries), participation is not limited to representatives from institutions/libraries - other actors are welcome to contribute to this discussion from their perspective.
How can publishers, funders, researchers, administrators, and other stakeholders co-operate to make storage and sharing of laboratory notebooks more efficient?
Research notebooks (laboratory and other notebooks) are important to many stakeholders who interact to use and share scientific outputs. Despite concerted efforts to address concerns in this space, support is fragmented and there is room for improved efficiency to foster open data sharing. Using a hands-on approach, we will explore current support offerings and concerns from different stakeholder perspectives and consider practical steps to improve the environment.
During the workshop, participants will be guided to: identify the stakeholders with an interest in research notebooks; identify workflows and points of communication between stakeholders and then identify the pain-points in these workflows. Participants will then highlight the most significant concerns, identify which might be within the control of stakeholders to control and suggest practical solutions to improve these concerns.
We see now at least 3 international Open Science roadmaps (EC's Open Science Policy Platform, LERU, LIBER) and several national ambitions (France, UK). They complement each other and emphasise a common recommendation: to increase collaboration in research while maintaining a healthy competition in the system.
This workshop aims to identify:
1) what goals and principles that support "Collaboration next to Competition" in research can be embraced by research stakeholders
2) a list of proposed actions that can lead to real life implementations of Open Science principles.
The workshop will allow us to explore the need for a cultural change and to find ways that make easier to understand this seachange for the research community, at all levels.
Come and be prepared to actively participate in the workshop if you sign up!
The keyword is "Explore", therefore this workshop is encouraging visionary directions of travel. You will be invited to dare, be creative and if needed - to ignore realities that block explorations. We will push ourselves into uncharted territory in order to find new ideas or lost gems.
Building a culture of collaboration in research is a jolly provocation, but you’ll remember your days in Geneva when you engaged in such a journey. Let’s set the trend together!
The outputs from this workshop can be used by research groups, universities, support organisations (libraries, publishers) and funders. It will contribute to building a better perspective for those that are both convinced and not convinced about the benefits of Open Science.
The EOSC was launched to propose the concretisation of the European scientific ecosystem as a combination of “horizontal efforts”, namely resource provision e-infrastructures (e.g. GEANT, EGI, EUDAT, OpenAIRE), and “vertical thematic efforts”, namely the Research Infrastructures, the EC cluster projects etc. This presentation will introduce the Research Community Dashboard services delivered and operated by the OpenAIRE infrastructure as a mean to transparently and smoothly connect the horizontal efforts, hence the digital laboratories where scientists carry out science, and the scholarly communication infrastructure, where scientific products should be published to enable sharing, discovery, scientific reward, and reproducibility of science.
Universities and non-university research institutions need to archive and provide a variety of different research data and educational resources. In recent years, international standards for the collection and exchange of metadata have been formulated (see i.a. euroCRIS/CERIF, OAI-PMH) and infrastructures have been created to ensure intra- and inter-university access to the data. Open Access for publications and research data is now regarded by many universities and non-university research institutions as a self-defined goal and is stipulated by the funding authorities. It turns out, however, that while many publications and research data are made available to open access, they are more likely to be distributed on decentralized, mostly commercial platforms, which may define this data as their own and access may be subject to a charge, and less frequently on the institutional repositories and document servers. The decentralized applications of the institutions are, it can be assumed, seldom perceived by artists and scientists as supporting digital tools. This indicates a problem in the design and communication of digital infrastructures. Professionally built up by archival and librarian experts over many years and made accessible with the help of international standards, the diverse application options are often hard to grasp and too complex for users. On commercial platforms on the other hand, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, users can find a variety of uploaded articles, up-to-date news on ongoing research projects, and extensive publication lists. What make these platforms better, what features do they provide to encourage users to upload their data and information about their work? These questions were the starting point of a process that began with a series of surveys at the University of Applied Arts Vienna (Angewandte) and is now continued in the project “Portfolio/Showroom – Making Art Research Accessible” (2017–2021) at inter-university level. Together with its project partners basis wien, Austrian Academy of Sciences/ACDH and the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Angewandte will release the first application “Portfolio” in May 2019 as Open Source-software. This presentation introduces the two web applications “Portfolio” and “Showroom”, whose user-driven development aims to provide low-threshold access to CRIS solutions. The functionalities of the two digital tools and the fundamentals of their development (ontology-driven software development) are presented. Finally, the presentation illustrates the environment in which the development (including interfaces to existing repository solutions) takes place. Benefits For Open Science Community include a new take on CRIS (user centred design), low-threshold application, Open Source-software, interoperability through standardised interfaces and vocabulary, integration into existing archiving software (e.g. repository)
In the recent years we have seen a rapid uptake of the FAIR principles. Many organisations and individuals got interested in the potential of the principles to improve the data landscape. After the initial widespread acknowledgment on the relevance of using the principles as guidelines towards a more integrated data environment, the natural next step is to make them concrete in terms of best practices and technological solutions. In this talk we aim at, starting by understanding the intentions of the FAIR principles, discuss what an ecosystem of software solutions and best practices to facilitate the adoption of the principles looks like.
The Health Research Board as many other funders recognises that (1) research data are an important and expensive output of the scholarly research process across all disciplines, (2) the importance of data sharing and reuse and (3) the need to properly manage research data and maximise their availability with as few restrictions as possible.
Funding agencies are drivers in creating FAIR research data. They do this by setting requirements for grant applications and awards, thereby guiding researchers towards state of art principles, tools, good research practices, and metrics. They can (1) influence the quality of how research data are managed during research projects and also following their completion, as well as (2) promote the use best practices and standards in research communities.
However, in practice, it is a very complex effort that depends on many other players in the research environment, such as the presence of expertise among researchers and support staff at research institutes, data services and research infrastructures, and financial resources. Also the funders are not sufficiently equipped for guiding, reviewing and monitoring research data management and stewardship.
With the aim of improving the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse of digital assets, FAIR Data holds tremendous promises for knowledge discovery and innovation. The FAIR principles have taken the research world by storm, since their publication in 2016. Funding agencies across Europe, including the European Commission, have readily adopted these principles and have made requirements for FAIR Data. Everybody loves FAIR. Except that many researchers are still unaware of the FAIR principles and many of those who are aware do not know how to apply them practice. There is still a lot of work to do to engage researchers with FAIR Data and to convince them that FAIR Data is worth their time and efforts – particularly in fields of research where sharing data has not been part of that field’s culture and where infrastructure, resources, training and community standards are still lacking. What can individual researchers do and how can professionals in research data management help? This will be the focus of my talk.
How a large energy company can innovate leveraging the open innovation model? What is the role of data, and of information flows in general, in this endeavor? What are the barriers and enabling factors that allow to effectively adopt this way of working? The presentation will elaborate on this main topics, with some examples from real life practice.
The posters will be displayed in the main atrium of the conference venue, and there will be an opportunity for successful poster exhibitors to present their work in a special conference plenary on Wednesday June 19th.
This year, we are experimenting with a different format for our poster session from previous OAI workshops. Poster presenters will work together to give a special 10 minute presentation on their theme in the poster plenary.
Posters will be grouped according to these themes:
Pushing the possible.
Are you developing a concept, prototype or beta for a new or innovative open science platform, service or tool? Would you like to share your idea, gather feedback and collaborators and get a chance to pitch to a group of fellow open science enthusiasts? This poster strand is designed to showcase emerging possibilities and to give innovators a chance to test out their ideas with a supportive, informed crowd.
Making open flow.
Open means available. Whether that's the 'thing' itself, or enough information about the thing to help others to understand it, and to find out how to access it, exposing and sharing information systematically is a cornerstone of open as a practical reality. Show us how your system, standard, technology, infrastructure or information resources help others to find, explore, and reuse open research outputs of any kind. What is your role in the global open science landscape?
Recognition and rewards.
Opening up the world of research means changing behaviours and incentives. How does your community or organisation encourage researchers to adopt open practices? How have your reward systems evolved to recognise a contribution to the openness of science as a first-class output in and of itself? Bring a poster that demonstrates your approach, and inspire others to do more to support open careers.
Reception diner in CERN's Restaurant
This presentation will review implications of the fundamental principle of copyright territoriality in an era of Open Science. It will examine recent national and regional developments in the area of copyright limitations and exceptions (L&Es), including emerging challenges in data governance arising from growing reliance on contracts and technological tools to both facilitate and restrict sustainable access to scientific knowledge.
Since its beginning, Wikipedia has been built with content that is freely licensed or in the public domain. This free licensing strategy has enabled people around the world to collaboratively learn, share, and create. In this session, participants will learn about the benefits, opportunities, and challenges of free licensing policies. We will also review the current state of copyright exceptions for text and data mining, and how the Wikimedia Foundation engages in copyright policy discussions with lawmakers and other stakeholders.
Wikimedia's general approach to copyright, https://policy.wikimedia.org/policy-landing/copyright/
Wikicite (http://wikicite.org/) and the Initiative for Open Citations, https://i4oc.org/
Wikimedia’s opinion about the EU Copyright Directive and other recent developments, as outlined here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/28/we-do-not-support-the-eu-copyright-directive-in-its-current-form-heres-why-you-shouldnt-either/
Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing as it is more commonly known, has lent itself to research involving engineering, technology, and economic issues, amongst others. The implications for intellectual property relating to 3D printing, remain largely unexplored.
The growth of 3D printing and 3D scanning impacts on intellectual property law, leading to a number of challenges whilst opening the doors to opportunities presented through licensing. Questions about ownership – of the data, the product – and authorship will be considered with respect to the intellectual property, and in particular the copyright, implications as related to 3D printing and 3D scanning.
In exploring these questions and in responding to them, the talk will draw on research results from three funded projects as well as published work carried out since 2013.
Open Science (OS) is a global movement reflecting in the scientific community a growing awareness of the importance of transparency and sharing. It promises to be a victory for cooperation over competition. However, to succeed, it will have to overcome a deep human instinct of competitiveness. This inclination is fostered by an evaluation method based essentially on competition. It is very difficult today for early career researchers to adhere to the principles of OS as long as they keep being evaluated according to metric criteria that are most often indirect and reflect more the publisher’s prestige than the candidates’ qualities. Being trained and judged like jockeys in a horse race does not encourage them to take the time necessary for serenity in their research process nor to exchange and share honestly with their peers. A qualitative multi-criteria approach, OS-CAM: Open Science Career Assessment Matrix is now proposed. It is based not only on scholarly productivity but also on qualities expected in OS. It is adjustable according to the career level and to the field of research. It awaits to be used globally and fairly.
Open Access and the Monograph: Surveying the Current Landscape
Open Access is gradually gaining momentum in monograph publishing, thanks to developments on a number of fronts. Groups such as the Knowledge Exchange, the Mellon Foundation, and the OPERAS program have commissioned studies that have bettered our understanding of the special challenges and issues facing the widespread adoption of Open Access in monograph publishing. Meanwhile, realtime OA book publishing initiatives in Europe, the UK, and North America are providing the kind of on-the-ground experimentation that is necessary if new frameworks and business models are to emerge. One example in the US is TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem), which is sponsored by the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of University Presses (AUPresses), and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Yet another initiative is looking at developing a framework for OA book usage. Speakers in this session will discuss these initiatives and related OA book publishing trends and issues in an international context.
The Knowledge Exchange (KE) partners are six national organisations within Europe tasked with developing infrastructure and services to enable the use of digital technologies to improve higher education and research. To ensure awareness of the position of Open Access monographs KE published a “Landscape Study on Open Access and Monographs” in 2017. The report ( http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6693/1/Landscape_study_on_OA_and_Monographs_Oct_2017_KE.pdf ), which was widely downloaded found that both OA monographs and the policies and models that support them appear to be growing. However, it reported considerable variation between each country in the study. In 2018, KE commissioned a follow up survey ( http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7101/ ) to help identify the next steps that should be considered in order to continue to support the transition to Open Access. This directly informed a workshop for key European stakeholders, held in Brussels in November 2018. This presentation will provide an overview of the results of the survey and the follow up workshop, which delveoped key themes, such as policy, author engagement, technical infrastructure and monitoring, and called for the development of a European roadmap for Open Access monographs.
A recent research project led by the Book Industry Study Group in collaboration with KU Research, the Educopia Institute, and researchers from the University of Michigan and University of North Texas Libraries identified the challenges in understanding the usage of open-access (OA) scholarly ebooks, suggested some opportunities for resolving them, and created a framework for future action through community consultation. The project proposed the potential development of a “data trust” as a vehicle to manage the multiple data sets that are key to understanding OA ebook usage while respecting commercial and individual user concerns.
Successful collaboration around data sharing requires thoughtful engagement with issues of trust between stakeholders, the development of shared technical standards, and the development of requirements for the validation of data and information. This is a classic collective-action problem. Its solution, therefore, requires the development of a trusted framework for coordination between all the relevant stakeholders. Our recommendations address these aspects of successful collaboration.
Europe has a long-standing commitment to the development of open monographs. In the continent many initiatives, platforms and projects have been blossoming in the last decade. More recent is the shared feeling across the academic community that the many separate efforts need to be coordinated in some way. That's why the topic highlighted during the OPERAS conference last year in Athens was the "coordination challenge". Following the conference, but also the near end of the HIRMEOS project and the recent publication of the Knowledge Exchange report, a number of OPERAS members and partners are preparing the creation of a European network to provide to the community the kind of coordination needed for the open access monograph. The presentation will give information on the different topics the network aims to address.
One recent estimate suggests that 50% of journal articles have open versions which should be accessible at or shortly following publication, illustrating a significant triumph for open access. However, it is unfortunate that placing research outputs into pre-print service or an open repository does not, in any way, guarantee another researcher will be able to find that material, regardless of the OA community’s embrace of FAIR principles, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reproducible. There are multiple products currently available on the market which offer legal assistance with the discovery of these research outputs. This session will include four presentations, as well as an opportunity for a more general and open discussion, around the progress and frustrations with OA Discovery and Text and Data Mining.
Dr Frank C. Manista, European Open Science Manager, Jisc
• Rachael Lammey, Head of Community Outreach, Crossref
• Dirk Pieper, Deputy Director, Bielefeld University Library
• Heather Piwowar, Co-founder of Impactstory
• Dimity Flannagan, Scholarly Communications Lead, The British Library
At Crossref, we know that good quality metadata aids the discoverability of scholarly content. It can also make inroads into OA discoverability. Metadata containing license information, links to the accepted version of a manuscript or the preprint or the full-text (for text-mining purposes) all go a long way to letting the research community know how they can access and use the content they need. However, there are limitations - practical, technical and political - which can cause issues in the provision and/or the downstream use of this information. I’ll discuss the growth in the registration of this broad category of metadata with Crossref, where things get tricky, what work is being done already and what options there are for further development in this area.
More than 15 years after the “Budapest Open Access Initiative” and the “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities” the discovery of open access journals articles is still a challenge. The many variations of open access, like green, gold, hybrid, bronze or delayed open access, are making it difficult to measure the OA share of articles within academic journals properly.
In an ideal world, researchers should have immediate open access to the publisher version of journal articles. With an increasing number of so called transformative agreements, this vision will become more and more reality.
From the perspective of BASE, which is since 2004 one of the largest search engines for discovering OA documents, the importance of repositories as a primary source of metadata for OA journal articles will be more and more complemented by publisher data sources. The importance of Crossref as an aggregator will increase for discovery systems, the more and the better publishers will disseminate their data to Crossref. This development has the potential to overcome some of the frustrations with OA discovery in the next few years.
Jason will talk about Unpaywall, the open database for Open Access discovery. Using open source software, the small team behind Unpaywall has gathered links to over 20 million OA articles and makes them available through a free browser extension used by more than 200,000 active users. The Unpaywall dataset also powers the open access discovery in Europe PMC, Web of Science, the British Library, and thousands of libraries worldwide. We'll talk about the progress, challenges, and next steps for discovery of Open resources using the Unpaywall approach.
Within the walls of the British Library lies one of the greatest collections in the world. However, the value of the British Library lies not only in the preservation of heritage items, but also in its determination to keep pace with the many changes in the global information environment. As more content becomes open access, the British Library has an opportunity to move beyond the confines of the physical space and connect users to content whether they live in the UK or overseas.
This presentation will look at what the British Library is currently doing to improve discovery through its own search systems, as well as initiatives to improve the discovery of open access content beyond academia. It will also include an introduction to the British Library’s new repository service, a service that enables research undertaken by the British Library and partner organisations to become more discoverable through quality metadata, persistent identifiers, enhanced accessibility and long-term preservation.
As a global research foundation, the Wellcome Trust is committed to ensuring that the outputs of research (including publications, datasets, software and materials) can be widely accessed and used in ways that will maximise the benefits to health and society. We are a long-standing champion of open access and research data sharing, and established a dedicated Open Research team in 2017 to spearhead our work in this space.
One of the key priorities for the Open Research team has been to look at how Wellcome can lead as a funder, and work with the wider research community, to ensure that the work researchers do to make their research outputs available to others is recognised and rewarded appropriately. For over a decade, our Open Access policy has emphasised that for research publications it is the intrinsic merit of the work that matters and not where it is published. We were an early signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and are working to ensure that our own funding decisions take into account the full and diverse range of valuable outputs that result from research. In November 2018, we announced a requirement as part of our new Open Access policy that organisations we fund should also publicly commit to these principles.
My talk will summarise our work as a funder to incentivise open research, focusing in particular on ongoing work to implement DORA and define how we will work with our communities to roll out and assess implementation in organisations in receipt of our funding.
In this presentation I will introduce the idea of the variety of perspectives on OA, and what it means in terms of policies undertaken. OA publishing has been mostly considered as a more or less defined process, whereby the various types of OA formats play a role in the monitoring and rewarding of OA publishing , against toll access publishing. In this presentation I will introduce the idea that the various positions in the academic domain require a variety of perspectives on OA publishing, as each stakeholder has its’ own view on what openness actually means.
Using Web of Science data for publishing activities, and Unpaywall data as the source to identify and tag the WoS publications, I will show that this variety of perspectives clearly shows the complexity of the discussion, and mostly certainly against the light of the implementation of Plan S.
In recent years the open access movement has broadened into a movement for open science, which aims not only to improve exchange between researchers but to strengthen the links between academics and the societies of which they are an integral part. However, progress towards this goal has been slowed by the tenacious roots of our established forms of research assessment, which place great emphasis on publication and the hierarchy of journals. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is working to unlock the true potential of open science by opening up more effective and more holistic approaches to determining what it is we value in scientific research.
Research evaluation drives the culture and practice of research. It provides a framework for how researchers think about what they do and the values they prioritise. It also affects the behaviour of other actors in the system, such as publishers. Open metrics and campaigns such as the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) are fundamental to the process of scientific communication and evaluation and help to build a truly open scholarly infrastructure. Such infrastructure is both social and technical - it is about process and practice as well as outputs. Ultimately, it is researchers and other actors in the Academy who will need to set the vision for the future but, as the arguments over academic freedom and Plan S have revealed, many are currently trapped in a system that they do not realise is broken and which only serves to perpetuate the status quo. Changing the evaluation culture requires a new social and technical infrastructure - what are the roles of publishers, institutions and funders in enabling that change?
What are academic book authors attitudes towards open access? What are their motivations for publishing books? Why do they choose to publish their books open access (or not to)? And what do book authors think about key issues such as what forms of re-use are acceptable, and whether green or gold open access is preferable for books?
In 2019, Springer Nature ran a major new landscape survey investigating academic book authors’ views about open access. More than 2,500 authors worldwide completed the survey, representing a wide range of disciplines across HSS and STEM. In this session we present the results of that survey for the first time, and consider what more the community can do to change attitudes towards open access and encourage researchers to choose open access for their next book.
By posting preprints authors can help promote openness and transparency and reduce research waste from duplicated efforts and non-reporting. However, there are concerns about providing public access to preliminary clinical research for fear of causing harm. We believe that medRxiv, a new preprint server for the health sciences, will provide a valuable service to the clinical research community by helping to ensure a balance of safeguards and speed.
The Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) is a first-time player in the OA scenario, being promoter and coordinator of SCOAP3 and OA2020 nation-wide along with CRUI, the Conference on Italian University Rectors. INFN has joined Plan S since the beginning and is performing an extensive outreach programme targeted to Universities and Research institutes. The report will include highlights on peculiarities in the Italian Academic system.
Being able to replicate, validate and extend previous work speeds new research projects. Scientists are beginning to apply software engineering practises to their research to make it reproducible and to improve their own efficiency. The development and use of container services allow analysis to be rerun easily and each step to be tracked automatically. The possibility of sharing workflows with minimal effort prompts a rethink of the structure of narration in science research communication: should the methods play a more central role? What can science learn from the humanities?
The fight to promote the freedom of knowledge has entered a new phase. Plan S has been announced in Europe and AmeliCA in Latin America. So now what happens with Indonesia? Let me give you some figures: according to DOAJ database, in March 2017, there were 500 Indonesian OA journals (ranked 5th globally), 84% of them using the Indonesian language covering over 51,000 articles (ranked 7th). In the two years prior to 13 March 2019, the number of journals hit 1422 journals (ranked 2nd), 81% of them using the Indonesian language with more than 122,000 articles (ranked 1st). More than 70% of the journals draw no APC from authors.
Given these surprising numbers, what are the odds of SE Asia countries, especially Indonesia, in following in the footsteps of their fellow European and Latin American scientists? Zero.
So what do we have instead? We have a promotion system that gives higher scores to papers published in journals listed in Scopus and WoS (40 points) and/or in journals with an Impact Factor. The score decreases if they publish papers in non-accredited Indonesian journals. We have the non-independent SINTA platform which is an extension of the closed Scopus and Google Scholar dataset. This is despite two other promising national database, Garuda (nearly 7000 journals) and Onesearch (>7m entries).
This situation needs to be taken care of by the scientific ecosystem in Indonesia. Pushing awareness of sustainable transparency, accountability, and infrastructure is very important. Solutions include hosting research data and reports, as well as efforts to retain author's rights by posting preprints openly in public/institutional repository. INArxiv (with 6800+ docs on 13 March 2019) is just one of the active nodes in this community effort.
Our proposed ideas are to:
1. Limit the usage of commercial databases for staff and research performance measurement and use a plurality of datasets for the SINTA system, including integrating Garuda, Onesearch and others.
2. Shift the scoring system from a citation-based merit system to a more process-based merit system. Research reproducibility should be a main target.
3. Promote the functionality of repositories to store research data and report (under FAIR principles) from public funded grants.
As open access scientific manuscripts, preprints represent an invaluable wealth of data and knowledge available when community feedback is most useful. However, despite the rapid growth in preprint adoption in the life sciences, open commenting around them remains low. To address this, PREreview launched in 2017 to encourage the discussion of preprints at journal clubs and share preprint reviews openly.
The open sharing of preprint feedback benefits preprint authors who can incorporate early comments from a diverse pool of colleagues in the final publication. The wider scientific community benefits, as the released content adds to the value of the scientific discussion and opens new avenues for collaboration. It also benefits PREreviewers themselves – particularly early-career scientists – as they have a chance to improve their peer-review skills, build their reviewing profile, and connect with other researchers in their field.
The core of PREreview’s mission is to support and drive the cultural change that underpins the growth of a diverse community of trained peer reviewers. PREreview focuses on community building and the development of a people-centered technology to support it. PREreview’s new, open source platform will give members a safe space in which they can nurture their reviewing expertise whilst facilitating scientific progress, all in accordance with PREreview’s code of conduct.
Preprints have long been a mainstay in the physical sciences, however over the last few years their prominence in the biomedical community has grown exponentially. Preprints bring many benefits to the scholarly community; rapid dissemination of academic work, immediate public access, establishing priority, receiving feedback, and facilitating new collaborations to name a few. Arguably, the preprint movement is gathering steam due to its compatibility with the existing journal system. However, this shift in how researchers share their work could potentially resolve other important issues around open data, improving peer review, providing better metrics to support decision-making in promotion/tenure and grant applications, and reducing costs. This presentation looks to highlight how publishers are currently interacting with preprint servers and also the potential of the preprint to encourage new innovations to improve the way research is shared.
CORE offers seamless, unrestricted access to millions of research papers. CORE hosts the world’s largest collection of open access full texts, which are used by researchers, libraries, software developers, funders and many more. CORE's aggregated content comes from thousands of institutional and subject repositories as well as journals and covers all research disciplines. In January 2019, CORE has hit the mark of 10 million monthly active users (10.41 million users) making core.ac.uk a top 6k website globally by usage according to the independent Alexa Rank and one of the most world's most widely used Open Access platforms. In this talk, Petr will present the CORE service, discuss current challenges in harvesting content from open repositories and share his experience of building value-added services for the society on top of open content.
The processes of knowledge exchange and research evaluation are changing; the role of the publication (the "known known") is gradually being eroded by both new metrics (more nuanced and sophisticated), and new approaches to and formats for communication (beyond the "known known"). Many researchers now begin communicating about their work a long time before the point of publication, whether to drive stakeholder engagement and feedback during a project, or to maximize awareness and application of results / findings. I will report on a study of over 10,000 researchers, university administrators and funders, exploring questions such as: what other kinds of object and output are researchers using to make their work public? Which of these is most commonly used, and which are more or less effective for reaching different goals or audiences? What effect will ‘Plan S’ and other funder initiatives have on (a) the formats in which researchers ’publish’? (b) the mechanisms by which they are evaluated? What new skills and tools do researchers need to help them communicate their work most effectively and efficiently? How are research funders and institutions innovating to better support researchers' "journey beyond the known"?
The gaining of ground of different forms of pseudoscience and fake news warns us how important is strategically to put substantial efforts in communicating the scientific methods and results to the general public and continuously search for innovative ways to do so. Citizen science is among the best tools to accomplish this by inviting the general public to participate and contribute to the research process. Integrating videogames with citizen science microtasks is another innovation in the field to get the empowering experience of doing citizen science and communicating research to millions of gamers.
Researchers and students are overwhelmed by the current rate of scientific paper publishing. As a consequence, their literature search and review activity has become more complex and time-consuming. The Information needs vary widely in different academic disciplines. The traditional search technology requires keywords, however, keywords are a limited representation of information needs. The future scientific knowledge management system ought to be a dialogue between the user and the system, requiring integration of language, scientific domain knowledge, and understanding of user information need. Instead of requiring of the user to convert the information need into a set of English keywords, the system should aid the user to represent the information need on a conceptual level by means of user contexts. The text mining research must go towards categorizing the information needs and sub discipline of scientific fields. Then deploy the optimal models or techniques for each particular category of information need. I argue that, by integrating an eLearning system and combining the benefits of supervised learning with reinforcement learning, we obtain partly self-learned annotated data that will boost the efficiency of customized solutions for each specific information need, and, at the same time, will provide users with added knowledge values.
This talk will be a two-part presentation raising awareness of:
a) The importance of artificial intelligence (AI) being democratised so that citizen scientists are informally educated, not only about their rights to privacy under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), but also how privacy is compromised in a world of machine learning algorithms applied to humans as data subjects;
b) Citizen scientists should be included in the discussion on the future of jobs in a world of increasing automation, robots doing human jobs, and in developing ethical AI applications.
Citizen scientists need to be aware how much they are tracked through cookies on websites they visit, how many and what trackers are embedded in apps, such as fitness/healthcare apps they have on their smart phones (an app by Babylon healthcare has five trackers including a Facebook log in), and where that tracked information ends up (for example, is it passed on to third-parties?). Citizen scientists should be engaged in discussing theirs, their children and their grandchildren’s future and be part of creating opportunities in the forthcoming roboticised landscape of work and leisure.
Review of four years of Open Science policies
1. Why did we do it
2. What where the main priorities
3. What was realised
4. What is still missing or incomplete