#OpenScience

Open science is a collaborative movement that aims to make scientific research and data accessible to all, fostering transparency, reproducibility, and innovation. While the term “open science” often brings to mind large-scale collaborative projects and institutions, individual researchers play a crucial role in advancing this cause. From sharing data and code to participating in community-driven initiatives, individual contributions are the building blocks of the open science movement.

1. Sharing Research Outputs: Individual researchers contribute to open science by making their research outputs openly accessible. This includes publishing papers in open access journals or depositing preprints in repositories like arXiv or bioRxiv. By removing paywalls and barriers to access, researchers ensure that their findings can reach a wider audience, including those in resource-constrained settings.
2. Open Data Sharing: One of the cornerstones of open science is the sharing of research data. Individual researchers can contribute by making their data openly available through repositories such as Figshare, Zenodo, or institutional repositories. By sharing raw data, researchers enable others to validate findings, conduct further analyses, and potentially uncover new insights.
3. Open Source Software: In many scientific disciplines, software plays a crucial role in data analysis, simulations, and modeling. Individual researchers contribute to open science by developing and sharing open-source software tools and libraries. Platforms like GitHub provide a collaborative environment for researchers to share code, collaborate on projects, and receive feedback from the community.
4. Reproducible Research Practices: Adopting reproducible research practices is essential for ensuring the integrity and reliability of scientific findings. Individual researchers contribute to open science by documenting their methods, providing detailed descriptions of experimental procedures, and sharing code for analyses. By making their research workflows transparent and reproducible, researchers enable others to verify and build upon their work.
5. Participating in Open Communities: Engagement in open science communities is another way individuals contribute to the movement. This can involve participating in open access advocacy groups, attending open science conferences and workshops, or contributing to community-driven projects and initiatives. By collaborating with like-minded researchers, individuals can amplify their impact and contribute to shaping the future of scientific research.

Case Study: Dr. Jane Doe’s Contribution to Open Science Dr. Jane Doe, a computational biologist, exemplifies the power of individual contributions to open science efforts. Through her research on cancer genomics, Dr. Doe publishes her findings in open access journals and shares her data through public repositories. She develops an open-source software tool for analyzing genomic data, which gains popularity within the research community. Dr. Doe actively participates in open science conferences and contributes to collaborative projects aimed at advancing open science principles in her field.

Individual researchers play a vital role in advancing the principles of open science through their actions and contributions. By sharing research outputs, data, code, and participating in open communities, researchers contribute to a more transparent, inclusive, and collaborative scientific ecosystem. As the open science movement continues to grow, the collective efforts of individuals will drive positive change and foster innovation in scientific research.

Photo via Peer Recognized

Exciting News from Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI)!

We’re thrilled to introduce their newest resource: Infra Finder. This tool is your go-to guide for navigating the intricate world of infrastructure services and standards that support open research and scholarship.

Introducing Infra Finder: Unveiling 57 Infrastructure Services and Standards Infra Finder now boasts a comprehensive database featuring 57 infrastructure services and standards. These resources exemplify the diverse array of open practices essential for sharing research data and publications. And the best part? IOI is constantly expanding! Check out “How can I add an infrastructure service” below to learn more.

From repository software to persistent identifiers, Infra Finder offers detailed insights into each service’s technical specifications, community engagement strategies, governance, key policies, and more. It’s your one-stop shop for finding the perfect infrastructure services tailored to your institution’s needs.

Who Can Benefit from Infra Finder? Infra Finder is perfect for: Those with specific technologies in mind, seeking a centralized source for detailed information to aid decision-making. Individuals with specific needs but no particular technologies in mind. Infra Finder’s filterable options help you explore and discover the ideal fit for your requirements. As we continue to gather feedback from the community, we’re exploring even more ways Infra Finder can be of service.

Empowering Informed Decision-Making: IOI understand the challenges institutional leaders face when navigating the vast array of technology options. That’s why Infra Finder aims to be your trusted source of information, guiding institutions towards informed decisions that promote open research and scholarship.

To achieve this goal, Infra Finder offers: Up-to-date, verified information: We collaborate closely with infrastructure service providers to ensure Infra Finder remains current and accurate. Centralized key information: Recognizing the diverse needs of institutions and stakeholders, Infra Finder consolidates extensive information into one convenient location. Easy comparison view: Infra Finder’s intuitive comparison feature allows you to assess up to four infrastructure services side-by-side, complete with links to detailed information.

Your Feedback Shapes Infra Finder’s: Future Infra Finder is a product of collaboration with infrastructure service providers and users. Your feedback has been invaluable in shaping this initial release, and it will continue to guide our future enhancements.

We invite you to explore Infra Finder and share your thoughts and insights through our feedback form. Additionally, join IOI for informational sessions on May 2 and May 3 to demo Infra Finder and provide further feedback. See registration links below.

Need Additional Support? If you’re looking to expand your institution’s or network’s use of open infrastructure, IOI offers targeted research and recommendations tailored to your needs. Learn more about their strategic support program.

FAQ: Here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about Infra Finder. For a comprehensive list, please refer to their documentation.

1. How were the initial services included in Infra Finder selected? For the current release, we focused on infrastructure services facilitating the sharing of research data and publications, aligning with our core programs of work. We invited 84 service providers to participate, resulting in responses from 57 services. We’ll continue to add more services to Infra Finder in the future.
2. How does Infra Finder differ from other registries and assessment tools? Infra Finder builds upon existing efforts to map and bring visibility to infrastructure services. It takes a user-driven approach to increase the adoption of open infrastructure in a scalable way. For more information, refer to our documentation.
3. What defines open infrastructure? Open infrastructure encompasses a spectrum of services, including those meeting criteria such as open source software, openly licensed content distribution, free accessibility, community governance, and non-profit operation.
4. How does Infra Finder cater to a global community? We aim for Infra Finder to serve a global audience by featuring a diverse range of open infrastructure services, including those from regions outside of Europe and North America. We’re committed to refining Infra Finder based on feedback from stakeholders worldwide.

For more information, please visit Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) website.

Posted Apr 22, 2024 by Chrys Wu, Lauren Collister and Emmy Tsang

The Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information underscores the necessity for research information systems to transcend mere openness by embracing diversity and inclusivity. It contends that achieving this goal necessitates the interconnection of decentralized research information sources.

Emphasizing Diversity and Inclusion in the Barcelona Declaration: The recent introduction of the Barcelona Declaration seeks to galvanize the global research community towards fostering open and accessible research information. While the argument for openness is compelling, asserting its importance alone falls short. The Barcelona Declaration acknowledges this shortfall, asserting that research information systems must also embody diversity and inclusivity, aligning with the UNESCO Recommendations on Open Science.

The Need for Diverse Information Sources: To achieve fair and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation, it’s imperative to mitigate biases present in mainstream sources, predominantly rooted in Western Europe and North America. These biases tend to marginalize scientific contributions from other regions, notably the Global South. The Barcelona Declaration elucidates this disparity, noting that decisions are often based on information biased against less privileged languages, geographical regions, and research agendas.

Incorporating multiple information sources is essential. Research information encompasses bibliographic metadata, as well as data on various research aspects like samples, materials, and funding sources. While an ideal single database covering global research might be envisioned, practical and cultural considerations render this unfeasible and perhaps undesirable. Therefore, leveraging diverse sources expands thematic, geographical, and linguistic scopes, enriching data and perspectives.

Arguments for Embracing Multiple Sources: Firstly, coverage across different regions remains inadequate in large databases like OpenAlex. For instance, regions where journals do not utilize DOIs, like Latin America, face significant coverage gaps. This challenges the assumption of universal standards in research information systems. Projects like the Decentralized Archival Resource Key (dARK) aim to address this by offering decentralized infrastructure compatible with existing PID systems.

Secondly, regional databases provide richer metadata and contextual understanding, enhancing research assessment. For example, platforms like Redalyc offer detailed curation and access to a variety of multimedia content, fostering a deeper understanding of localized research.

Thirdly, preserving a variety of sources fosters pluralism, accommodating diverse perspectives and preserving regional independence. This diversity guards against the dominance of larger or more influential groups, ensuring a more nuanced approach to research assessment.

Cooperation and Interoperability: The path to an open research information ecosystem involves collaboration among diverse sources, rather than replacing established platforms like Web of Science or Scopus. Interoperability agreements and communication protocols facilitate the integration of information from various sources, enhancing coverage and enriching metadata. This multiplicity enables a more nuanced understanding of knowledge across different contexts, fostering a plural and inclusive research environment.

The Barcelona Declaration advocates for the integration of information from diverse sources, recognizing the value of varied perspectives in decision-making processes. Similarly, initiatives like FOLEC stress the importance of including both international repositories and regional databases in research assessment.

In essence, the Barcelona Declaration underscores the importance of plural and interconnected research information sources in fostering openness, diversity, and inclusion. It serves as a catalyst for ongoing efforts towards this collective goal.

Babini, D., Garcia, A. B., Costas, R., Matas, L., Rafols, I., & Rovelli, L. (2024). Not only Open, but also Diverse and Inclusive: Towards Decentralised and Federated Research Information Sources. Leiden Madtrics. https://doi.org/10.59350/gmrzb-e2p83

Introduction: The open access (OA) movement has revolutionized the dissemination of scientific literature, aiming to make it freely available to everyone. Particularly crucial is its impact on researchers in lower-income countries who often struggle with access due to high subscription costs. This article delves into the evolving landscape of OA and its specific benefits for researchers in economically disadvantaged regions by examining reference patterns in scientific publications worldwide.

Background: Global Differences in Research and Development (R&D) Capacity Lower levels of R&D investments in low-income countries have historically restricted access to scientific literature. Initiatives aimed at providing subsidized access have faced challenges of sustainability and coordination. However, OA has emerged as a primary driver of increased accessibility to scientific knowledge, potentially bridging the gap in research capacity between economically diverse regions.

Methods: This study employs a comprehensive approach to analyze OA trends and reference patterns across different income levels and scientific fields. It explores whether researchers from lower-income countries reference fewer publications and rely more on OA literature compared to their counterparts in higher-income countries.

Results: The analysis reveals a significant increase in the number of references to scientific publications over the past four decades, with lower-income countries experiencing a relatively stronger growth rate. Researchers from these countries are increasingly citing more recent literature and showing a higher reliance on OA sources. This suggests that OA has played a pivotal role in leveling the playing field, enabling researchers from economically disadvantaged regions to access and contribute to the global scientific discourse.

Discussion: The findings indicate a shift in citation behavior, with researchers from lower-income countries aligning more closely with their counterparts in wealthier nations. This convergence is attributed to the broader availability of OA literature and the changing dynamics of scientific communication. OA has not only expanded access but also facilitated the integration of new research into the existing literature, fostering collaboration and innovation on a global scale.

Conclusion: OA has transformed the publishing landscape, offering newfound opportunities for researchers worldwide. By dismantling barriers to access, OA has empowered researchers from lower-income countries to participate more actively in scientific discourse. This study underscores the transformative potential of OA in reducing disparities in research capacity and fostering a more inclusive and collaborative scientific community. As we continue to embrace the principles of OA, it is essential to ensure sustained support and investment to maximize its benefits for all stakeholders in the scientific ecosystem.

Karlstrøm, H., Aksnes, D. W., & Piro, F. N. (2024). Benefits of open access to researchers from lower-income countries: A global analysis of reference patterns in 1980–2020. Journal of Information Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515241245952

Photo via Open Access Button

Researchers advocate for a ‘nutrition label’ system to convey key information about academic papers, aiming to enhance transparency and inform readers about scholarly standards. Inspired by the familiar nutrition-facts labels found on US food packaging, John Willinsky and his team at the Public Knowledge Project are exploring the development of a standardized label for academic publishing.

The envisioned label would provide a quick overview of publication details, including journal acceptance rates, the number of peer reviewers, publisher and funder names, presence of competing-interests statements, editor lists, indexing information, and data availability. This information aims to assist readers, including researchers, the media, and the public, in evaluating the credibility and relevance of academic articles.

The initiative aims to address concerns about research integrity and accessibility. By streamlining access to essential publication information, the label seeks to empower readers to make informed decisions about citing or reporting on academic papers. Building on the success of the US nutrition-facts label in influencing consumer behavior, the label prototype incorporates feedback from various stakeholders, including researchers, editors, journalists, and educators.

The label’s development includes considerations for standardization, automation, multilingual support, and third-party verification to maintain author and reviewer anonymity. Trials involving journal editors, authors, and science journalists have been conducted to gather feedback and refine the label’s design.

The initiative is initially targeting journals using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, with plans for wider industry adoption. While the publication-facts label is voluntary, its proponents aim to demonstrate its utility and feasibility through pilots and open-source development. By promoting common standards across publishing platforms, the initiative seeks to ensure consistency and comprehensibility in conveying publication information to diverse audiences.

By Dalmeet Singh Chawla

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01135-z

When universities deliberate over whom to hire, promote, or fund, they often go beyond just reviewing application materials. Many turn to databases that compile publication details, including authors, affiliations, citations, and funding sources. These databases generate metrics to gauge a researcher’s productivity and the quality of their work.

Prominent databases like Web of Science and Scopus offer access to such data for a fee, supporting various metrics, university rankings, and journal impact factors. However, a recent declaration, signed by over 30 research and funding organizations, advocates for platforms that are free, transparent in their methods, and unrestricted in data usage.

The Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information emphasizes the importance of addressing the limitations of closed research information in an era increasingly reliant on indicators and analytics in scientific decision-making. Signatories include notable funders like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and academic institutions like Sorbonne University, which has transitioned to the open platform OpenAlex.

The declaration aims to foster broader access to research information, especially beyond English-language journals, promoting the circulation of scientific knowledge produced in diverse languages and regions. Elizabeth Gadd, an expert in scholarly communications, sees the declaration as a significant step towards aligning organizational commitments with open research practices.

To facilitate this transition, the declaration proposes the establishment of a Coalition for Open Research Information, intended to coordinate efforts and share expertise among organizations. While establishing and maintaining research databases pose challenges, alternatives like PubMed, Crossref, and OpenAlex offer promising avenues.

However, concerns about data quality persist, with some experts noting errors in assignments and information retrieval. Despite this, initiatives like OpenAlex are rapidly evolving, with community input driving improvements.

Commercial database providers like Clarivate and Elsevier express support for open initiatives while highlighting the need for diverse perspectives in addressing research challenges. They suggest a shift towards monetizing services rather than data itself, acknowledging the evolving landscape of research information access.

In this evolving landscape, both proprietary and open databases have roles to play, with opportunities for collaboration and innovation. While transitioning to open models may take time, it represents a significant stride towards democratizing access to research information.

Article from Science.org

In the intricate tapestry of modern research, information serves as the backbone, guiding decisions, shaping priorities, and fueling innovation. However, a significant portion of this vital information remains confined within closed infrastructures, inaccessible to many stakeholders. The Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information emerges as a clarion call for change, advocating for a fundamental shift towards openness and transparency in research practices.

The Preamble: Recognizing the Imperative for Change

The preamble of the Barcelona Declaration eloquently articulates the current state of affairs in research information management. It acknowledges the pivotal role information plays in steering the research enterprise, from assessing researchers and institutions to informing strategic decisions. Yet, it highlights the paradox of reliance on closed infrastructures, controlled by entities with primary accountability to shareholders rather than the research community. This acknowledgment sets the stage for the transformative vision laid out in the declaration.

A Vision for Openness: Commitments for Change

The heart of the Barcelona Declaration lies in its commitments to usher in a new era of openness in research information. It outlines four key commitments aimed at making openness the default mode for both the utilization and production of research information. From embracing open scholarly infrastructures to ensuring their sustainability, signatories pledge to catalyze the transition from closed to open research information through collective action and collaboration.

Breaking Down Barriers: Confronting the Challenges of Closed Systems

Closed research information infrastructures pose formidable barriers to transparency and reproducibility, perpetuating opaque decision-making processes. The declaration underscores the urgent need for openness to enable informed debates and accountable decision-making. By advocating for the use of persistent identifiers and fostering a culture of accessibility and integrity, the declaration seeks to dismantle these barriers and usher in a new era of openness.

A Global Movement: Mobilizing Stakeholders for Change

The momentum for openness in research information is palpable, with support growing across international, regional, and local fronts. From global initiatives like DORA and the Leiden Manifesto to regional movements advocating for inclusivity, stakeholders are uniting behind the call for change. Organizations such as SPARC and CoARA are spearheading efforts to reshape research assessment paradigms, emphasizing independence and transparency.

Towards a Tipping Point: Realizing the Vision of Openness

As the academic community marches towards a tipping point in the transition to open research information, the Barcelona Declaration serves as a rallying cry for action. It calls upon research organizations, funders, and evaluators to join forces in realizing this vision of openness. By embracing the principles laid out in the declaration, stakeholders can pave the way for a more equitable, transparent, and impactful research ecosystem.

In the journey towards open research information, the Barcelona Declaration stands as push forward, illuminating the path towards a future where knowledge knows no bounds.

Find out more about Barcelona Declaration.

Open Science (OS) has emerged as a pivotal policy focus and a transformative paradigm for scientific research. However, as the momentum behind OS grows, so does the need for comprehensive monitoring frameworks that align with the values driving this shift. Ismael Rafols, Ingeborg Meijer, and Jordi Molas-Gallart advocate for a nuanced approach to monitoring OS, one that goes beyond simplistic metrics to capture the diverse array of practices and their impacts.

Amidst a flurry of policies and investments, monitoring OS progress has become a priority at both European and national levels. Initiatives such as OS monitors in France and Finland, along with projects by the European Commission and UNESCO, underscore the global commitment to advancing OS principles. Yet, monitoring OS presents unique challenges due to its multifaceted nature, encompassing everything from open access publishing to citizen engagement.

Rafols and his colleagues argue that traditional metrics fail to capture the essence of OS, which transcends mere quantification. Instead, monitoring efforts should focus on understanding the trajectories of OS development, including who adopts OS practices and what effects they have. This necessitates a shift from assessing the quantity of OS to examining its quality and diversity.

Drawing parallels with the evolution of science policy models, the authors propose a new monitoring framework aligned with the principles of transformative innovation. Learning, directionality, and outcomes emerge as key pillars of this framework, emphasizing the need for continuous reflection, understanding of trajectories, and assessment of real-world impacts.

In practice, this means adopting a formative approach to monitoring that fosters strategic decision-making and embraces epistemic diversity. Rather than fixating on a narrow set of indicators, monitoring should be pluralistic and adaptable to different contexts. By capturing the trajectories of OS across various dimensions, from open access to open data, monitoring can provide insights into the implications of different approaches.

Furthermore, monitoring should extend beyond outputs to encompass outcomes, examining not just what is being done to support OS, but how it is being used and its broader societal effects. Interviews and surveys play a crucial role in understanding the nuanced ways in which OS is shaping research practices and outcomes.

Ultimately, the goal of monitoring OS is not merely to assess its prevalence but to ensure that it aligns with its ideals of inclusivity and sustainability. By adopting a reflective learning approach, monitoring can guide OS activities towards transformative outcomes that benefit society as a whole.

As OS continues to reshape the scientific landscape, informed monitoring will be essential in realizing its full potential and realizing a future where science truly serves as a global public good.

Article from LSE Blog.

Photo via OpenAire (based on Eva Méndez).

Research, a fundamental human endeavor, is susceptible to errors and lapses in judgment. Despite the emphasis on the robustness of research methods, the competitive nature of academia sometimes leads researchers to engage in questionable practices to gain an edge in funding, jobs, or prestige. While research misconduct typically involves clear breaches like data manipulation, fabrication, or plagiarism, it’s essential to recognize a broader spectrum of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) that can compromise the integrity of scientific inquiry.

Rather than viewing QRPs as a distinct category from misconduct, it’s more constructive to see them as behaviors ranging along a spectrum from inadvertent mistakes to deliberate malfeasance. This perspective acknowledges that anyone involved in research can, at times, veer into questionable territory. It underscores the collective responsibility of the research community to identify and address QRPs to uphold research integrity.

The spectrum concept elucidates how seemingly innocuous missteps can escalate into serious misconduct. Minor errors, if unchecked, may culminate in attempts to conceal mistakes, leading to fraud or even criminal behavior. Recognizing this progression informs strategies to mitigate QRPs’ impact. Adherence to rigorous methodologies, proficiency in statistical analysis, and transparent data sharing emerge as crucial safeguards against QRPs’ encroachment.

Moreover, understanding the causes of QRPs informs preventative measures. Time constraints may predispose researchers to honest errors, necessitating meticulous methodological adherence. Financial pressures, on the other hand, heighten the risk of more egregious misconduct, necessitating vigilant oversight. By acknowledging QRPs as a continuum, researchers and stakeholders are reminded of the perpetual vigilance required to safeguard research quality.

Addressing QRPs isn’t merely about policing individual transgressions but embodies a collective commitment to fostering a culture of research integrity. By promoting transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards, the research community upholds its commitment to producing reliable and trustworthy knowledge.

This article, distributed under a Creative Commons license, underscores the importance of confronting QRPs as a fundamental aspect of promoting research integrity. Acknowledgments extend to colleagues for their contributions to this discourse.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37672/UKRIO.2023.02.QRPs

Photo via Simon Kolstoe

In a significant move towards advancing open science initiatives, Open Science NL has earmarked a substantial sum of 15 million euros for bolstering Local and Thematic Digital Competence Centres (LDCCs and TDCCs). Collaborating with the Netherlands eScience Center, this initiative aims to enhance research software training offerings and invest in research data interoperability expertise.

The decision to allocate these funds stems from the recognition of certain gaps in the current landscape of digital competence centers. While significant progress has been made in augmenting professional capacity for working with research software and data, two critical areas remain under-addressed: research software training and data interoperability.

With research increasingly reliant on computational methods, the need for researchers proficient in digital and computational expertise has become paramount. However, many researchers lack formal training in software development and management, despite their proficiency in their respective fields of research. Consequently, there is a pressing demand for training programs tailored to equip researchers with essential digital skills.

Furthermore, although tools for data sharing and repository creation have proliferated, attention to interoperability aspects lags behind. The absence of comprehensive interoperability compromises the reusability of research data, hindering integration with other data sets and workflows for analysis and processing.

In response to these challenges, Open Science NL’s funding program aims to expand the capacity of LDCCs and TDCCs in two key areas: research software training and ontology/metadata expertise for research data. The program will support the establishment of a national network to facilitate the training of researchers and research support staff in open research software.

The funding program outlines specific points to be covered:

1. LDCCs: Each LDCC can apply for up to 0.5 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) trainer capacity per year for open source software skills and up to 0.5 FTE per year for community manager capacity focused on research data interoperability. This will facilitate collaboration with metadata and ontology experts within TDCCs to enhance interoperability aspects of research data.
2. TDCCs: TDCCs can apply to increase their capacity in domain-specific metadata and ontologies, with a maximum of 2 FTE per year. This will aid in the implementation of domain-specific standards and tools, fostering international alignment and collaboration.
3. Netherlands eScience Center: The center can apply to appoint up to 1 FTE community management capacity per year to establish a national network of software trainers. This program will include train-the-trainer activities and collaboration on open training material development.

This funding opportunity, although non-competitive, is subject to quality assessment and spans a four-year period. Eligible parties have been invited to submit proposals, marking a significant step forward in advancing open science initiatives and fostering digital competence in research communities.

Find more information here.