scholarly journals An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Richard Gold ◽  
Sarah E. Ali-Khan ◽  
Liz Allen ◽  
Lluis Ballell ◽  
Manoel Barral-Netto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Survey Form ◽  
The Impact

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

scholarly journals An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Richard Gold ◽  
Sarah E. Ali-Khan ◽  
Liz Allen ◽  
Lluis Ballell ◽  
Manoel Barral-Netto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Survey Form ◽  
The Impact

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a subset of open practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

scholarly journals OPEN SCIENCE: Where are we? How did we get here? Where to we go from here?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryrose Franko
Keyword(s):  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Data Formats ◽  
Informed Decisions ◽  
Scientific Innovation ◽  
Readable Form ◽  
Machine Readable ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Machine Readable Form

The mission of nonprofit funders dictates that research resulting from our funding be freely accessed by our patients and families to help make informed decisions about care, and by our boards and donors to be able to evaluate the impact of our funding. But it is equally critical to our mission that data resulting from our support be published in a machine-readable form and available in easily accessible and open data formats to enable reuse by other researchers. In addition, as technology evolves the need and the ability to share to all research outputs must evolve with it. Only then can the impact of the research be multiplied - increasing the potential for significant and far-reaching advances and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals EPS and Open Science: an update

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-28
Author(s):  
C. Rossel ◽  
L. van Dyck
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
The Way

The movement towards an Open Science is well engaged and irreversible. It includes Open Access publishing, Open Data and Open Collaborations with several new orientations, among which citizen science. Indeed, in the digital era, the way research is performed, its output shared and published is changing significantly, as are the expectations of policy makers and society at large.

Negligent Release Litigation: a Proposal for Procedural Reform

1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman G. Poythress
Keyword(s):  
Hindsight Bias ◽  
Simulation Studies ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Jury Simulation ◽  
Procedural Concerns ◽  
Procedural Reform ◽  
The Impact

Much of what has been written lately regarding tort reform has dealt with substantive as opposed to procedural concerns. This paper offers a preliminary proposal regarding procedural reform that would potentially correct for the hindsight bias in negligent release litigation and have application in other torts contexts involving transferred responsibility. The proposal for bifurcated trial proceedings is worthy of consideration by legal scholars and policy makers as a potential mechanism for ensuring fairness and improving the quality of justice. As a footnote, it might be added that social scientists might contribute to the assessment of the proposed bifurcation procedure by conducting jury simulation studies that investigate the impact of bifurcated vs. non-bifurcated procedures as a function of strong vs. weak evidence of clinician negligence in mock negligent release cases.

scholarly journals Responsible Open Science: Moving towards an Ethics of Environmental Sustainability

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Samuel ◽  
Federica Lucivero
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Science Ethics ◽  
Environmentally Sustainable ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Responsible Research

The integration of open science as a key pillar of responsible research and innovation has led it to become a hallmark of responsible research. However, ethical, social and regulatory challenges still remain about the implementation of an internationally- and multi-sector-recognised open science framework. In this Commentary, we discuss one important specific challenge that has received little ethical and sociological attention in the open science literature: the environmental impact of the digital infrastructure that enables open science. We start from the premise that a move towards an environmentally sustainable open science is a shared and valuable goal, and discuss two challenges that we foresee with relation to this. The first relates to questions about how to define what environmentally sustainable open science means and how to change current practices accordingly. The second relates to the infrastructure needed to enact environmentally sustainable open science ethical and social responsibilities through the open science ethics ecosystem. We argue that there are various ethical obstacles regarding how to responsibly balance any environmental impacts against the social value of open science, and how much one should be prioritised over the other. We call for all actors of the open science ethics ecosystem to engage in discussions about how to move towards open data and science initiatives that take into account the environmental impact of data and digital infrastructures. Furthermore, we call for ethics governance frameworks or policy-inscribed standards of practice to assist with this decision-making.

scholarly journals A Phenomenological Study of Individual Strategies for Rebuilding Food Production Ability in Resource-Poor Post-Conflict Farming Communities in Myanmar

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 57-69
Author(s):  
Joshua Ringer ◽  
Jeff Sallee ◽  
Robert Terry ◽  
Nicholas Brown ◽  
Craig Watters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Food Production ◽  
Phenomenological Study ◽  
Rural Livelihoods ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Resource Poor ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Small Holder

The impact of armed conflict on small-holder agricultural production recently became a closely studied topic (Verwimp, 2011). In post-conflict, or perpetual low intensity conflict, situations policy makers have identified agricultural rehabilitation of small-holder food production as vital for preventing economic collapse, encouraging internally displaced persons (IDPs) to return to their rural communities, and to reintegrate former insurgents into viable rural livelihoods (Christoplos, Longley, & Slaymaker, 2004). This issue has been studied at the regional and country level, but few studies have looked at this issue from resource poor small-holder farmers’ perspective (Shinn, 2010; Verwimp, Justino, & Bruck, 2007). This qualitative study documented the experience of resource-poor farmers who experienced armed conflict in northern Shan State, Myanmar. Thirty-four resource-poor farmers and six agricultural advisors were interviewed using semi-structured interview methods. The study was conducted over a three-month period in 2013. The study revealed eight themes, which described the reality of the post-conflict environment and small-holder strategies to cope and recover food production capacity. The themes were, armed conflict is always with the farmers; loss of animals and seed stock; loss of local markets; forest as refuge; fear of government and militias was mitigated by family networks; large agribusiness control land and employment; prolonged conflict causes movement to safe areas and neighboring countries; rebuilding food production. These findings reveal the need for policy makers and agricultural advisory services to modify their assistance strategies and services to better match upland resource-poor farmers realities and adaptation strategies

scholarly journals Conducting a Meta-Analysis in the Age of Open Science: Tools, Tips, and Practical Recommendations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moreau ◽  
Beau Gamble
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Video Tutorials ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Psychology researchers are rapidly adopting open science practices, yet clear guidelines on how to apply these practices to meta-analysis remain lacking. In this tutorial, we describe why open science is important in the context of meta-analysis in psychology, and suggest how to adopt the three main components of open science: preregistration, open materials, and open data. We first describe how to make the preregistration as thorough as possible—and how to handle deviations from the plan. We then focus on creating easy-to-read materials (e.g., search syntax, R scripts) to facilitate reproducibility and bolster the impact of a meta-analysis. Finally, we suggest how to organize data (e.g., literature search results, data extracted from studies) that are easy to share, interpret, and update as new studies emerge. For each step of the meta-analysis, we provide example templates, accompanied by brief video tutorials, and show how to integrate these practices into the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q8stz/).

scholarly journals Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Giustini ◽  
Kevin B. Read ◽  
Ariel Deardorff ◽  
Lisa Federer ◽  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Narrative Approaches ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: To identify the engagement of health sciences librarians (HSLs) in open science (OS) through the delivery of library services, support, and programs for researchers.Methods: We performed a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and Joanna Briggs’ Manual for Scoping Reviews. Our search methods consisted of searching five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, and Web of Science Core Collection), reference harvesting, and targeted website and journal searching. To determine study eligibility, we applied predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and reached consensus when there was disagreement. We extracted data in duplicate and performed qualitative analysis to map key themes.Results: We included fifty-four studies. Research methods included descriptive or narrative approaches (76%); surveys, questionnaires, and interviews (15%); or mixed methods (9%). We labeled studies with one or more of FOSTER's six OS themes: open access (54%), open data (43%), open science (24%), open education (6%), open source (6%), and citizen science (6%). Key drivers in OS were scientific integrity and transparency, openness as a guiding principle in research, and funder mandates making research publicly accessible.Conclusions: HSLs play key roles in advancing OS worldwide. Formal studies are needed to assess the impact of HSLs’ engagement in OS. HSLs should promote adoption of OS within their research communities and develop strategic plans aligned with institutional partners. HSLs can promote OS by adopting more rigorous and transparent research practices of their own. Future research should examine HSLs’ engagement in OS through social justice and equity perspectives.

Markets for Purchased Farm Inputs

2005 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
E. Serova ◽  
O. Shick
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Financial Constraints ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Market Institutions ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Farm Inputs

Russian policy makers argue that agriculture suffers from decapitalization due to financial constraints faced by producers. This view is the basis for the national agricultural policy, which emphasizes reimbursement of input costs and substitutes government and quasi-government organizations for missing market institutions. The article evaluates the availability of purchased farm inputs, the efficiency of their use, the main problems in the emergence of market institutions, and the impact of government policies. The analysis focuses on five groups of purchased inputs: farm machinery, fertilizers, fuel, seeds, and animal feed. The information sources include official statistics and data from two original surveys.

Voices of Distress: The Emotional Peril of Not Attaining a Dietetic Internship in Ontario

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Jennifer Lee Brady ◽  
Annie Hoang ◽  
Olivia Siswanto ◽  
Jordana Riesel ◽  
Jacqui Gingras
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Dietetic Education ◽  
Dietetic Internship ◽  
The Impact ◽  
And Training ◽  
Future Growth

Obtaining dietetic licensure in Ontario requires completion of a Dietitians of Canada (DC) accredited four-year undergraduate degree in nutrition and an accredited post-graduate internship or combined Master’s degree program. Given the scarcity of internship positions in Ontario, each year approximately two-thirds of the eligible applicants who apply do not receive a position XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, in press). Anecdotally, not securing an internship position is known to be a particularly disconcerting experience that has significant consequences for individuals’ personal, financial, and professional well-being. However, no known empirical research has yet explored students’ experiences of being unsuccessful in applying for internship positions. Fifteen individuals who applied between 2005 and 2009 to an Ontario-based dietetic internship program, but were unsuccessful at least once, participated in a one-on-one semi-structured interview. Findings reveal that participants’ experiences unfold successively in four phases that are characterized by increasingly heightened emotional peril: naïveté, competition, devastation, and frustration. The authors conclude that the current model of dietetic education and training in Ontario causes lasting distress to students and hinders the future growth and vitality of the dietetic profession. Further research is required to understand the impact of the current model on dietetic educators, internship coordinators, and preceptors as coincident participants in the internship application process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document