scholarly journals Penerapan Open Science di Indonesia agar riset lebih terbuka, mudah Diakses, dan Meningkatkan Dampak Saintifik

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dasapta Erwin Irawan ◽  
Cut Novianti Rachmi ◽  
Hendy Irawan ◽  
Juneman Abraham ◽  
Kustiati Kusno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
Impact Indicators ◽  
Science Blogs ◽  
Science Movement

A significant development of open science movement has been witnessed in the last five years. This could bring a fresh start to Indonesian academia. The objective of this paper is to showcase the advancement of open science concept and implementation that can be adopted to increase impact. We did a literature review on peer-reviewed papers, websites of funding agency, open science blogs, and threads on Twitter.We believe the values of research output are not limited to a paper in a high reputation journal. Data is now considered as separate output, as well as, data management protocols, and laboratory notebooks. Publishing research results as a preprint is also used to disseminate findings as rapid and as fast as possible. Post publication peer-review is also added to the reviewing system to add openness, transparency, and objectivity. It offers credit to the reviewers. We also see the growth of impact indicators as the results of San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) statutory. More initiatives and technologies have been introduced to make science more open, transparent, and inclusive.With so many developments have been made, therefore it’s not wise for Indonesian academia to rely themselves only to the old perception of research outputs and impact indicators.  

Open Science and Its Impact on Libraries, Publishers, and Authors

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
Josiline Phiri Chigwada
Keyword(s):  
Information Sources ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Body ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Structured Document ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement enables the accessibility and reusability of research output across the globe. Researchers and other stakeholders in the research process can now easily collaborate to add to the body of knowledge. This chapter documents how open science is impacting the role of libraries, publishers, and authors in the digital era. A structured document analysis and web analysis were done to find out how authors, publishers, and librarians are affected by open science. It was found that librarians are taking advantage of open science to provide various information sources to patrons, the publishers are now charging article processing fees to make the journal articles open access upon publishing, and authors are now able to access many information sources during the research process and enjoy greater visibility of their research output. The author recommends the adoption of open science especially in the developing countries and the enactment of policies that support open science at national, regional, and international levels.

scholarly journals From Project to Customized Service

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Shaghayegh Abdolahzadeh ◽  
Peter G. Braun ◽  
Christina Elsenga ◽  
Marijke Folgering-van der Vliet ◽  
Babette Knauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Work Pressure ◽  
Legal Guidelines ◽  
The University ◽  
Service Customization

The academic landscape of the Netherlands has been influenced in recent years by new governmental policies regarding open access and open science, national and European legal guidelines, developments in ICT, and changes in how researchers are assessed. The University of Groningen Library (UB) has seized the opportunity in these developments, providing research support in the domains of registration and archiving of research output, open access publishing, research data management, and research analytics. Increased efficiency in traditional library procedures and the introduction of project-based funding have provided staff capacity for these developments. Full-service customization, to meet the needs of researchers and alleviate their time and work pressure, lies at the heart of the UB's research support.

scholarly journals The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moher ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
Sabine Kleinert ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
Mai Har Sham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Advance Knowledge ◽  
Broad Approach

The primary goal of research is to advance knowledge. For that knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous and transparent at all stages of design, execution and reporting. Initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto have led the way bringing much needed global attention to the importance of taking a considered, transparent and broad approach to assessing research quality. Since publication in 2012 the DORA principles have been signed up to by over 1500 organizations and nearly 15,000 individuals. Despite this significant progress, assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded (i.e., their careers are advanced) for behavior that leads to trustworthy research. The HKP have been developed with the idea that their implementation could assist in how researchers are assessed for career advancement with a view to strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

scholarly journals Open Citations – Die Transparenzforderungen der San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terje Tüür-Fröhlich
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Journal Impact

ZusammenfassungEine wachsende Anzahl von wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften, Zeitschriften, Institutionen und wissenschaftlich Tätigen protestieren und bekämpfen den „allmächtigen“ Journal Impact Faktor. Die bekannteste Initiative von Protest und Empfehlungen heißt DORA, The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Kritisiert wird die fehlerhafte, verzerrte und intransparente Art der quantitativen Evaluationsverfahren und ihre negativen Auswirkungen auf das wissenschaftliche Personal, insbesondere auf junge Nachwuchskräfte und ihre wissenschaftliche Entwicklung, insbesondere die subtile Diskriminierung von Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Wir sollten nicht unkritisch im Metrik-Paradigma gefangen bleiben und der Flut neuer Indikatoren aus der Szientometrie zujubeln. Der Slogan „Putting Science into the Assessment of Research“ darf nicht szientistisch verkürzt verstanden werden. Soziale Phänomene können nicht bloß mit naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden untersucht werden. Kritik und Transformation der sozialen Aktivitäten, die sich „Evaluation“ nennen, erfordern sozialwissenschaftliche und wissenschaftsphilosophische Perspektiven. Evaluation ist kein wertneutrales Unternehmen, sondern ist eng mit Macht, Herrschaft, Ressourcenverteilung verbunden.

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para repositório conforme a Ciência Aberta

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angélica Conceição Dias Miranda ◽  
Milton Shintaku ◽  
Simone Machado Firme
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Open File ◽  
Research Institutes ◽  
Criteria For Evaluation ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Bibliographic Study

Resumo: Os repositórios têm se tornado comum nas universidades e institutos de pesquisa, como forma de ofertar acesso à produção científica e, com isso, dar visibilidade à instituição. Entretanto, em muitos casos ainda estão restritos aos conceitos do movimento do arquivo aberto e acesso aberto, sendo que já se discute o Movimento da Ciência Aberta, revelando certo descompasso, requerendo estudos que apoiem a atualização dessa importante ferramenta. Nesse sentido, o presente estudo verifica os requisitos envolvidos nos movimentos abertos, de forma a apoiar a discussão técnica e tecnológica. Um estudo bibliográfico, que transforma as informações sobre os movimentos em critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para criação de repositórios, apresentando a implementação da interação como um novo desafio. Nas considerações procura-se contribuir com a discussão sobre a Ciência Aberta, de forma mais aplicada bem como o ajuste dos repositórios a esse movimento.Palavras-chave: Repositórios.  Critérios de avaliação. Arquivo aberto. Acesso aberto. Dados abertos. Ciência aberta.SURVEY OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF REPOSITORY TOOLS ACCORDING TO OPEN SCIENCE Abstract: Repositories have become common in universities and research institutes, as a way of offering access to scientific production, thereby giving visibility to the institution. Meanwhile, in many cases, repositories are restricted to the concepts of open movement and open access considering that the Open Science Movement is already being discussed. Regarding this matter, this study verifies the requirements involved in the open movements, in order to support a technical and technological discussion.  A bibliographic study that transforms information about movements into criteria to evaluate tools used to create repositories, presenting an implementation of interaction as a new challenge. In the considerations, we contribute with a discussion about an Open Science, in a more applied way, as well as the adjustment of the repositories to this movement.Keywords: Repositories. Evaluation Criteria. Open File. Open Access. Open Data. Open Science.

scholarly journals The Journal Impact Factor and its discontents: steps toward responsible metrics and better research assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Roberto F. Arruda ◽  
Robin Champieux ◽  
Colleen Cook ◽  
Mary Ellen K. Davis ◽  
Richard Gedye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Practical Support ◽  
Journal Impact

A small, self-selected discussion group was convened to consider issues surrounding impact factors at the first meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, in April 2016, and focused on the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), with a particular focus on research assessment. The group’s report notes that the widespread use, or perceived use, of the JIF in research assessment processes lends the metric a degree of influence that is not justified on the basis of its validity for those purposes, and retards moves to open scholarship in a number of ways. The report concludes that indicators, including those based on citation counts, can be combined with peer review to inform research assessment, but that the JIF is not one of those indicators. It also concludes that there is already sufficient information about the shortcomings of the JIF, and that instead actions should be pursued to build broad momentum away from its use in research assessment. These actions include practical support for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) by research funders, higher education institutions, national academies, publishers and learned societies. They also include the creation of an international “metrics lab” to explore the potential of new indicators, and the wide sharing of information on this topic among stakeholders. Finally, the report acknowledges that the JIF may continue to be used as one indicator of the quality of journals, and makes recommendations how this should be improved.OSI2016 Workshop Question: Impact FactorsTracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?

scholarly journals Alchemy & algorithms: perspectives on the philosophy and history of open science

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Lahti ◽  
Filipe da Silva ◽  
Markus Laine ◽  
Viivi Lähteenoja ◽  
Mikko Tolonen
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Community Resource ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Video And Audio ◽  
The University ◽  
Science Movement

This paper gives the reader a chance to experience, or revisit, PHOS16: a conference on the History and Philosophy of Open Science. In the winter of 2016, we invited a varied international group to engage with these topics at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Our aim was to critically assess the defining features, underlying narratives, and overall objectives of the open science movement. The event brought together contemporary open science scholars, publishers, and advocates to discuss the philosophical foundations and historical roots of openness in academic research. The eight sessions combined historical views with more contemporary perspectives on topics such as transparency, reproducibility, collaboration, publishing, peer review, research ethics, as well as societal impact and engagement. We gathered together expert panellists and 15 invited speakers who have published extensively on these topics, allowing us to engage in a thorough and multifaceted discussion. Together with our involved audience we charted the role and foundations of openness of research in our time, considered the accumulation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, and debated the various technical, legal, and ethical challenges of the past and present. In this article, we provide an overview of the topics covered at the conference as well as individual video interviews with each speaker. In addition to this, all the talks, Q&A sessions, and interviews were recorded and they are offered here as an openly licensed community resource in both video and audio form.

scholarly journals Improving Social Science: Lessons from the Open Science Movement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Engzell ◽  
Julia Marie Rohrer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Exchange ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Science Movement

The transdisciplinary movement towards greater research transparency opens the door for a meta-scientific exchange between different social sciences. In the spirit of such an exchange, we offer some lessons inspired by ongoing debates in psychology, highlighting the broad benefits of open science but also potential pitfalls, as well as practical challenges in the implementation that have not yet been fully resolved. Our discussion is aimed towards political scientists but relevant for population sciences more broadly.

Opportunities for Adopting Open Research Data in Learning Analytics

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-60
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Biernacka ◽  
Niels Pinkwart
Keyword(s):  
Learning Analytics ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Main Emphasis ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Made In

The relevance of open research data is already acknowledged in many disciplines. Demanded by publishers, funders, and research institutions, the number of published research data increases every day. In learning analytics though, it seems that data are not sufficiently published and re-used. This chapter discusses some of the progress that the learning analytics community has made in shifting towards open practices, and it addresses the barriers that researchers in this discipline have to face. As an introduction, the movement and the term open science is explained. The importance of its principles is demonstrated before the main focus is put on open data. The main emphasis though lies in the question, Why are the advantages of publishing research data not capitalized on in the field of learning analytics? What are the barriers? The authors evaluate them, investigate their causes, and consider some potential ways for development in the future in the form of a toolkit and guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document