scholarly journals Organising RDM and Open Science Services

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 180-193
Author(s):  
Anne Sunikka

This paper describes how the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture launched an initiative on research data management and open data, open access publishing, and open and collaborative ways of working in 2014. Most of the universities and research institutions took part in the collaborative initiative building new tools and training material for the Finnish research needs. Measures taken by one university, Aalto University, are described in detail and analysed, and compared with the activities taking place in other universities. The focus of this paper is in the changing roles of experts at Aalto University, and organisational transformation that offers possibilities to serve academic personnel better. Various ways of building collaboration and arranging services are described, and their benefits and drawbacks are discussed.

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Cook ◽  
Canan Çakirlar ◽  
Timothy Goddard ◽  
Robert Carl DeMuth ◽  
Joshua Wells

ABSTRACTDigital literacy has been cited as one of the primary challenges to ensuring data reuse and increasing the value placed on open science. Incorporating published data into classrooms and training is at the core of tackling this issue. This article presents case studies in teaching with different published data platforms, in three different countries (the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States), to students at different levels and with differing skill levels. In outlining their approaches, successes, and failures in teaching with open data, it is argued that collaboration with data publishers is critical to improving data reuse and education. Moreover, increased opportunities for digital skills training and scaffolding across program curriculum are necessary for managing the learning curve and teaching students the values of open science.


2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-28
Author(s):  
C. Rossel ◽  
L. van Dyck

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.


F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 292
Author(s):  
Michael Hewera ◽  
Daniel Hänggi ◽  
Björn Gerlach ◽  
Ulf Dietrich Kahlert

Reports of non-replicable research demand new methods of research data management. Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are suggested as tools to improve the documentation of research data and make them universally accessible. In a self-guided approach, we introduced the open-source ELN eLabFTW into our lab group and, after using it for a while, think it is a useful tool to overcome hurdles in ELN introduction by providing a combination of properties making it suitable for small preclinical labs, like ours. We set up our instance of eLabFTW, without any further programming needed. Our efforts to embrace open data approach by introducing an ELN fits well with other institutional organized ELN initiatives in academic research.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerit Pfuhl ◽  
Jon Grahe

Watch the VIDEO.Recent years have seen a revolution in publishing, and large support for open access publishing. There has been a slower acceptance and transition to other open science principles such as open data, open materials, and preregistration. To accelerate the transition and make open science the new standard, the collaborative replications and education project (CREP; http://osf.io/wfc6u/)) was launched in 2013, hosted on the Open Science Framework (osf.io). OSF is like a preprint, collecting partial data with each individual contributors project. CREP introduces open science at the start of academic research, facilitating student research training in open science and solidifying behavioral science results. The CREP team attempts to achieve this by inviting contributors to replicate one of several replication studies selected for scientific impact and suitability for undergraduates to complete during one academic term. Contributors follow clear protocols with students interacting with a CREP team that reviews the materials and video of the procedure to ensure quality data collection while students are learning science practices and methods. By combining multiple replications from undergraduates across the globe, the findings can be pooled to conduct meta-analysis and so contribute to generalizable and replicable research findings. CREP is careful to not interpret any single result. CREP has recently joined forces with the psychological science accelerator (PsySciAcc), a globally distributed network of psychological laboratories accelerating the accumulation of reliable and generalizable results in the behavioral sciences. The Department of Psychology at UiT is part of the network and has two ongoing CREP studies, maintaining open science practices early on. In this talk, we will present our experiences of conducting transparent replicable research, and experience with preprints from a supervisor and researcher perspective.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helene N. Andreassen ◽  
Erik Lieungh

In this episode, we are discussing how to teach open science to PhD students. Helene N. Andreassen, head of Library Teaching and Learning Support at the University Library of UiT the Arctic University of Norway shares her experiences with the integration of open science in a special, tailor-made course for PhD's that have just started their project. An interdisciplinary, discussion-based course, "Take Control of Your PhD Journey: From (P)reflection to Publishing" consists of a series of seminars on research data management, open access publishing and other subject matters pertaining to open science. First published online February 26, 2020.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-204
Author(s):  
Hua Nie ◽  
Pengcheng Luo ◽  
Ping Fu

Research Data Management (RDM) has become increasingly important for more and more academic institutions. Using the Peking University Open Research Data Repository (PKU-ORDR) project as an example, this paper will review a library-based university-wide open research data repository project and related RDM services implementation process including project kickoff, needs assessment, partnerships establishment, software investigation and selection, software customization, as well as data curation services and training. Through the review, some issues revealed during the stages of the implementation process are also discussed and addressed in the paper such as awareness of research data, demands from data providers and users, data policies and requirements from home institution, requirements from funding agencies and publishers, the collaboration between administrative units and libraries, and concerns from data providers and users. The significance of the study is that the paper shows an example of creating an Open Data repository and RDM services for other Chinese academic libraries planning to implement their RDM services for their home institutions. The authors of the paper have also observed since the PKU-ORDR and RDM services implemented in 2015, the Peking University Library (PKUL) has helped numerous researchers to support the entire research life cycle and enhanced Open Science (OS) practices on campus, as well as impacted the national OS movement in China through various national events and activities hosted by the PKUL.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kennedy Mwangi ◽  
Ben Mainye ◽  
Daniel Ouso ◽  
Esoh Kevin ◽  
Angela Muraya ◽  
...  

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing, and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident — the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20 - 50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining, and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and the challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign towards open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders, and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerit Pfuhl

Scientists are curious, skeptical and critical. They try out new avenues, including open access publishing, but they might remain skeptical in adopting Open Science fully. There is thus conservatism in the publishing process itself that is independent of who pays for the article. But who to blame for a reluctance to provide open data, transparent experimental methods, or open peer review? I will argue that the culprit is the culture of academia which includes us researchers. The culture of academia is one of illusory freedom and full of traditions. It is also everything but immune of human biases and fallacies. Familiarity and fame influence where we publish, but also how we review and edit articles. As reviewers, our explorative nature lets us request fishing expeditions. As editors, being highly skeptical and critical, we may still misunderstand that a research hypothesis can lead to various statistical hypotheses. As authors, we may feel ownership of our data, confusing source with raw data. I have experienced – as an author of a pre-registered study with open data – the request to perform dubious additional statistical tests. As reviewer, I have more than once experienced that my request for more transparency and open data got rejected by editors. And as a journal editor, I have mixed experiences with authors making their data open, but also reviewers signing their peer review. Yes, it is often true that open data practices during the publishing process take time. But time is saved if appropriate data management practices are implemented before data is collected. However, the culture of academia fosters permanent time constraints preventing learning new techniques and tools, and as such supporting bad habits. Incentives to mitigate the bad habits need to address the entire research process. Incentives should aim at saving time for the individual, not reshuffling who pays what and when. In sum, there is willingness for Open Science, but not sufficient action.


Author(s):  
Kennedy W. Mwangi ◽  
Nyabuti Mainye ◽  
Daniel O. Ouso ◽  
Kevin Esoh ◽  
Angela W. Muraya ◽  
...  

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident — the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20–50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign toward open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya.


2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1A (113A)) ◽  
pp. 46-55
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Wiorogórska

Purpose/Thesis: This paper attempts to present the trends in management and opening of research data in Poland and the European Union, based on the analysis of the recently published Polish and European acts and documents as well as of other international initiatives which might influence scholarly publishing and scholarly communication.Approach/Methods: An in-depth review of the latest documents was applied. Results and conclusions: I focused on highlighting the key elements of the reviewed documents and initiatives, highlighting the directions for managing and opening of research data they set and the implications they might have for Polish and European science. I also sketched the possible inconsisten­cies between the European and Polish policies related to research data and scholarly communication.Research limitations: The documents investigated for the purpose of this paper were either Polish or provided by the European Union (EU). I have not analyzed the national documents issued by the individual member states of the EU other than Poland. Hence, it is probable that some solutions on research data management and opening already taken on the level of individual member states have not been included in this paper.Practical implications: This paper may encourage a reflection on the relationship between the regulations issued at the European (EU) or at the national (in this case, Polish), and the practices and requirements of scholarly communication which often contradict those regulations.Originality/Value: This is the first analysis of the latest Polish and European documents and initiatives as related to data management and open data (open science).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document