scholarly journals Implementation of Open Science in Lithuania

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasa Dovidonytė
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Open Science ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Institutional Involvement ◽  
Science Policies

The number of open science policies being adopted in Europe by universities and research institutions is constantly increasing, however many European countries face difficulties while implementing open science practically. This publication reveals the Lithuanian landscape of open science policies and institutional involvement in open science practices. Prerequisites for sustainable and consistent open science implementation such as open science infrastructure, incentives for researchers, research assessment, and repositories' compliance with EC requirements on a national level are discussed.

scholarly journals Recognition & Rewards in the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Huijpen ◽  
Per Pippin Aspaas
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Career Paths ◽  
Video Recording ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Conference Paper ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Made In

In this episode, Kim Huijpen from the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) tells about the programme following the publication of Room for Everyone's Talent, a position paper aiming for a wholescale overhaul of the practices of research assessment in the Netherlands. The podcast interview was made in conjunction with the 16th Munin Conference on Scholarly publishing in November 2021 (see abstract and video recording of Kim Huijpen's conference paper). The nation-wide follow-up programme, named Recognition & Rewards, is coordinated by Kim Huijpen. In her dialogue with stakeholder at Dutch institutions, she often meets dilemmas and concerns that are familiar from similar debates in other countries. Nevertheless, more and more institutions are now implementing the the principles and guidelines laid out in the 2019 position paper, thereby stimulating the growth of open science practices and the diversification of career paths in Dutch academia. The on-going process can be followed on several platforms, including: Twitter: https://twitter.com/recogrewards?lang=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/recognition-rewards/Youtube: Recognition & Rewards playlist Newsletter: https://recognitionrewards.nl/blog/newsletter-recognition-rewards/DORA Repository: Updated information on the Dutch Recognition & Rewards Programme  See also a recap of the Recognition & Rewards Festival (January 2021) and recorded webinars on rewarding teaching (November 2020). A summary of The Dutch Recognition & Rewards Programme can also be found in the DORA Repository

scholarly journals Recommendation and implementation of good practice in researcher evaluation in Finland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne Pölönen
Keyword(s):  
Good Practice ◽  
National Level ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Learned Societies ◽  
National Recommendation ◽  
Responsible Research

Finland is among the first countries to have developed national recommendation on responsible research assessment in 2020. Recommendation for the Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher in Finland provides a set of general principles (transparency, integrity, fairness, competence, and diversity), which apply throughout 13 recommended good practices to improve four aspects of researcher evaluation: A) Building the evaluation process; B) Evaluation of research; C) Diversity of activities; and D) Researcher’s role in the evaluation process. The national recommendation was produced by a broad-based working-group constituted by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, however the implementation needs to take place at institutions, which all have their diverse circumstances, challenges, needs and goals. The national recommendation has an implementation plan, which includes development of national level infrastructures and services to support more qualitative and diverse assessments policies and practices locally. The institutional uptake of the recommendation will be promoted by forthcoming National policy and executive plan for open scholarship, and tracked across all research performing organisations as a part of biannual Open Science monitoring exercise starting in 2022.

scholarly journals Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Research Uptake ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Science Policies

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are protransparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.

scholarly journals Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall ◽  
Colin Strine
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Research Uptake ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Science Policies

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are pro-transparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.

Handbook for Scientometrics: Science and Technology Development Indicators

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Akoev ◽  
◽  
Valentina Markusova ◽  
Olga Moskaleva ◽  
Vladimir Pislyakov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Technology Development ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Scientometric Indicators ◽  
Development Indicators ◽  
Reasonable Approach ◽  
Eugene Garfield

The Second edition Russian Scientometric Handbook is designed to provide an overview of the field of scientometrics. The Handbook describes the history of creation of the breakthrough concept of citation indexing by Dr. Eugene Garfield, and development of the first multidisciplinary scholarly citation index, the Science Citation Index. Application of scientometric tools and methods in research management and resource allocation is discussed. Authors survey various scientometric indicators relevant to individual researchers, journals, research institutions and whole countries. Authors explore new types of indicators, such as altmetrics, relationship between scientometric indicators and the nature of scientific communication, and various methods of visualizing scientometric information. Possibilities and limitations of various scientometric techniques are examined. Authors highlight the need for an informed and reasonable approach to the use of quantitative indicators for research assessment. The Handbook includes the first Russian translations of three articles by Dr. Eugene Garfield. The Handbook is intended for use by researchers, science analysts, universities and research institutions administrators, libraries and information centers staff, graduate students, and the general reader interested in scientometrics and research evaluation.

scholarly journals Harmonising, improving and using social and recreational data in National Forest Inventories across Europe

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Atkinson ◽  
David M. Edwards ◽  
Frank Søndergaard Jensen ◽  
Alexander P. N. van der Jagt ◽  
Ben R. Ditchburn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
National Forest ◽  
Qualitative Response ◽  
Forest Inventories ◽  
Recreational Services ◽  
National Forest Inventories ◽  
Funded Project ◽  
General Transport

Abstract Key message National Forest Inventories (NFIs) hold promise for monitoring and valuing of non-productive forest functions, including social and recreational services. European countries use a range of methods to collect social and recreational information within their NFI methodologies. Data collected frequently included general and recreation-specific infrastructure, but innovative approaches are also used to monitor recreational use and social abuse. Context Social and recreational indicators are increasingly valued in efforts to measure the non-productive value of forests in Europe. National Forest Inventories (NFIs) can be used to estimate recreational and social usage of forest land at a national level and relate this use to other biophysical, spatial and topographical features. Nonetheless, there is little information concerning the extent. Aims The study aims to identify the coverage of social and recreational data present in European NFIs including the types of data recorded as part of the NFI methodologies across European countries. It also aims to examine contrasting methods used to record social and recreational data and present recommendations for ways forward for countries to integrate these into NFI practice. Methods A pan-European questionnaire was designed and distributed to 35 counties as part of the EU-funded project Distributed, Integrated and Harmonised Forest Information for Bioeconomy Outlooks (DIABOLO). The questionnaire probed countries on all social and recreational data that was included within NFIs. Qualitative response data was analysed and recoded to measure the extent of social and recreational data recoded in European NFIs both as a function of the number of variable categories per country and the number of countries recording particular variables. Results Thirty-one countries reported at least one social or recreational variable over 12 categories of data. The most frequently recorded variables included ownership, general transport infrastructure and recreation-specific infrastructure. Countries collecting data over many different categories included Switzerland, Great Britain, Czech Republic, Luxemburg and Denmark. Conclusion The study proposes a specific set of indicators, based upon countries with well-developed social and recreational data in their NFIs, which could be used by other countries, and report on the extent to which these are currently collected across Europe. It discusses results and makes a series of recommendations concerning priorities for the inclusion of social and recreational data in European NFIs.

Journal Editor and Associate Editor Perspectives on Research Reproducibility and Open Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 074193252110172
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Maggin
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Education School ◽  
Special Education School ◽  
Insight Into

Interest in transparent and open science is increasing in special education, school psychology, and related disciplines. Proponents for open science reforms provide evidence that researchers in special education, and the broader social sciences, engage in practices that mitigates its credibility and reduces the validity of information disseminated to practitioners and policymakers. In light of these issues, this article reports on a survey of journal editors-in-chief and associate editors to gain insight into concerns regarding research reproducibility, and the familiarity and viability of open science for improving research credibility. Results indicate that respondents were concerned about research reproducibility, were moderately familiar with open science practices, and viewed many as effective for improving research credibility. Finally, respondents supported the use of journals to encourage open science practices though there was little support for requiring their use. Findings are discussed in relation to open science and implications for research and practice.

scholarly journals Recommendations for an Open Science approach to welding process research data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cagtay Fabry ◽  
Andreas Pittner ◽  
Volker Hirthammer ◽  
Michael Rethmeier
Keyword(s):  
Domain Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Welding Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Fusion Welding ◽  
File Format ◽  
Data Format ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Community

AbstractThe increasing adoption of Open Science principles has been a prevalent topic in the welding science community over the last years. Providing access to welding knowledge in the form of complex and complete datasets in addition to peer-reviewed publications can be identified as an important step to promote knowledge exchange and cooperation. There exist previous efforts on building data models specifically for fusion welding applications; however, a common agreed upon implementation that is used by the community is still lacking. One proven approach in other domains has been the use of an openly accessible and agreed upon file and data format used for archiving and sharing domain knowledge in the form of experimental data. Going into a similar direction, the welding community faces particular practical, technical, and also ideological challenges that are discussed in this paper. Collaboratively building upon previous work with modern tools and platforms, the authors motivate, propose, and outline the use of a common file format specifically tailored to the needs of the welding research community as a complement to other already established Open Science practices. Successfully establishing a culture of openly accessible research data has the potential to significantly stimulate progress in welding research.

scholarly journals Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-279
Author(s):  
Isabel Steinhardt
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Knowledge Society ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Bachelor's Degrees ◽  
Participatory Technologies ◽  
Digital Knowledge

Openness in science and education is increasing in importance within the digital knowledge society. So far, less attention has been paid to teaching Open Science in bachelor’s degrees or in qualitative methods. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use a seminar example to explore what Open Science practices can be taught in qualitative research and how digital tools can be involved. The seminar focused on the following practices: Open data practices, the practice of using the free and open source tool “Collaborative online Interpretation, the practice of participating, cooperating, collaborating and contributing through participatory technologies and in social (based) networks. To learn Open Science practices, the students were involved in a qualitative research project about “Use of digital technologies for the study and habitus of students”. The study shows the practices of Open Data are easy to teach, whereas the use of free and open source tools and participatory technologies for collaboration, participation, cooperation and contribution is more difficult. In addition, a cultural shift would have to take place within German universities to promote Open Science practices in general.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document