scholarly journals OpenUP’s Open Science Pilots. Designing innovative peer review and dissemination pilot studies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michela Vignoli ◽  
Oliver Zendel ◽  
Matthias Schörghuber
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fair Process ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Research Communities ◽  
Specific Implementation ◽  
The Impact

The review-disseminate-assess cycle is a multifaceted process involving different stakeholders: researchers, publishers, research institutions and funders, private companies, industry, and citizens. The H2020 project OpenUP aspires to bring all these stakeholders into an open dialogue to consensually identify and spread the review-disseminate-assess mechanisms advancing evolving practices of RRI in an Open Science context. OpenUP will actively engage research communities and implement a series of hands-on pilots to validate OpenUP’s proposed (open) peer review, innovative dissemination, and impact indicator frameworks. The pilots will be carried out in close cooperation with selected, devoted research communities from four scientific areas: arts and humanities, social sciences, life sciences, and energy. This poster visualises UpenUP’s pilot design exemplified by two of the seven Open Science Pilots to be conducted by the project: 1) Open Peer Review for Conferences, and 2) Addressing and Reaching Businesses and the Public with Research Output.The first pilot will evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of open peer reviewing in a conference setting. The specific implementation of the applied schema will be determined by the results from the state of the art study as well as the user questionnaire answers from other work packages of OpenUP. In comparison to the traditional way (double-blind evaluation of submitted papers by assigned reviewers chosen by the conference organisers) the new schema should allow for a more open and fair process as well as give additional incentives to reviewers. The actual pilot study will be conducted at a medium sized conference in consultation with the conference organisers. Follow-up questionnaires and interviews will show if the stakeholders preferred the new process and can provide constructive feedback for improvements and policy decisions.The second pilot will test existing and potential alternative forms, formats, and channels of open science communication, and explore how the targeted audiences, in particular businesses and the public, can be best reached via these channels. In a preparatory phase the team will map open science communication formats/channels and their targeted audiences. The team will conduct a workshop to elicit the targeted stakeholders’ requirements and expectations towards a useful and appealing communication of scientific contents. This will be the basis of the second pilot presented here. It will actively involve one or more energy research community projects beyond the OpenUP consortium. The goals are to test the previously established communication standards and channels for the energy area, and evaluate the impact and resonance at the targeted audiences.By actively involving research communities and other relevant stakeholders into the pilots, OpenUP will not only evaluate the practicability of the identified open peer review, innovative dissemination, and impact measurement methods in particular settings. It also intends to create and disseminate success stories, best/good practices, and policy recommendations, which will help further communities to implement working Open Science approaches in their research evaluation and communication strategies.

Psychiatric epidemiology: Looking to the future

2020 ◽  
pp. 425-432
Author(s):  
Jayati Das-Munshi ◽  
Tamsin Ford ◽  
Matthew Hotopf ◽  
Martin Prince ◽  
Robert Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Psychiatric Epidemiology ◽  
Biological Data ◽  
Gps Tracking ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Impact

In this final chapter to the second edition of Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, developments in psychiatric epidemiology since the first edition are summarized and the editors offer a view on where the future may lie. The themes summarized in this chapter include those related to large-scale datasets or ‘big data’, new technologies and science communication (including data generated through GPS tracking systems and the impact of social media), expanding biological data and biobanks, as well as the impact of globalization, migration, and culture on understanding psychiatric epidemiological principles. The last part of this chapter raises the important issue of open science initiatives. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion on the constancy and ongoing evolution of psychiatric epidemiology.

scholarly journals Open Science and the Science-Society Relationship

Society ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lakomý ◽  
Renata Hlavová ◽  
Hana Machackova
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Society ◽  
Scientific Institutions

Abstract Nowadays, the prevailing trend in the science-society relationship is to engage with the broader public, which is beneficial for the public, scientific institutes, scientific findings, and the legitimacy of science as a whole. This article provides a broad review of the rapidly growing research on Open Science and identifies the gaps in the current knowledge for future research. The review focuses on the science-society relationship, such that knowledge from this field is summarised and systematised. Insight into the most salient topics, including science communication, public engagement with science, public cognition of science, and challenges and potential unintended consequences connected to interactions with the public are examined. The first section of the paper focuses on science communication which involves efforts and approaches to inform the public about science by the most effective means. The section on public engagement reviews how scientists and scientific institutions are increasingly involved in direct interactions with the public and different groups of stakeholders to make science more open. The section focusing on public cognition of science provides information about public knowledge, perception, and trust regarding science, which both determines and is formed by public engagement. Last, risks, ethical issues, and data issues connected to the implementation of Open Science principles are reviewed, as there are many unintended consequences of Open Science which are examined by this current research. In conclusion, research covering the science-society relationship is rapidly growing. However, it brings multiple challenges as well as opportunities which are captured and discussed in a variety of existing studies. This article provides a coherent overview of this field in order to bring more comprehensible knowledge to scientists, scientific institutions, and outreach professionals.

scholarly journals Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Alperin ◽  
Charles J Gomez ◽  
Stefanie Haustein
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Online Engagement ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Limited Diffusion

The growing presence of research shared on social media, coupled with the increase in freely available research, invites us to ask whether scientific articles shared on platforms like Twitter diffuse beyond the academic community. We explore a new method for answering this question by identifying 11 articles from two open access biology journals that were shared on Twitter at least 50 times and by analyzing the follower network of users who tweeted each article. We find that diffusion patterns of scientific articles can take very different forms, even when the number of times they are tweeted is similar. Our small case study suggests that most articles are shared within single-connected communities with limited diffusion to the public. The proposed approach and indicators can serve those interested in the public understanding of science, science communication, or research evaluation to identify when research diffuses beyond insular communities.

scholarly journals Saw It on Facebook: The Role of Social Media in Facilitating Science Issue Awareness

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630512093041
Author(s):  
Julian M. Mueller-Herbst ◽  
Michael A. Xenos ◽  
Dietram A. Scheufele ◽  
Dominique Brossard
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Network Heterogeneity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Final Sample ◽  
Communication Challenges ◽  
Information Landscape ◽  
The Impact

Spreading issue awareness about increasingly interdisciplinary scientific discoveries faces progressively larger communication challenges due to the complexity, innovation pace, and broad applicability of these innovations. Traditionally, the public relies on legacy media for information and discussion of science topics. In face of a changing information landscape, however, legacy media struggle with decreasing funding for their science desks, and science journalists turn to more specialized outlets, often online. Given these developments, it is important to understand which platforms besides legacy media serve as facilitators of science issue awareness. In this study, we analyzed the impact of social media on the awareness of gene editing. We used a representative survey administered by professional survey firm YouGov between December 2016 and January 2017, yielding a final sample of 1,600 US adults with a 41.7% response rate. The regression analysis findings suggest that social media is a significant avenue through which awareness of gene editing, and subsequently other scientific issues, is spread. Using the example of Facebook, we were able to demonstrate that how, rather than if, one uses social media is the determining factor in spreading issue awareness. Awareness was positively predicted by the length of social media sessions and network heterogeneity, while pure amount of sessions actually negatively predicted awareness. Legacy media remain an important predictor of gene editing awareness. These results demonstrate that social media functions as an important information space for science issues and should receive individual attention along with legacy media outlets when examining science communication.

scholarly journals Funders in Europe and incentivizing Open Science

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Proudman ◽  
Jon Øygarden Flæten ◽  
Konstantinos Glinos ◽  
Robert Terry
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Open Science ◽  
World Health ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
The Impact

Funders across Europe are using scholarly communications to increase the impact of their grant results, thereby incentivizing researchers to share their research more openly. This panel session will start by describing the results of a research study called the RIF Project that gleans insights into the policy, rewards and incentives being employed by European research funders to encourage open access to publications and research data for the research they fund. The panel will then respond to the findings and will present and share experience on their policies. Funders across Europe are using scholarly communications to increase the impact of their grant results. More than 60 funders responded to a survey that was conducted in early Spring 2019 coming from key international funding bodies, national funding agencies, major charities and foundations, and national academies; from over 25 countries. The study was led by SPARC Europe in consultation with Science Europe, ALLEA and the EFC. Research Consulting conducted the research. The survey is the first of its kind, since it includes national funding agencies, academies, foundations and charities in Europe. What kinds of policy choices have funders made to influence how grantees increase open access to their research results with as few restrictions as possible? How can funders contribute to changing the research evaluation system by exploring ways to evaluate the intrinsic value of research beyond the impact factor for example, by promoting, and considering a wider range of types of research when evaluating grants? How are funders contributing to the investment in open, be it through financing OA journal articles and other material, and supporting infrastructure? The session will provide answers to these questions and will also raise awareness of the areas where funders can do more to strengthen their Open Science policies. Vanessa Proudman (SPARC Europe) will report on the results of the above-mentioned research study. Jon Øygarden Flæten (The Research Council of Norway), Konstantinos Glinos (The European Commission) and Robert Terry (World Health Organization and the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases) will present the views of their funder organizations.

scholarly journals Likes, comments, and shares of marine organism imagery on Facebook

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e6795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig R. McClain
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Marine Mammals ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Marine Organism ◽  
Quantitative Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Bony Fishes ◽  
Media Platform ◽  
The Impact

Several calls to action urge scientists and science communicators to engage more with online communities. While these calls have been answered by a high percentage of scientists and science communicators online, it often remains unclear what are the best models for effective communication. Best practices and methods for online science communication can benefit from experimental and quantitative research addressing how and when users engage with online content. This study addresses with quantitative and predictive models a key question for the popular, but often-ignored in science communication, social media platform Facebook. Specifically, this study examines the impact of imagery through quantification of likes, comments, and shares on Facebook posts. Here, I show that a basic quantitative model can be useful in predicting response to marine organism imagery on Facebook. The results of this online experiment suggest image type, novelty, and aesthetics impact the number of likes, shares, and comments on a post. In addition, the likes, shares, and comments on images did not follow traditional definitions of “charismatic megafauna”, with cephalopods and bony fishes receiving more interactions than cartilaginous fishes and marine mammals. Length and quality of caption did not significantly impact likes, comments, or shares. This study provides one of the first quantitative analysis of virality of scientific images via social media. The results challenge previously held conceptions of social media scientific outreach including increasing emphasis on imagery selection and curation, notions of which taxa the public connect with, and role of captions for imagery.

scholarly journals The Idea and Feasibility of Science Communication in Academic Social Networks

2021 ◽  
pp. 81-91
Author(s):  
Svetlana Dushina ◽  
Viktor Kupriyanov
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
Academic Social Networks ◽  
The Impact

The paper includes general findings of the study with respect to the impact of academic social networks on the academicians’ professional practice. The authors consider academic social networks as the new means of communication that seek to overcome the limits of traditional means of communication, i.e. academic conferences, scholarly periodicals and books. The study shows that web-platforms, including academic social networks, challenge the superiority of journals in the system of science communications. Based on the results of the empirical study, the authors pay extra focus to studying communication processes via digital platforms. It shows that social networks, due to their specific nature, transform the scientific activity, i.e. change an academician’s motivation and values, encouraging the pursuit of high ratings, more content, citations, followers and page traffic. The authors consider social networks as a tool of open science ideology, concluding that promotion of social networks profiles is underlined by certain power interests aimed at restructuring science communication pursuant to the values of the neoliberal economy.

scholarly journals Between the traditional, the neo-liberal and the open university Early career investigators caught in the triple bind of academic career requirements

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Vanholsbeeck
Keyword(s):  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Excellence ◽  
Open University ◽  
Building Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

Literature shows that, facing the neo-liberal definition of academic excellence, early career investigators (ECIs) in the social sciences and the humanities (SSH) have developed particular professional identities and behaviours towards the requirements of the academic career. Specificities of the SSH make the compliance to the assessment procedures of the “neo-liberal university” particularly challenging. Furthermore ECIs in the SSH are caught in an unprecedented “triple bind”. While pursuing their post-doctoral career in the context of the neo-liberal university, they are still academically trained in the disciplinary and collegial values of the “traditional university”. Although most career rewards and evaluation criteria are bound to the neo-liberal university, researchers now in the early stages of their career also constitute the first generation of academics to be exposed to the new requirements of the “open university”, through the Open Science policies and the Impact Agenda. In such context of uncertainty and conflicting rationalities, more efficient “early career building information ecosystems” should be put in place within academia. We also recommend to better integrate ECIs in the design and implementation of research evaluation principles and processes.

scholarly journals Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarvenaz Sarabipour ◽  
Erin M Wissink ◽  
Steven J Burgess ◽  
Zach Hensel ◽  
Humberto Debat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Ethical Principle ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Outputs ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Impact

The timely and accurate dissemination of scientific discoveries is of utmost importance so that scientific knowledge can be advanced and applied to benefit the public. Scientists communicate amongst themselves at conferences, via journal articles, and, increasingly in the life sciences, in preprint manuscripts which have not been subject to peer review. Journalists translate new research into a language the public can understand, relying on both work presented in scientific forums and interviews with experts. Critically, scientists and journalists both share the ethical principle that publications should be rigorously sourced and fact-checked, with errors subject to publicized corrections. Here we respond to concerns raised about the impact of reporting on results that have not passed through peer review, calling for improved dialogue between scientists and journalists to maintain public trust in research and arguing that imposing limits is against the public interest.

scholarly journals The Future of Our Seas: Marine scientists and creative professionals collaborate for science communication

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence De Clippele ◽  
Madlaina Michelotti ◽  
Charlotte R. Findlay ◽  
Amy Cartwright ◽  
Qing Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
Effective Science ◽  
Collaborative Engagement ◽  
Development Support ◽  
The Impact

To increase awareness of the current challenges facing the marine environment, the Future of Our Seas (FOOS) project brought together the expertise of scientists, public engagement experts and creatives to train and support a group of marine scientists in effective science communication and innovative public engagement. This case study aims to inspire scientists and artists to use the FOOS approach in training, activity design and development support (hereafter called the ‘FOOS programme’) to collaboratively deliver novel and creative engagement activities. The authors reflect on the experiences of the marine scientists: (1) attending the FOOS communication and engagement training; (2) creating and delivering public engagement activities; (3) understanding our audience; and (4) collaborating with artists. The authors also share what the artists and audiences learned from participating in the FOOS public engagement activities. These different perspectives provide new insights for the field with respect to designing collaborative training which maximizes the impact of the training on participants, creative collaborators and the public. Long-term benefits of taking part in the FOOS programme, such as initiating future collaborative engagement activities and positively impacting the scientists’ research processes, are also highlighted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document