Open Science: Science in Transition

Launch of the first OPEN SCIENCE MONITOR EVER
The Commission has launched the first OPEN SCIENCE MONITOR.
The Monitor demonstrates quantitative data on most of the relevant continuously evolving trends in open science such as:
the extent to wich researchers share data and knowledge early in the research process
The extent to which researchers collaborate in open networks 
The growth of open access publications over the recent yearts etc, etc..
The monitor gives also some qualitative assessments of these trends by among other, demonstrating case studies  on Open Science in action, such as research networks which operate on the basis of real-time open data sharing.
From 2018 onwards the Monitor will be extended to virtual all aspects of science and the data underlying the monitor will be updated every three months
You can access the Monitor here:
Expert Group on Altmetrics. FInal report published on 20 March
The expert group report advises along the lines of the  European Open Science Agenda on how to advance the responsible use of metrics in the context of open science.
The report is presented to the Open Science Policy Platform and to Comissioner Moedas on 20 March prior to the International Open Science Conference in Berlin.
The report is downloadable at the link below
DG RESEARCH OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED AN OPEN SCIENCE PLATFORM ON 27 MAY 2016- Commissioner moedas has launched the platform and informed on the members at the Competitiveness Council of 27 May 2016
The platform will function as a stakeholder-driven approach to policy-making.
Members of the Platform are:

The mandate of the Open Science Policy Platform is to:

  1. advise the Commission on how to further develop and practically implement open science policy, in line with the priority of Commissioner Moedas to radically improve the quality and impact of European science;
  2. function as a dynamic, stakeholder-driven mechanism for bringing up and addressing issues of concern for the European science and research community and its representative organisations, following five broad lines for actions which are presented in the draft European Open Science Agenda  TH 124 KB ;
  3. support policy formulation by helping to identify the issues to be addressed and providing recommendations on the policy actions required;
  4. support policy implementation, contributing to reviewing best practices, drawing policy guidelines and encouraging their active uptake by stakeholders;
  5. provide advice and recommendations on any cross-cutting issue affecting Open Science.
FORESIGHT ON OPEN SCIENCE: ROUND TABLE WITH EXPERTS
AGENDA AND OUTCOMES
Location:, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, 4 April 9-12 hrs
Objective:
To inform 5 Tracks on the conference Open Science conference with a Foresight vision what Open Science Policy should achieve beyond the 2020 ambitions of the European Commission, and to inform the European Commission on long(er)-term Open Science ambitions

Rationale:
Invited Experts will comment in a round table discussion with a foresight informed view on what policy could achieve beyond the 2020 ambitions of the Commission.
Experts are invited to comment on one of 8 specific open science ambitions with short 5 minute statements, which will be followed by a round table discussion whereby all experts can make comments. Conclusive/remarkable statements will be recorded and a one-two pager which will be prepared for distribution at the 5 parallel tracks on the Conference (‘Amsterdam Action Agenda’, the tracks correspond to the EC open science agenda: (e.g impact- Evaluation, involvement, infrastructures, innovation and information sharing).
These statements are published here further below under the agenda

AGENDA Round Table: Foresight on Open Science

9.00-9.10 Welcome by Royal Academy/European Commission

Round Table on 2020 Open Science Policy Ambitions of the European Commission

CHAIR AND ORGANISER: RENE VON SCHOMBERG

By 2020, Funders and stakeholders have taken a common position on alternative metrics to replace/complement the Journal Impact Factor and citation counts (OS Altmetrics)

9.10-9.15 James Wilsdon
9.15-9.20 Wim Van der Stelt
9.20-9.30 Any other comment from anyone

By 2020, FAIR Data sharing is the default for funding scientific research (OS FAIR Open Data)

9.30-9.35 John Wood
9.35-9.45Any other comment from anyone

By, 2020, all peer reviewed scientific publications are freely accessible (OS changing business models in scientific publishing)

9.45-9.50 Saskia de Vries
9.50- 9.55 Marie Farge
9.55- 10.05 Any other comment from anyone

By 2020, All publicly funded research in the EU adheres to commonly agreed Open Science Standards of Research Integrity (OS Research Integrity)

10.05-10.10 Bianca Kramer
10.10-10.15 Joost van Kasteren
10.15-10.25 Any other comment from anyone

10.25-10.45 Coffee Break

By 2020, All young scientists in Europe have the necessary skills and support to apply Open Science research routines and practices (OS education and Skills)

10.45-10.50 Marijk van der Wende
10.50-10.55 Barend Van der Meulen
10.-55-11.05 Any other comment from anyone

By 2020, Citizen scientists will significantly contribute and be recognised as a valid knowledge producer of European Science (OS Citizen Science)

11.05-11.10 Valerie Frissen
11.10-11.15 Melanie Peters
11.15-11.25 Any other comment from anyone

By 2020, European research career evaluation will fully acknowledge OS activities (OS rewards)

11.25-11.30 Jeroen Bosman
11.30-11.35 Any other comment by anyone

By 2020, all European researchers are able to deposit, access and analyse European scientific data through the Open Science Cloud, without leaving their desk (OS Cloud)

11.35- 11.40 Barend Mons
11.40- 11.50 Any other comment from anyone

11.50- 12.00 Wrap up.
Jean-Claude Burgelman (European Commission) and Erik van der Linde (KNAW).

VISIONS AND SELECTED OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP (NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS OR INSTITUTIONS THEY REPRESENT): THESE ARE SIMPLY A SELECTION OF REMARKABLE FORESIGHT STATEMENTS ON HOW OPEN SCIENCE CAN OR SHOULD ADVANCE

Foresight on Open Science: Expert panel workshop prior to NL Presidency Conference on Open Science (4 & 5 April, Amsterdam)

By 2020, Funders and stakeholders have taken a common position on alternative metrics to replace/complement the Journal Impact Factor and citation counts (OS Altmetrics- Ambition)

● Responsible metrics should be robust, respect expert judgement, transparent, and diverse taking into account the nuances of disciplines, career paths, and be reflexive (No Gaming)
● Beyond 2020 infrastructure for altmetrics
● Metadata about publicly funded Research should be part of infrastructure and these are now privately owned

By 2020, FAIR Data sharing is the default for funding scientific research (OS FAIR Open Data-ambition)

● We have made some progress but funder mandates can only go that far: the problem is with enforcing these mandates across different funders (public, foundations, industry).
● We need to switch from a passive to a truly open model, where it is in the interest of researchers to share: link to incentives.
● We need to identify tangible items to implement in the next years, both a bottom up and a top down may be needed.

By 2020, all peer reviewed scientific publications are freely accessible (OS changing business models in scientific publishing)- ambition

● ‘Freely accessible’ is not enough: conditions for ‘fair’ open access to peer-reviewed scientific publishing, which are discipline-based, must be met e.g.
● Ownership (or emancipation): Editorial boards (or learned societies) take the responsibility of the essential task of peer-reviewing and therefore owns the journal (its title and assets), while publishers are service providers and no more owners of journals.
● Copyright: Authors keep the copyright and, possibly, a CC-BY licence applies.
● Funding: Where the case, Article Processing Charges are low(er), transparent, negotiable, and in proportion to the work carried out by the publisher, and there is no more so-called ‘double dipping’. However, when a journal is recognised to be useful to scientific community and as long as its editorial board can prove good peer-reviewing practices, it is published for free using publishing platforms, which are publicly-owned and publicly-funded infrastructures using open source software, designed on the model of super-computing centres.

By 2020, All publicly funded research in the EU adheres to commonly agreed Open Science Standards of Research Integrity (OS Research Integrity- ambition)
● Research integrity is not just about formulating standards; it’s about enabling scholars and scientists with the knowledge, tools and motivation to uphold these standards.
● Open Science in *all* stages of the research workflow holds great possibilities for researchers to make their research practices responsible and accountable.
● Three aspects of Open Science that can contribute to research integrity are preregistration, open materials and open peer review.
● Although individual ethics are important in safeguarding research integrity a European Code of Conduct for researchers is necessary but not enough to deal with questionable research practices;

By 2020, All young scientists in Europe have the necessary skills and support to apply Open Science research routines and practices (OS education and Skills) (ambition)
● How can we best prepare next generation of students? Beyond utalitarian approach towards technology and skills Values vary across universities and cultures. Will open science bring different disciplinary approaches together or bring them apart? In the second case we have a problem. Can digital immigrants lead digital natives? Universities insist on traditional methods Role models needed We should not wait until the phd or graduate phase but start much earlier.
● Danger of standardisation – science needs diversity New technologies lead to new specialities (laser technology), then becomes routine (mri). In health: linking with engineering Making data open is much more difficult in ssh Many experiments in psychology cannot be reproduced
● In many fields open science can become part of the training, e.g. In specialities
● Paradox: People need to specialise more at the same time we see a mixing of the sciences. We need to get out of the disciplinary silos
● In order to do so we need to change funding mechanism and review processes
● We need to foster the right attitude: some disciplines are not confident about OS
● We also need a conductor to steer these processes
By 2020, Citizen scientists will significantly contribute and be recognised as a valid knowledge producer of European Science (OS Citizen Science)- Ambition

● Involving citizens will lead to better research questions: it will help reframing research questions by adding different paradigms. E.g. Earth quakes are measured for their strength, however citizens may be more disturbed by smaller, but frequently occurring earth quakes (example from the Netherlands province of Groningen). E.g. Involving patients in medical research changes the research question.
● Involving citizens will lead to faster and wider innovation. Example: Netherlands has the most Personal computers in the World per citizen. This started by involving citizens since the 80s. The acceptance of solar panels increases if citizens are part of the research into energy efficiency (example from Utrecht)
● The university will become a “platform” collecting and sharing research data with citizens. These data are collected in living labs and more true to life situations than data from laboratory settings, clinical trials or data from interviews. (The challenge will be to make sure citizens are empowered through access to these data, and not merely a “substrate” for third parties using their data
● Citizens making valuable contribution in terms of science agenda setting, funding (crowd funding), mobilizing attention, improve access to science, and Valorisation of science

By 2020, European research career evaluation will fully acknowledge OS activities (OS rewards)- ambition

The right infrastructure but also changes in the research culture are needed to make smart selections:
● Play collective: All stakeholders (including the EU and national funders) need to take substantially more action in improving the standardized identification, attribution and measurement of sharing and (re)use of all types of research output.
● Play at home: Research institutions themselves, mainly universities, should be engaged in demanding that all *their* researchers’ output be taken into account in evaluations and assessments for tenure, promotion, awards, funding and institutional comparisons and rankings.
● Be inspired: We need to start thinking about collaboration and sharing/publication spaces that have fine grained attribution and acknowledgement systems built in from the start, and in doing that even imagine futures in which the scientific paper will have lost some of its primacy.
This is important for both young and ‘seasoned’ researchers, despite the differences in the stage and dynamics of their careers.

By 2020, all European researchers are able to deposit, access and analyse European scientific data through the Open Science Cloud, without leaving their desk (OS Cloud)- ambition

● We will have no more journals by 2030.
● The European Open Science Could will be fully integrated in the global internet.
● Furthermore, non interoperable data will not exist in mainstream science any more.
● Proper legislation will be in place governing what can be done with the data Computer power will not be a central infrastructure anymore, it will be everywhere (personal devices and beyond) One petabyte of data will be created for each person per day Africa and Asia will have the same smartphone density as Europe and will participate equally in the data driven economy. However, at the moment OS is still regarded as a threat in many academic institutions in these countries.
● Keeping data closed will be possible but will be expensive and will pay for the costs of open data. It was discussed whether primarily underlying data should be open. The example of data journals was given





sessionopenscience (5)
OPEN SCIENCE SESSION AT AAAS- 15 February 2016
Open Science: Global Perspectives and Prospects
Monday, February 15, 2016: 9:00 AM-10:30 AM
Harding (Marriott Wardman Park)

 

The current trend towards ‘open science’ comes predominantly from a bottom-up process, driven by the increasing number of researchers operating in a global digital network and by societal demands to address global challenges. Institutions such as universities, funders, libraries, and publishers at national and international levels find themselves in various stages of responding or adapting to the evolving situation. Universities are considering new ways to evaluate researchers’ careers and are requiring different types of research skills from researchers. Evaluating the impact of research is of growing importance to research funding organizations, and new institutions are emerging to focus on determining these impacts. Publishers are actively moving toward open access models for research publications and data. This symposium addresses perspectives on open science from Europe, Japan, and the United States and opportunities for global science engagement to address critical international challenges by advancing open science across all institutional levels.


From left to right: Niels Stern, JamesWilsdon, Yuko Harayama and Jerry Sheehan.

Science in Transition: Towards Open Science and globally, open, collaborative networked research

Science is regaining something what has gone lost since the origins of modern science in the 17 th century: having science as a truly collaborative endavour to increase our understanding of the world and addressing the Societal Challenges of our time.

Scientists frustrated by the pressure on them to publish in high-impact journals and lack of sufficient access to data and publications, turn to “facebook for scientists” type of online fora, to share knowledge and data and engage in collaborative networked-research. Online Research tools make it now possibly to establish a global scholarly science commons allowing access to scientific discovery in real time, scientific outrearch and research assessment

This has the potential to make science more:

reliable (as it allows early, and better and more effective data-verification)
– efficient, as it can prevent planned, useless duplication of similar research efforts elsewhere on the globe and extend collaboration to a broader range of collaborators
responsive to the societal demands of citizens, as science could become more transparent and open as before
credible, as issues of scientific integrity could be better tackled in an open and transparent context.
inclusive in the incorporation of a broader range of scientific knowledge producers beyond the academic context and including, for example, citizen scientists and scientists with limited financial support.
facilitate globally organised mission oriented research, having scientists sharing knowledge and data prior to publication and thus advancing science at a faster pace. ( Human genome project which included a moratorium on publishing, was an early example).

From Open Access to Open Scholarly Communication?

The movement towards Open Access has been transformed and broadened to the emerging practice of open scholarly communication, not only addressing publications and data, but also scholarly outreach, research assessment, online collaborative scholarly writing and even online collaborative discovery (See figure below from: Bosman, Kramer 2015: online: http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/). This may lead to constituting scholarly commons but these commons may well have to compete with private initiatives operating in the same Open Science space.

101 innovations in scholarly communication (from Bosman, Kramer 2015-http://innoscholcomm.silk.co)

InnoScholComm_figure_jan2015

 

The impact of all these trends is already visible and it addresses some of the most burning issues of science, such as the slowness of the publication process, the increasing criticism of the existing peer review system, the challenge of reproducing reliable research results and thus the justified claim that science should become more efficient as the level of scientific system rather than on the level of the ‘productivity’ of the individual scientists(by go after them with counterproductive research assessment requirements-e.g. bibliometric indicators etc)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s