tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hub_feeds/4501/feed_itemsEstherPlomp's bookmarks2024-03-13T08:55:36-04:00TagTeam social RSS aggregratortag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/100091302024-03-12T09:41:55-04:002024-03-13T08:55:36-04:00UKRN releases a new working paper on the OR4 Project | UK Reproducibility Network<blockquote>
<p>Today, the UKRN’s <a href="https://www.ukrn.org/open-and-responsible-researcher-reward-and-recognition-or4/">OR4 project</a>* releases <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/osf/z52cn">a new report</a> that describes the UK landscape of responsible researcher assessment, with a particular focus on open research. The evidence comes from a detailed survey, led by Robert Darby from the University of Reading, and is the most comprehensive review so far on this topic. The report reveals that around three quarters of the 60 institutions that responded to the survey are taking strategic action to reform how they assess researchers. This suggests that initiatives such as <a href="https://sfdora.org/">DORA</a>, <a href="http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/">Leiden</a> and <a href="https://coara.eu/">CoARA</a> have been highly effective in initiating change, perhaps more so than the raw number of their signatories implies. However, recognition for openness and transparency in research – key components in the <a href="https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/topics/research-and-innovation/concordat-support-research-integrity">Concordat to Support Research Integrity</a> – does not yet feature significantly in the reforms being adopted by UK institutions. This reinforces the value of the OR4 project, which is already working to address this explicitly.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/97221162024-01-09T04:48:38-05:002024-01-21T12:25:08-05:00Huang et. al. (2024) Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations | Scientometrics<p>Huang, CK., Neylon, C., Montgomery, L. <em>et al.</em> Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations. <em>Scientometrics</em> (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04894-0</p>
<p>Abstract:</p>
<p>The goal of open access is to allow more people to read and use research outputs. An observed association between highly cited research outputs and open access has been claimed as evidence of increased usage of the research, but this remains controversial. A higher citation count also does not necessarily imply wider usage such as citations by authors from more places. A knowledge gap exists in our understanding of who gets to use open access research outputs and where users are located. Here we address this gap by examining the association between an output’s open access status and the diversity of research outputs that cite it. By analysing large-scale bibliographic data from 2010 to 2019, we found a robust association between open access and increased diversity of citation sources by institutions, countries, subregions, regions, and fields of research, across outputs with both high and medium–low citation counts. Open access through disciplinary or institutional repositories showed a stronger effect than open access via publisher platforms. This study adds a new perspective to our understanding of how citations can be used to explore the effects of open access. It also provides new evidence at global scale of the benefits of open access as a mechanism for widening the use of research and increasing the diversity of the communities that benefit from it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/88872862023-10-14T12:20:02-04:002023-10-14T12:20:02-04:00Everything Open 2024 | Announcing Everything Open 2024 and 2025<p>Australasia's grassroots Free and Open Source technologies conference, Everything Open, will be returning in 2024 and 2025!</p>
<p>Linux Australia is pleased to announce that Everything Open will be be held in Gladstone, Australia from April 16-18 2024. This three day conference will have presentations on a range of open technologies topics from community members and project leaders. As usual, there will be a key focus on Linux, open source software and open hardware, as well as the communities that surround them.</p>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/80390662023-07-10T15:45:17-04:002023-08-03T08:43:42-04:00MetaROR – a new form of scholarly publishing and peer review for metaresearch<p>To address challenges in metaresearch scholarly communication, researchers are developing an innovative approach to scholarly communication: MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review).</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/75954582023-05-18T13:32:58-04:002023-05-28T18:18:04-04:00Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective<p>Abstract: Discussions around transparency in open science focus primarily on sharing data, materials, and coding schemes, especially as these practices relate to reproducibility. This fairly quantitative perspective of transparency does not align with all scientific methodologies. Indeed, qualitative researchers also care deeply about how knowledge is produced, what factors influence the research process, and how to share this information. Explicating a researcher’s background and role allows researchers to consider their impact on the research process and interpretation of the data, thereby increasing both transparency and rigor. Researchers may engage in positionality and reflexivity in a variety of ways, and transparently sharing these steps allows readers to draw their own informed conclusions about the results and study as a whole. Imposing a limited, quantitatively-informed set of standards on all research can cause harm to researchers and the communities they work with if researchers are not careful in considering the impact of such standards. Our paper will argue the importance of avoiding strong defaults around transparency (e.g., always share data) and build upon previous work around qualitative open science. We explore how transparency in all aspects of our research can lend itself toward projecting and confirming the rigor of our work.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/75084442023-05-01T10:27:09-04:002023-05-01T10:27:09-04:00Proceedings 2023 · KU Leuven Open Science Day<p>Online available conference proceedings of the third Open Science Day organized for and by KU Leuven researchers on 2 May 2023. The event consisted of two paper sessions focusing on reuse and reproducibility and novel Open Science approaches. In addition, researchers and service units of KU Leuven outlined how they apply and support open science practices during a poster session. The keynote lectures were given by <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6117-3026">Muki Haklay</a> (University College London) and <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8551-1154">Thomas Margoni</a> (KU Leuven).</p>
<p> </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/72832612023-03-27T12:35:58-04:002023-03-28T00:05:34-04:00Job: Coordinator of Research Infrastructure (Open Science) Coordinator of Research Infrastructure (Open Science) position at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/72832182023-03-27T10:54:38-04:002023-03-27T10:54:38-04:00Faculty of Applied Science and Open Science – A team: Overview 2021-2023 | Zenodo<p>Overview of the activities of an Open Science Team based at a Dutch University.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/70789742023-02-17T08:46:15-05:002023-02-17T08:46:15-05:00Open Research Conversation: You’ve Got to Fight for Your (Copy)right: An exploration of New Policies on Rights Retention<p>Recording from a session (part of IloveData week 2023) on the new Policy on Rights Retention from the University of Sheffield.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/67459532023-01-21T10:23:45-05:002023-01-22T09:49:31-05:00The benefits of publishing in society‐owned scientific journals<p>Editorial on the need to publish in society-owned scientific journals that share interests with the scientific community, instead journals managed by private companies.</p>
<p>"Scientific societies publish journals to facilitate communication among scientists (using peer-based quality reviews) and to advance their respective fields. Some universities, museums, research institutes and non-profit academic publishers also publish scientific literature with the same motivation. It is in their interest to keep costs as low as possible, both for authors in the case of open-access publishing and for readers in the case of subscription-based funding. In contrast, private companies publish journals for profit, and it is in their interest to keep article-processing charges (APCs) or subscription fees as high as possible."</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/66563142023-01-16T08:06:44-05:002023-01-16T08:40:21-05:00SocArXiv Papers | Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria<p>Preprint on reforming research assessment, with Open Access as one of the criteria:</p>
<p>"Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a deep disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (“value dissonance”), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as “research citizenship” comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment."</p>