Open Science

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Open Science

A EuroScientist Special Issue – June 2015

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Contents

Introduction ...... 3 Welcome to this Special Issue of EuroScientist on: Open Science ! ...... 3 Editorial ...... 4 Thoughtful debate is losing ground over appearance ...... 4 Open Science in question ...... 6 The day when science is truly open ...... 6 Jean-Claude Burgelman: the new open science paradigm requires fine tuning ...... 9

A new kind of science: research in the age of big data ...... 11 Evolving publishers ...... 13 Jan Velterop interview: further opening science thanks to a cultural shift ...... 13 Open Science helps researchers get the impact they deserve ...... 16 Raising the bar for national language open access journals ...... 19 Emerging trends ...... 22 Does Science 2.0 foster greater academic freedom? ...... 22 The brave new worlds of crowdfunding science ...... 26

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Introduction

Welcome to this Special Issue of EuroScientist on: Open Science !

Open Science: never have terms been interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people. The diversity of perspectives on this matter reflects the evolving nature of what research has become. These reflections led to the idea of this EuroScientist special issue together with early stage discussions with Stephane Berghmans, EuroScience governing board member and Elsevier vice-president of academic and research relations in the EU. They were further compounded by exchanges with experts such as Max Haring, executive editor at mega- journal SpringerPlus and Timo Hannay, managing director of Digital Science, which invests in innovative tech solutions for publishing and grew out of the Nature Publishing Group . An international perspective came from Brazil, with the view of Abel Packer, CEO of open access publisher SciELO. In this special issue, we wanted to give you food for thought before the summer break, as to what it means to be a scientist in 2015 and beyond. You will hear about transparency, accountability, crediting researchers for their work, as well as about the influence of technology in this paradigm shift. We have invited experts representing the fields of publishing, technology, EC institutions and academia to share their wisdom of how changes in the way we do science are going to affect the present and the future of thousands of scientists. So be prepared for this trip to the future, which has yet to unfold in your day-to-day life as a researcher, policy makers or science enthusiast. It is no longer a matter of whether science will be fully open, but rather of when. This may take longer than anticipated. But one thing is sure, one day, the term open science will become redundant as all science will be that way. And we all have a part to play in ensuring that this will happen. Find out how by reading this special issue of EuroScientist and sharing it as widely as possible in your circles. Photo credit: Alex Gorka via Shutterstock

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Editorial

Thoughtful debate is losing ground over appearance By Sabine Louët Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com

Thoughtful debate is losing ground over appearance By Sabine Louët Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com Technology enabling open science is putting scientists under greater scrutiny than ever Science may be opening up, but there are still areas that researchers would like to see remain private. Indeed, under the auspices of open science, scientists are increasingly expected to present a virtual projection of who they are. Appearance has gained an unprecedented level of importance. Scientists who do not play along open themselves to being mistreated or misunderstood. Living in a world of social media network means that scientists’ every utterance is recorded, dissected and analysed. Unfortunately, researchers have come to this game unprepared and without the type of training that politicians typically benefit from. Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt has had a bitter experience in this new era. His recent comments at Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

a luncheon regarding women in his lab have brought the debate about how much appearance matters into another dimension. He was quoted as saying “you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry”. Clearly researchers need to think ahead when speaking as scientists, even at informal events. Regardless of how ill-advised his comments were, Hunt learned the hard way that comments reported on Twitter do not come with context. The resulting deluge of scorn provided under hashtag distractinglysexy is a case in point. There are no excuses for such words. But context helps understand how they came about. The words were uttered as part an impromptu and informal speech at the start of a luncheon themed ‘women's science journalist dinner’ at the 2015 World Science Journalists’ Conference (WSJC) in Seoul, South Korea. People who have known Hunt personally for years contacted by EuroScientist thought the accusation of misogyny were out of character. They also recognised a rather clumsy attempt at British humour. To say the least, these comments did not translate very well when they reached the cybersphere. As scientists venture further into the unexplored realm of open science, where technology will document their every move, there are lessons to be learnt from this episode.

First, debates as important as the status of women in science require a much more in-depth analysis than the context- free reports brought by 140 character tweets. The fact that the debated was initiated on Twitter is a boon in terms of numbers reached. But it is also a curse, as the medium is not an adequate discussion platform. What is more, there is a need to avoid knee-jerk reactions in response to what people read on Twitter—particularly for those at the highest level of the decision-making pyramid. Otherwise, we are bound to witness again the lack of due process resulting in Hunt’s loss of various positions. It is not because social media reports of scientists’ behaviour is instant that follow-up decisions should also be done according to the same timeline. We all need to learn a new approach before making a decision in relation to such rapidly emerging controversies: take a step back, breathe, pause, analyse and sleep over it!

Photo credit: Rhianna Carlson

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Open Science in question

The day when science is truly open By Vanessa Schipani Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com How will the web change the practice of science in the next 25 years?

Network peer-review via the web and enhanced data crunching power are two of the defining changes recently bestowed upon 21st century science. While the term Science 2.0, like Web 2.0, means different things to different people, many appeal to transparency as its defining characteristic. In fact, results of the European Commission's public consultation on Science 2.0 published in May 2015 reveal that stakeholders voted to replace Science 2.0 with open science in any further proceedings of the Commission. Yet, Science 2.0 holds in store many other new issues for researchers to confront, such as changes in the style and means of collaborating and obtaining funding. Sophisticated algorithms now allow scientists to produce and analyse data in new and faster ways. In addition, the web has opened up ways for citizens to interface with various stages of the scientific process--from funding to data production. But the overarching question of whether the web will accelerate research and innovation in the next 25 years still remains to be answered. Nonetheness, Science 2.0, in its many connotations, has great potential to establish a more reliable scientific process, with greater transparency and accountability. And that alone is an exciting prospect. Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

A Call for Transparency So how should the scientific process evolve towards greater transparency? Experts agree different disciplines must have different standards for openness. "There is no one-size-fits-all," says Eva Méndez, an associate professor of library and information science at Carlos III University of Madrid in Spain, who was involved in the Commission's Science 2.0 consultation. Today, calls for greater transparency have progressed more smoothly in fields like high- energy physics than in biomedicine because of the relatively extreme competition pervading the latter, adds Caroline Lynn Kamerlin, who is chair for Young Academy Europe (YAE)--a pan-European bottom-up initiative of a dynamic group of recognised European young scientists--and who also took part in the Commission's consultation. Regardless of discipline, all agree any move towards greater transparency in the scientific process has a higher potential for success if it comes from the top-down. Policy makers, publishers and funders first need to create incentives for scientists to be more open, says Kamerlin who is also associate professor of structural biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. Kamerlin remains skeptical about using force to further greater transparency though; especially in cutthroat fields like biomedicine. "It's an invitation for data-vandalism," she says.

But the research process has already started becoming more transparent. Today open journals provide access to papers free-of-charge--as it is the authors of the work who bear the cost of publication. Multiple publishers now also encourage--or even require--researchers to publish their raw data with their findings. With the publication of raw data, cases of fraud or simple mistakes can be caught before publication and researchers can more easily replicate or reuse the data in future studies, experts say. To test this idea, the European Commission has implemented a pilot action for open access to raw data under Horizon 2020. Nothing left private Greater transparency may eventually find its way into the earliest stages of the scientific process as well; through documents outlining the step-by-step formulation of a scientific theory or experiment. In the future, open laboratory notebooks may allow anyone--including the public, companies and other scientists--access to researchers' daily notes. But open lab notebooks might be a thing of the far future, though not because of any failure in technological advancement. Any researcher could easily publish his or her notes to the web today, but worries about intellectual property and patenting laws might prevent them from doing so, says Thomas Crouzier, an advocate of open science in every sense of the term, who is also a French assistant professor of biomaterials. Crouzier says he will probably not force members of his new lab at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden to share their notes with the world just yet. Still, he argues implementing open lab notebooks would have advantages, if the culture of science and industry was different. "You could have a little helper that figures out where you're having difficulties [in an experiment] and how you could be helped by others; perhaps by selling you a service or connecting you with colleagues," says Crouzier. However, the idea of an open lab notebook is a bit too Orwellian for Kamerlin. But she also admits the next generation of scientists--who are digital natives--might not feel that way. Since young people today grow up "sharing every aspect of their lives" on the web, they will probably be "more prone to sharing every aspect of their scientific lives" as well, she adds. Better credit, altered peer-review Any step towards greater openness "has to be coupled with a system that clearly identifies authorship," Crouzier emphasises. Others stakeholders involved in the Commission's consultation concur. "I think one of the biggest changes will be the way scientists get credit for their research," adds Méndez. Today a scientist's worth is mainly based on the number of papers he or she publishes in peer-review journals, which are ranked by impact factor. But Méndez argues scientists need "mechanisms to legitimise alternative ways of communicating research." For example, via blogs, tweets or discussions on social media networks for scientists such as Mendeley or ResearchGate. Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Besides, if researchers had more exposure to the complex, "sociological factors that influence their world"-- perhaps through connecting to the wider public through a blog -- they might realise "relying upon simple, singular forms of evaluation" will remain problematic, adds Brian Wynne, a professor of science and technology studies at Lancaster University in the UK. But creating a standardised system for comparing and assessing the quality of blogs or Twitter feeds is easier said than done, he adds. "The attractive aspect of the traditional peer-review model, albeit completely inadequate and misleading, is that at least it's unified and recognisable," allowing for easy comparison. The best model, all agree, could involve combining elements of traditional peer review with features associated with community-based evaluation via altmetrics. Today altmetrics primarily entail measuring the impact of an individual paper by monitoring when, where and how much it is downloaded by the community. In the future, network-based peer-review might involve large numbers of scientists voting via the web on whether a paper is published in a journal. Given their influence on both transparency and peer-review in science, Crouzier believes publishers are guiding and will continue to guide any changes that occur in these domains. They have to, if they want to survive, he adds. The move towards massive data Beyond increased transparency and improved credit, the concept of Science 2.0 also implies how technology is widely influencing the way researchers handle their data. Indeed, scientists can now produce, store and share large amounts of data with ease. Even simple web-based file hosting services, like Dropbox and Google Docs, are having significant impacts on the way researchers share their data, says Kamerlin. Since much of science is no longer a solo enterprise, "having efficient ways to share large volumes of data is absolutely crucial," she adds. This is especially the case in fields like climatology, genomics and high-energy physics, where author lists can reach the hundreds, even the thousands. Longer author lists also correlate to the growth of data sets across all scientific disciplines. "Our data sets are exploding," says Kamerlin. "People talk about big data, but I always say, it's not big – it's massive," agrees Méndez. In 2014, Méndez and 24 other experts in science, publishing and law gathered to write the Hague Declaration: a call for greater openness with data with the aim of utilising the full potential of text and data mining technology. By combining and analysing much of existing data, the declaration claims, scientists will be better equipped to find answers to climate change, global epidemics and economic strife. While many call the 21st century the Age of Big Data, producing bigger data sets may not be better if scientists cannot find ways to also organise and understand their data, says Wynne. Today, "the average academic is already feeling massively overwhelmed by the amount of information being thrown at them," adds Kamerlin. But like a snake biting its tail, the Web also provides some answers to the problem of information overload with academic paper recommendation sites, such as PubChase, ScienceScape or Nowomics. Due to the growth of data sets across all disciplines, both Méndez and Kamerlin believe more and more researchers will devote their entire careers solely to finding new ways to analyse data, carving new research disciplines. "I don't think that a few decades ago you would have thought people would devote their careers developing algorithms for the meta-analysis of data," adds Kamerlin. But even today, this is the case. Last word With more adequate data management, web-based technologies have undoubtedly had a beneficial impact on science by helping researchers more easily and swiftly share and communicate their work. However, experts say it is still too early to tell whether the web will lead to optimal transparency and accountability; qualities at the crux of Science 2.0. "The web has the potential to open minds, open education, open the government and open research," says Méndez. But like any tool, the web's promise for improving science lies in the hands of its users. Photo credit: Vector Hugo

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Jean-Claude Burgelman: the new open science paradigm requires fine tuning By Sabine Louët Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com EC learns lessons from Science 2.0 consultation

Jean-Claude Burgelman is the head of the science policy and foresight unit at Directorate General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission. He has been heavily involved in the recent Science 2.0 consultation. As a result the Commission organised, on 22-23 June, a half-day discussion on open science, focusing on barrier and opportunities, infrastructure and open society, as part of an event entitled: A New Start for Europe: Opening Up to an ERA for Innovation. In this exclusive interview to EuroScientist, he shares some of the lessons learned from the exercise, following the publication of the consultation results in May 2015. “Whatever we would do at whatever level in Europe, it has to be stakeholders driven, and it has to be bottom-up,” he says. This means that the European Commission has to play a federating role, as stakeholders drive further development towards open science. In addition to its policy of open access for publications resulting from EU funded research projects, the Commission recently introduced initiatives such as the pilot initiative for open access for data. Burgelman acknowledges that “not everyone is fully behind open science, which is why the open data initiative is still in pilot phase.” But he knows that it is a matter of time and fine tuning. “All researchers told us that one of the most important problems for developing open science is the lack of incentives,” he adds. “If, with your funding, you push in the direction of open science, then you give a big incentive.” The need for incentives is recurrent theme of the

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

consultation, emanating from all stakeholders involved. Another incentive being that “the career system has to gratify open science,” he points out. Among those involved in the scientific process, science publishers are one of the key stakeholders, “but they are not more key as anyone else,” he notes, adding: “The scientific publishing community of Europe is also preparing themselves for the change, so this is encouraging.” He recalls that in the history of technology, when this kind of paradigm shift occurs, and due to conflicting interests, people trying to capitalise on past positions. It is typically a situation where “the Commission precisely has to play the role of a broker and try and level the playing field,” he adds. And, he suggests, perhaps resolving some of the issues arising through stakeholders forums. Finally, on the theme of citizen science, he distinguishes several ways in why citizens get involved in science. He believes, for example, that the idea of bringing in scientifically trained citizens as “a kind of distributed brain power in scientific experiments” like those related to exploration of galaxies, by scanning the universe, is a fantastic idea, constituting a “distributed way of gathering knowledge.” In this context, “accountability discussions, which you sometimes find under citizens science, is not our discussion [under open science].” However, “what we also get these discussions about citizens’ participation in the decision making on science: very legitimate, but not that’s what these citizens [assign] under open science.” Interview and cover text by Sabine Louët. Video editing Charline Pierre and Lena Kim.

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

A new kind of science: research in the age of big data By Timo Hannay Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com Open science requires greater sharing and crediting for all research contributions

Call it what you like: Science 2.0, eScience or even the Fourth Paradigm. One thing is certain: research is changing profoundly. Driven by the same revolution in information technology that is transforming almost every aspect of human life, tomorrow's science will be different from yesterdays. And the shift is arguably an epochal one. Though change in academia comes slowly, we are now firmly on the road to a new digital and much more open future for research. Fourth paradigm To some observers of science this change ushers in a fourth great age of research fourth great age of research. To review, the first, which started over two millennia ago in Greece, was based on observation of the natural world and the formulation of qualitative theories about how it works. The second, in the 17th century, arose from the quantitative, mathematical worldview of the Enlightenment. Then, during the second half of the 20th century, the third age was associated with electronic computers, which enabled new methods of investigation, especially sophisticated numerical simulations. The scientific age we are now entering will be every bit as disruptive and empowering as the previous three. What is sometimes called the Fourth Paradigm is characterised by the use of ubiquitous networked computers, vast quantities of data and industrial-scale research programmes involving hundreds, or even thousands of scientists. There are particularly prominent examples in astronomy (the Sloan Digital Sky Survey), particle physics Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

(the Large Hadron Collider), molecular biology (the Human Proteome Project HapMap) and neuroscience (the Human Brain Project). Yet, every discipline is affected in one way or another. Like previous paradigm shifts, these advances afford new possibilities, thanks in this case to our newfound ability to accumulate and analyse vast amounts of data. Many new discoveries being made today in areas such as genomics and subatomic physics were not merely more difficult in the past, they were literally impossible. These advances will also change the way we do science and what it means to be a scientist. Global collaboration One such development is the increase in global collaboration. This is manifest not only in the kinds of high-profile initiatives mentioned above, but at almost every level of research. Co-authorship statistics show that in Western European countries, international collaborations rose from under 20% of research papers in 1981 to around 50% by 2011. This is a welcome change – a reflection of the fact that researchers are increasingly able to tap ideas and expertise from around the world almost as easily as they can collaborate with someone down the corridor. It is also entirely in keeping with the global, collaborative ethos of science itself. But this shift also brings its own challenges. One issue arising is linked to research groups becoming ever larger and the roles within them being ever more specialised. How then can we effectively assign credit to every member of the team according to his or her contribution? Witness, for example, the recently published — and much discussed — 1,000-author genomics paper. Credit attribution Initiatives by publishers and others to clarify and codify each researcher's contribution are welcome, but insufficient on their own. In particular, the scientific establishment, from funders and universities to societies and publishers, needs to acknowledge the essential contributions of those who gather and share data or computer code, not just those who draw out the insights and write up the papers. Adequate level of credit is not only important in the interests of fairness. It is also a prerequisite for an even more significant change: the move to a greater culture of openness. The power of information increases when it is shared. Yet, too often researchers hold their data close to their chests, unwilling to put in the extra effort to make it useful to others. This is because they are afraid of being scooped to the only thing that currently seems to matter: a high- profile peer-reviewed paper. This, in turn, has contributed to a corrosive combination of insufficient transparency, publication bias and, in a few high-profile cases, outright fraud. It is no exaggeration to say science itself now faces a credibility crisis. Fortunately the new digital, networked kind of science enables us to share information more freely. It also makes it possible to open up research to greater scrutiny than ever before. We can and must grasp that opportunity, and funders in particular are waking up to this fact. In time, I hope, the term ‘open science’ will come to be seen as a redundant expression. The founding essences of science are ones of open and honest enquiry, shared observations and insights, and collective progress; stretching back through the Enlightenment to Ancient Greece. It is perhaps ironic—yet a welcome one all the same—that 21st-century technology undreamt of by our scientific forebears may bring us closer than ever to the intellectual ideals they bequeathed us. Timo Hannay Timo is Managing Director of Digital Science. Photo credit: Rawpixel via Shutterstock

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Evolving publishers

Jan Velterop interview: further opening science thanks to a cultural shift By Sabine Louët Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com What is left to be done before science can really be open

Jan Velterop is one of the small group of people who first defined “open access” in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, which was published in early 2002. He has worked in science publishing since the mid-1970’s. At the beginning of his career, he worked at Elsevier, in The Netherlands, and after a stint in the regional mainstream press moved to London to work subsequently at Academic Press and then Nature. Afterwards, he became involved in BioMed Central, the first commercial open access science publisher. Later, he joined Springer, as director of open access. He then left to help further develop approaches based on the semantic web as a means to accelerate scientific discovery. Since 2009, he is involved in the Concept Web Alliance, as one of the initiators. In this exclusive interview with EuroScientist, Jan Velterop gives his views on how scholarly publishing is going to play a role in the evolution of research towards more open science, and ultimately speed up the scientific process.

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Science=business Velterop points to issues affecting the way research is being done, which relate to what he calls the “commercial side of science.” He explains: “I am against the way that copyright is being used in science.” It is not, as was the original purpose of copyright, designed to ensure that authors kept on creating. He adds: “If you [didn’t] have copyright as a scientist, it would not stop you [from] publishing.” The original meaning of the idea of copyright, he feels, is not reflected in the English language. “The English word copyright is very much focusing on the commercial side of things.” In other languages, the term more accurately reflects what it is designed to do: protect authors’ right. This is the case in Dutch with the words ‘auteursrecht’ or the French ‘droits d’auteur’ as well as in German with the word ‘Urheberrecht’. “The right of the originator, the right of the author, should be to enable the widest possible use to the widest possible dissemination of the material in science,” he says. Open Facts project One of the most useful solutions developed recently in order to accelerate scientific discovery belongs to the field of semantic web and linked data. He quotes the example of the European Open PHACTS project, which aims to accelerate scientific discovery by semantic analyses and recombination of already published knowledge. This includes ensuring that “synonyms of concepts are seen as the same things, so that cancer and malignant neoplasm were considered as the same thing—although the words are very different,” he explains. This approach which can be applies to other fields, could lead to new insights into what is the functional part of a drug by establishing the relationships between compounds, targets, pathways, diseases and tissue. He says : “The chances of finding something significant are much greater when you apply this technique to the already known knowledge, the tacit knowledge that’s there in the publication and the databases.” Besides, the fact that it is humanly impossible to read everything that is relevant will make this approach necessary, as it can deal with large numbers of articles with the help of computers. Peer-review improvement Another issue hindering the way the scientific process works is peer review. To improve it, he believes that it is good to make it open. We need to “say who peer reviewed it, say what they did, will they advise publication or not, because sometimes, you know, there are two peer reviewers and one says yes, the other says no,” he says. He proposes to introduce peer-review by endorsement, currently tested by German/US publishing start-up SicenceOpen. This means leaving peer-review in the hands of academics themselves by asking authors to identify potential reviewers themselves and approach them to review and endorse publication. “It is far more likely to be an open, honest, and I think, qualitatively better and enormously cheaper process,” he points out. Getting rid of bad habits In addition to all the hurdles referred to above, Velterop is of the opinion that “the biggest problem of it all is scientists themselves.” The ‘publish or perish culture’ is creating incentives, which need to be taken out of the equation, as they negatively affect the scientific process. Publishing becomes in a sense a career advancing exercise and that it is not necessarily always helping the addition to the world’s knowledge that it should be. He concludes: “scientists should change their emphasis from “I’m working on my career” to “I’m working on improving and progressing people’s knowledge about the natural environment or something about the human body…” Video editing and cover text Charlene Pierre and Lena Kim.

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Open Science helps researchers get the impact they deserve By Max Haring Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com A more transparent future for academic publishing thanks to Science 2.0

Publishing your research results is not easy. Writing an article takes a lot of time and effort but even finding the right journal can be a chore: in May 2015, Elsevier’s Scopus features 23,600 journals, Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science includes 17,066 titles and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) has 10,580 journals that offer Open Access. Any topic of general interest is most likely catered for by numerous journals—open access and traditional— in a wide range of impact and quality. And there are many other decisions to be made before results can be published. Overcoming publishing hurdles From my experience at Springer I know that most established journals have rejection rates well above 50%. This means that the majority of submitting researchers will be disappointed. This often happens before peer-review and for many not because their study was flawed: a rejection before peer-review simply indicates the researcher picked the wrong journal. It could be that the topic of the study is not something covered by the journal, or that the topic is right but the study may not have had the level of impact the journal was looking for. When looking for a journal to publish their work, researchers also need to take into account factors like publication licenses; they can choose between subscription, hybrid or full open access with several possible licenses. When an article fee is in place a researcher needs to investigate funding possibilities or institutional membership such as with Biomed Central. They also need to be aware of different peer-review models, be it open, single or double blind. In

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

addition they need to take into account funder and institutional mandates for data preservation and manuscript deposition in institutional repositories. It is a lot of work. And the stakes are high. Not complying with funder rules means future funding can be jeopardised whereas publishing in high-impact journals is still needed to advance a research career. And there are more potential pitfalls: for example, not following rules for publishing- or medical ethics may lead to a retraction and bad press, as shown by the complexity of the case associated with the recent publication of an analysis of the HeLa cells genome without the Lack family’s consent. Mega-journals rise In response to this increase level of complexity in publishing we have seen an increase in popularity of the mega- journals , initiated by PloS One. These journals are peer-reviewed open access journal s focused on a broad discipline such as physics, biology and/or medicine. They distinguish themselves by exerting low selectivity before accepting articles. And they focus on providing author services; making submission easy and peer-review more efficient. Traditional publishers’ mega-journals include Springer’s SpringerPlus and Nature’s Scientific Reports, among others.

Publishers often link low-impact mega-journals to established high-impact titles, giving rise to a journal ‘dichotomy’. Namely, a set of prestigious journals working together with a mega-journal help authors publish their work efficiently and conveniently. The focused high-impact journals are very selective and peer-review is extensive: the researcher is often asked for additional experiments to strengthen their case and the manuscript will go through several rewrites. That is a lot of effort but the reward is high: publishing in a high-impact journal seriously helps in advancing the research career of its authors. Only a limited number of manuscripts make the cut and many are rejected before or after peer-review. These manuscripts may subsequently be offered a seamless transfer to the associated mega-journal. The inclusive scope means the work will not be rejected because the topic is not covered or the study lacks prestige. And peer-reviews are included to allow for a quick decision. This trend of associating high-impact journals with mega-journals is likely to continue. And more traditional journals may have a hard time competing with the convenience delivered by mega-journals. Perhaps, we will also see a separation between publication of data and the publication of the interpretation thereof; we might see journals for articles that not contain data but only discuss data published in an open research data platform. Fast forward some years, and a few mega-journals might dominate lower impact ranges, while specialised journals will capture higher-impact work. Because the mega-journals are large and interdisciplinary this makes the impact factor, which reflects citations for the entire journal and not an individual article, less important. Instead, we rely on alternative metrics to look at the ‘story’ of a paper: did it have impact on society—via social media—or on patients— via blogs, patients groups, etc.—or on academics—via citations. These results should be interpreted carefully using new tools, such as Altmetric. Open metrics: measure impact beyond citations Most mega-journals are Open Access and that offers many advantages to authors. Choosing Open Access for a journal article or dataset ensures compliance with most funder mandates, such as that of projects funded under Horizon 2020. Meanwhile, the large potential audience for open research often results in an attractive citation advantage, as demonstrated in studies by SPARC Europe. In addition, publishing Open Access allows the article to be shared and discussed without copyright restrictions on post-publication networking platforms for researchers, such as Mendeley, ResearchGate and PubPeer. Being open also means that some research may be suitable for citizen science project, giving the public an opportunity to engage with the research. Meanwhile, scientists are increasingly encouraged to engage with the

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

public, as demonstrated by the initiative of the European Southern Observatory. This approach is also supported by funds from the Horizon2020 ‘Science with and for society’ scheme. Open Access publishing also helps to measure impact in a broader way. Open Access makes it possible to rely on alternative metrics, or altmetrics, to combine academic citations with social media mentions and likes, post- publication discussions and download numbers into new and informative scores, such as Springer’s altmetrics for books, bookmetrix. The combination of all these various way of measuring the success of research does not just rate an article but also help to explain the story of its impact beyond academia. A big advantage of this new approach is that it allows a researcher to be rewarded for research that was not cited a lot by peers but made an impact to others, that made an impact on society. An example could be a nature conservation papers discussing ecology of a certain region. The impact of such an article is local and it will probably not receive a lot of academic citations. But the importance for the region can be significant and the researcher should receive credit accordingly. Because everything is open the impact scores are transparent and for everyone to verify and understand. And this helps an article to get the appreciation it deserves without the need for the rub-off prestige from a high-impact journal. Making research open, not just for articles but also for data publication, peer-review, discussions and metrics, helps all researchers to publish effectively, transparently and with the highest possible impact, not only for academics, but on society as a whole. Max Haring Max is the executive editor for SpringerPlus, Springer’s peer-reviewed open access mega journal for research in all disciplines. Photo credit: Rashad Ashurov via Shutterstock

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Raising the bar for national language open access journals By Abel Packer Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com Why Latin American journals are published predominantly in open access

Open access is the dominant publishing model of scientific journals edited in Latin America (LA). Most of them typically publish national authors. As a result, the region has become the most dynamic region for open access journals publishing. In fact, while the United States and Eastern Europe publish less than 15% of their research via open access journals. By contrast, in Latin America, this figure is greater than 25%, as per data indexed by the Web of Sciences or Scopus bibliometric databases. The success of open access in the region is due to the support provided by the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) scholarly communication programme, in operation for the past 17 years. During that time, SciELO has progressively networked journal collections—typically operated at national level—from 11 LA countrie together with journal collections from Portugal, Spain (limited to health sciences journals) and South Africa. Altogether, the network represents about 1,000 journals and over 500 thousand articles. It is therefore one of the most important and comprehensive international cooperation initiative in open access. Considering that each participating country contributes with financial and infrastructure resources so all the research contents are freely available, SciELO contributes to a regional boon and the global common good. To achieve this, it relies on a methodology, combined with technology, which enables the online indexing, preservation, publishing and interoperation of peer-reviewed journals. It follows basic and common principles such as open access, decentralised operation and funding, common standards to maximise interoperability, quality

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

control, performance evaluation and the strengthening of the editorial independence and transparency. The selection of journals to be indexed in each collection is carried out under the supervision of a national advisory committee, following pre-established criteria. The adoption of a SciELO-like integrated and networked approach to run not-for-profit and independent quality journals by other regions and countries—particularly in the developed ones—faces barriers mainly at the political level. Indeed, it requires research agencies’ commitment and leadership to build authoritative, sustainable and transparent managerial and funding models. History of a network SciELO as an open access scientific communication model was launched in Brazil in 1998. It resulted from a research project led by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) in partnership with the Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health Sciences Information of the Pan American Health Organisation / WHO also known as Biblioteca Regional de Medicina (BIREME). The model was adopted in the same year by the Chilean National Science Council, thus starting the development of SciELO as a network. SciELO Brazil acts as the secretariat of the network and is in charge of methodological and technological development as well as the follow up of national collections according common established criteria. These institutional roots set by leading research and scientific information organisations represented a big boost for SciELO’s credibility. Most of the countries that adopted SciELO model after Chile did under the leadership of national research agencies. Over the years, SciELO became an integral part of the national research infrastructure in the countries it operates. Progressively, SciELO also garnered international recognition which is expressed by the inclusion of the SciELO Citation Index in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Platform and more broadly by the decision of UNESCO to publishing our story in a book SciELO - 15 Years of Open Access: an analytic study of Open Access and scholarly communication. We should note however, that SciELO success is also due to its pioneering entry in online and open access journal publishing. This contributed to its development and consolidation with the different stakeholders. In 1998, there was no serious competitor to SciELO. Today, any country considering adopting the SciELO model will face the resistance of different solutions already in place. Web-ready journals One of the particularities of our collections is that they cover journals from all the disciplines and thematic areas— be they owned by scientific societies, academic institutions and other research and development related organisations. In addition, we adopt a multilingual approach, which accepts journals publishing articles in one or more languages— even simultaneously in two or more languages. This means that SciELO is contributing to the advancement of national research programs and projects, particularly when their results are better communicated via national journals. The platform provides these journals with indexing and extensive interoperability on the web. This advantage is in addition to the continued evaluation, quality improvement and promotion of innovations following the international state of art in journal editing and publishing. International indexing is also provided by Google Scholar and the SciELO Citation Index as part of the Web of Science platform. The research published by SciELO journals varies in different degrees with respect to international versus national scope. While an increasing number of journals tends to be fully aligned with the mainstream research in their respective thematic areas, most of the research we communicate appears in journals which publish national authors. The reasons are multiple. Authors choose our journals either because the research subjects are of local focus and interest. It could also be because it is written in the national language of their country — which is not English. Or it could even be because authors perceive that work as not being suitable for foreign journals. In other cases, authors submit to local journals papers that were rejected by high-impact foreign journals. Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

On average, over 80% of the articles published by our journals is of national research. Consequently, considering the total of LA articles indexed internationally every year, more than 20% are actually published by national journals. These figures reveal the strategic nature of the role of SciELO in raising the profile of the quality national journals. It has also contributed in making the research they publish increasingly visible and valued, thus demonstrating the importance making research accessible without barriers. Expanding impact metrics However, results emanating from research performed at the national level, which are published in our journals, tend to have a low impact in terms of citations received per article. This is compared with the performance of international journals published in Europe and United States. In fact, even when open access contributed to increase the visibility of journals from LA, more than 80% of these journals indexed in the World of Science or Scopus collections perform below the median of the distribution of citations related indicators in their respective thematic areas. This low performance is due to several factors, including the national focus of the research, the use of non-English language, the lack of international cooperation and the absence of main stream cutting-edge research. All these factors contribute to limit the impact metrics to domestic citations. The trouble is that many research communities— particularly those habituated to high-impact journals—ignore or perceive negatively the national journals, which represents a barrier to their continued improvement. We are working towards counteracting this perception by broadening the scope of evaluation. Indeed, we are considering qualitative indicators based on peer opinions, citations from large coverage indexes such as SciELO Citation Index and Google Scholar— particularly for social sciences and humanities journals—as well as the number of access to and downloads of articles, which altogether they currently average more than one million per day. However, these indicators do not provide international benchmark but they do permit to follow the evaluation of the journals. SciELO has succeed in developing its services while retaining a high degree of autonomy vis-a-vis the traditional dichotomies North-South, Center-Periphery or Mainstream-Regional. It has contradicted narrow minded editorial gatekeepers and research authorities’ attempts to discredit independent national journals and the research they publish. We have largely succeeded in overcoming this discrediting syndrome through an indexing and publishing model based upon an unprejudiced appraisal of journal quality and, particularly, the relevance of the research they communicate. A critical foundation of our undertaking is the postulate that good research requires good and interconnected publishing capacity and infrastructure. This is becoming more obvious with the emergence of open science. Abel Packer Director of the SciELO / FAPESP Program

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Emerging trends

Does Science 2.0 foster greater academic freedom? By Constanze Böttcher Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com Digital technologies challenges what it means to be an academic

The freedom to conduct and disseminate research, to teach and to engage in scholarly debate without discrimination, institutional censorship and restriction from governments is at the heart of academic life. A plethora of documents recognise the value of academic freedom. These include the EU charter of fundamental rights, a Council of Europe’s recommendation and the constitutions or national legislations of most Member States. In addition, UNESCO set up its recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel back in 1997. Since the advent of the era of open science, or Science 2.0, attitudes in academia are gradually changing. As a result,the debate as to whether digital technologies help or hinder academic freedom has yet to get fully started in Europe. Freedom restrictions A number of issues hamper academic freedom. For example, the increasing demand bestowed upon scientists to apply for funding within pre-defined areas of research--be it at European or national level--and to demonstrate in advance the impact of their research may be problematic. Indeed, they could hamper the freedom of academics wanting to pursue research according to their skills while leaving little room for creativity.

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Due to increasing private financial support for research, experts also see a need to explicitly affirm academic freedom. Besides, in fields of research that relate to ethical or security issues, for instance, a tension between freedom and responsibility may arise. This means that academics and institutions may have to balance the two aspects. In parallel, as many academics increasingly collaborate across borders, legal restrictions or bureaucratic regulations may hinder their ability to make full use of recent technological developments, such as online data sharing or content mining tools. However, technologies also facilitate better access to the wealth of academic knowledge and foster collaboration. At the same time, it is increasingly difficult to define clear boundaries between an academic’s private and professional life in an online world. Thus, going online may allow academics to re-gain a certain level of freedom. For example, by engaging in debates that are at the heart of their professional interests and abilities. Meanwhile, technology may also help monitor violations of academic freedom. However, scientists sometimes cannot fully embrace the greater freedom afforded by science 2.0, due to a lack of open infrastructure. Resolving these issues may require, amongst other things, institutional guidelines, training and establishing European networking infrastructures.

Taming new tech Because the technologies that drive science’s ongoing transition are so new, “nobody really knows, how to deal with [them],” says Isabella Peters, a professor of web science at the Leibniz information centre for economics in Kiel, Germany. This may be particularly true when it comes to academic freedom. Indeed, most academics in Europe “have only a limited understanding of academic freedom,” holds Terence Karran, professor of higher education policy at the University of Lincoln, UK. Already, some years ago, Karran called for a magna charta protecting academic freedom across Europe. “Although I did not write it at the time, [this should include] something about the way in which new media [is used] by academics for the purposes of research--especially disseminating research findings--should be relatively free,” Karran says. Current debates on threats to academic freedom often relate to growth of so-called managerialism in higher education. This resulted from the “desire of governments, particularly in the UK, that universities should be financially more autonomous and less reliant on government funding,” Karran says. This trend has also been confirmed in other European countries, such as France. Similarly, following the so-called autonomy reform, Swedish universities “are increasingly run in a top-down fashion by professional managers,” says Erik Olsson, professor in theoretical philosophy at Lund University, Sweden. “Scholars are now experiencing the full force of this development in their own professional lives,” he adds. Consequently, the interest in academic freedom has been rapidly growing. Reinventing academics Recent changes also affect what it means to be an academic, says Martin Weller, professor of educational technology at the Open University, UK. “One of the key elements of academic identity is the idea of autonomy. You do what you think is interesting and valuable,” he says. But due to the pressure, for example, to account for the time people spend on research or supervising students, “a lot of academics feel that this core of autonomy has been eroded,” he says. Whether the era of science 2.0 increases or alleviates these pressures is subject to debate. Karran acknowledges that by using new social media people can disseminate research findings faster and more broadly than ever before. “In that sense, academic freedom is increased”, he says. But he also sees a danger that speedy communication may diminish the quality of scholarly debate. And there is another downside in Karran’s view. “The managerialism will also affect what we should be considering for our research. The role of new technology will be to increase these pressures faster and faster,” he says. This in turn may further restrict academic freedom, he fears. Others are more positive. By going online, via blogs, Twitter or other social media, scientists may rediscover the reasons why they become academics in the first place, Weller holds. “They can regain autonomy. They can join a network, which is perhaps more aligned to their interest than [the one] they might have in their own institution,” he says. Academic freedom benefits from the use of social media tools because “a key function of universities is to engage in debates to progress the discussion,” says Maria Murphy, a lecturer in law at Maynooth University, Ireland.

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

In her view, new media are also useful from an education perspective as “it demystifies the whole concept of academia and academic debate.”

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Online persona But while more and more academics build an online identity, the boundaries between an academic’s individual role and an academic's institutional role are increasingly blurred. Universities may benefit from the online reputation of their researchers. “But if anything bad happens, it could damage the university,” Weller says. For example, when individuals get caught up in an online storm it is often unclear whether the university should be supportive. “If academics use social media to disseminate something outside of their subject area they are not covered by academic freedom. But they have the same right for freedom of speech as anyone else within civil society,” Karran points out. But often “people are not sure of their rights and may be put off from embracing the platform,” Murphy says. Weller agrees. “When people are worried saying the wrong thing they might end up saying nothing,” he says. These problems might be tackled through training and seeing good practice, he holds. More importantly, on an institutional level, there should be “clear codes of conduct that recognise the right to academic freedom in this new digital context,” Murphy holds. Such framework would “encourage the conscientious researcher who might feel hindered because of these fears,” she adds. In this line, a report on academic freedom and electronic communication by the American Association of University Professors recommends “that each institution work with its faculty to develop policies governing the use of social media.” Amongst other issues, the report also stresses that institutions need to ensure access to information technology and tackle problems resulting from outsourcing such resources. This issue is also relevant for Europe. Research institutions and organisations may establish policies outlining which types of networking tools individual researchers are allowed to use. For example, because of privacy concerns, academics may not use Google Docs, Skype, Dropbox or similar tools in some institutions, according to Peters. The trouble is that no alternative tools exist. “We thus need a regulation and infrastructure to be able to fully embrace the possibilities offered by science 2.0,” Peters holds. Indeed, respondents to the recent EC public consultation on Science 2.0 had similar requests. Open access mandate There are also problems associated with mandates for open access. While experts generally support the idea that publicly funded research should be openly available, they consider the effects of the so-called gold route to open access as a threat to academic freedom. This route of publishing levies article-processing charges for each paper published. In Karran’s view there is a danger that articles that are “worthy of publication” may not be published because of lacking economic resources. There is also a risk that other criteria than scientific rigour may determine what is published. Moreover, “it is an essential part of academic freedom that scholars should be able to publish their result wherever they choose, which literally includes non-open access journals,” says Olsson. Indeed, as soon as a government mandates or prohibits open access this would interfere with academic freedom, an analysis of the German case concludes. But there is more to academic freedom in the digital age. New media are also useful because they allow for documenting and publicising violations of academic freedom online, Olsson holds. In his view, “this potential has not yet been fully realised and appreciated.” In Sweden, Olsson and colleagues set up an Internet platform called Academic Rights Watch (ARW). Their idea was inspired by the organisation FIRE in the United States. Since the start in late 2012, “ARW has documented some sixty violations, including reduced collegial governance and violations of institutional autonomy and freedom of expression,” Olsson says. Clearly, academics need to re-think what academic freedom means in the age of Science 2.0. However, the extend to which academics embrace new tools and engage in debate often depends on the country and the discipline, Peters stresses. She also holds that one should not overstate the case. “These media are really new. We do not know yet where they will take us." She concludes: "We need to be patient." Photo credit: Charis Tsevis

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

The brave new worlds of crowdfunding science By Arran Frood Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com Crowdfunding, goes beyond the reach of traditional funding

Citizen’s interest in research is gaining momentum. In some cases, it translates as a direct involvement of citizens in research projects. In other cases, initiatives allowing citizens’ participation in science policy through Science Shops— a concept originated in the Netherlands in the 1970s—has flourished more recently in Germany alongside other initiatives. Similar ones also exist in France. But taking part in research—which sometimes involves mundane tasks— or deciding where the research priorities lie do not satisfy everyone. Some people would rather fund research directly. As a result, crowfunding for research is maturing. No longer the domain of quirky promises—say, to make a potato salad—crowdfunding now specifically caters for science projects. Several websites are going from strength to strength, including Europe-wide Public Lab, Science Starter in Germany, Walacea in the UK and Experiment in the USA, to name only a few. A defining aspect of Science 2.0, crowdfunding is increasingly considered as an alternative funding source for research projects. But this raises the question of what traditional government-financed funders will do in response to the growth in crowdfunders. Will they soon be in competition for scientists’ services? Or could each side’s funding models evolve so that the two are complementary to each other, learning and adopting better practices for better science?

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

Bottom-up approach Crowdfunding is now big business. A framework report from the European Crowdfunding Network estimates that €2.2 billion will be raised globally by crowdfunding platforms in 2012—up 80% from €1.2 billion in 2011. And considering all types of crowdfunding, Europe raised around more than €300 million; that is one third of the world market in 2011. At these rates of increase, some believe, it will not be long before total crowdfunding amounts in science approach those offered by the research councils of some European states. It is notable too, that the same report states that “European, national and local legislators and policy makers should join forces to establish crowdfunding-enabling legislation in Europe.” This points to the involvement of traditional funders. “There is lots of potential for country-based traditional funders to work with the emerging crowdfunding organisations,” says Stephan Kuster, head of policy at Science Europe, an association of 50 European research funding and performing organisations based in Brussels, Belgium. However, he adds that it is probably too soon for policy-makers to begin formulating strategies for funders to work with crowdfunders. “We are looking at this within the broader landscape of Open Science or Science 2.0,” he says. “We are not developing strategies or policies at this time. What crowdfunding needs now is not top-down policies, but the space to grow and really show its benefits for specific types of science and societal benefit.” Unconventional studies One of the reasons that crowdfunding platforms have flourished, is their ability to handle risk, according to Denny Luan, co-founder of Experiment. “What [these large funders] can't do well is stomach risk,” he says. He adds: “This is plainly evident if you look at recent trends of what's getting funded: lower-risk, longer term projects, given to older scientists. It's inefficient, risk-averse, and often times political.” However, he says because of crowdfunding platforms interest and curiosity are growing, costs are falling, and the future of science is bright. “We're hoping to create something that [makes it possible] for more independent science to be done and shared openly.” As a result, crowdfunding projects are able to fund science that might be too controversial for major funders to back, like with powerful hallucinogen LSD for example. The first human brain imaging study to investigate LSD and creativity will be performed by scientists from Imperial college London, UK, using crowdfunding platform Walacea. The public call for crowd funds was an instant hit, reaching its goal of £25,000 (€34,000) in just 48 hours and going on to double it. They had 1,628 backers from more than 50 countries, with people from almost every European country pitching in donations from £5 to 10,000. What makes this study even more remarkable is that the team that will perform the LSD experiments undertake similar studies funded by regular, government-funded agencies, in this case the UK’s Medical Research Council. “Colleagues are watching with interest,” says Neuropharmacologist David Nutt at Imperial College London who is leading the LSD study. "Although at present the amounts are too small for them to get too excited." Crowds can also back research that might not have an immediate financial return, or any likely return at all. Many scientists across Europe are lamenting the loss of funds for true ‘blue skies’ research. This results from pressure from politicians in the austerity era which swings funding towards shorter-term ‘impact’-related studies. Here, the crowd can fill in the gaps. Strategic funding On the other hand, traditional funders are supreme when it comes to bigger projects with a strategic vision. Large bodies like the European Research Council (ERC) and its US counterparts, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or National Institute of Health (NIH), will always have a place in science for funding big projects and infrastructure. This is the case of Elixir, the pan-European research infrastructure for biological information, or the much-maligned Human Brain Project.

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

In theory, crowd and conventional funders would make odd bedfellows, with potential for conflict around necessity or strategic focus as the financial klout of the crowd grows. But does it need to be that way? Kuster thinks there are various possibilities for the two to get on. And they could even complement and learn from each other. He suggests that conventional research councils could use some of the crowd’s wisdom to approve studies already marked up as containing scientific merit by their panels. Thus reducing the burden of peer review on scientists they must recruit to panels. But crowdfunded projects do not necessarily have to miss out on more long-term strategic aims. “Crowdfunding can provide important seed money for pilot studies, which can be continued by conventional funders,” says Ede Frecska, professor of psychiatry at the University of Debrecen, Hungary. He has appealed to the crowd to support in vitro research on DMT, a hallucinogen used in South American shamanic plant brew ayahuasca; the only known psychedelic found naturally in the human body. Crowdfunding could work well too, he believes, in cases where the project passes the review and the budget is deflated by the crowdfunding cash.

Partnered funding In turn, crowdfunders could utilise a more strategic approach, by suggesting a series of studies rather than single projects to the crowd; and ones that fitted the long term objectives of research councils. That could work if funders were willing to offer matching funding to projects that suited their remits, €100,000 from the crowd and the same from the European Research Council, for example. Studies could then be launched with long-term objectives, adequate funding, and the blessing of the masses. Working with research councils in this way appeals to Walacea founder Natalie Jonk. “I would like to work with the UK Research Councils,” she says, adding that she feels she needs a few more successes before approaching them. Ideal partners, Jonk points out, are universities, which are excellent places for crowd projects. This is because infrastructure already exists in terms of everything from equipment and expertise to communications and public engagement. “I want universities to have processes for scientists who want to crowdfund. It just needs to be coordinated,” says Jonk. Charities could also benefit from such approach. Jonk has already aligned some of Walacea’s projects with smaller funding charities, which could scale up into larger collaborations. They have pending projects with Automimmune Alopecia Research UK. Another charitable sector player, the Beckley Foundation, which supports and develops both research and policy work related to prohibited drugs, co-funded the Imperial LSD study. “Since we had a great response to our LSD campaign, which shows the widespread interest of the public in the topic, I am already exploring other projects, such as researching the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis on brain and breast cancer,” says Beckley Foundation founder Amanda Feilding, based in Oxfordshire, UK. Crowd monies on the rise Most conventional funders contacted by EuroScientist, including the ERC, do not yet have plans or policies for working with crowdfunders. But Germany's Science Starter is making moves. Launched in late 2012, it is a platform run by non-profit science public engagement organisation Wissenschaft im Dialog (WiD; science in dialogue). It is backed by all major scientific organisations in Germany and has partnerships with a number of philanthropic foundations, according to Markus Weißkopf, WiD managing director. He says that the grants are usually €500 to €38,000 and target young scientists who want to realise smaller, unconventional projects. Although there have been no concrete actions at this point, Weißkopf points out that it is already common practice for crowdfunded cultural and artistic projects to be backed by conventional funders via like-for-like funding. “At Science Starter we are now aiming to open up for this kind of funding after this ‘initial phase’ since 2012,” he says. Likewise, across the pond in the US, Luan says they are about to announce a partnership with a large and significant body in the country, but that they are not partnering with big funders yet. “We're still growing our community, improving the product and platform for scientists,” he says. “We are tackling the long-tail of science, the interesting

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0

22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com

and worthwhile questions that get overlooked because they are interdisciplinary, or led by young investigators, or simply unfunded because of budget constraints.” To be continued It is difficult not to admire the pioneering spirit that crowdfunding enthusiasts bring to the table. And they are right that their funding mechanisms can support projects that the big funders miss. Crowdfunding can also increase interest and engagement between scientists and the public. And unlike taxpayer-supported science, no-one has to pay for something they do not believe in; a feature that would make crowdfunding shy away from more controversial areas of research such as GM crops or shale gas extraction. Both sides have things to learn from the other. In the not too distant future, some crowdfunders will want to upscale and show that they can add strategic focus to their missions to get best value and maximum impact from the crowd’s cash. Conventional funders should offer matching funds that suit their priorities, and at the least should streamline their peer review systems and open up their decision making by adopting elements of crowd-centric dynamics. The future could, and should, be a symbiotic world of collaboration between the two funding mechanisms. Together, they will take us to wonderful new worlds. Photo credit: microvector via Shutterstock

Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0