DOCSLIB.ORG

Systematic Examination of Preprint Platforms for Use in the Medical and Biomedical Sciences Setting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Systematic Examination of Preprint Platforms for Use in the Medical and Biomedical Sciences Setting Open access Original research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 on 29 December 2020. Downloaded from Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham ,1 Naomi C Penfold ,2 Fiona Murphy,3 Isabelle Boutron,4 John P Ioannidis,5 Jessica Polka,2 David Moher 6 To cite: Kirkham JJ, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Penfold NC, Murphy F, et al. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify all Systematic examination of preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope ► We developed robust methodology for systemat- preprint platforms for use in and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and the medical and biomedical ically identifying relevant preprint platforms and policies of these platforms. sciences setting. BMJ Open involved platform owners/representatives wherever Study design and setting Preprint platforms that were 2020;10:e041849. doi:10.1136/ possible to verify data. launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and bmjopen-2020-041849 ► We undertook an internal pilot of developing and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection testing out the data collection form in collaboration ► Prepublication history and criteria were identified using existing lists, web- based with a preprint platform owner and funders. supplemental material for this searches and the expertise of both academic and non- paper is available online. To ► For platforms that had a partner journal and without academic publication scientists. A data extraction form view these files, please visit verification, it was sometimes unclear if the policy was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from the journal online (http:// dx. doi. information related to the journal, preprint platform each preprint platform’s webpage(s). org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2020- or both. 041849). Results A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified ► We provide a searchable database as a valuable re- as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) source for researchers, funders and policy-makers Received 18 June 2020 were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint in the biomedical and medical science field to deter- Revised 27 August 2020 infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research mine which preprint platforms are relevant to their Accepted 18 September 2020 (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) research scope and which have the functionality and were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint policies that they value most. platforms were either owned by non- profit academic ► We plan to update this searchable database period- groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; ically to include any new relevant preprint platforms http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 64%), owned/partly owned by for- profit publishers or and to amend any changes in policy. companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%). Twenty- four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding to ‘claim’ priority of discovery of a research source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit. finding; this can be particularly useful for Thirty- three (75%) preprint platforms provided details early- career researchers in a highly compet- about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of itive research environment. Some preprint these actively involved researchers with context expertise platforms provide digital object identifier on September 24, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms (DOIs) for each included manuscript. This allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following information can be included in grant appli- publication, have a preservation plan for read access and cations. Indeed, progressive granting agen- most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and cies are recommending applicants include the sustainability of the service. preprints in their applications (eg, National Conclusion A large number of preprint platforms exist 1 for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which Institutes of Health (NIH, USA) and in the offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate UK, preprints are becoming recognised as their research findings onto an open- access public server, eligible outputs in the Research Excellence © Author(s) (or their subject to scope and eligibility. Framework exercise which assesses institu- employer(s)) 2020. Re- use 2 permitted under CC BY. tional research performance. Published by BMJ. Preprints have been widely used in the phys- For numbered affiliations see INTRODUCTION ical sciences since the early 1990s, and with end of article. A preprint is an non- peer- reviewed scientific the creation of the repository of electronic manuscript that authors can upload to a public articles, arXiv, over 1.6 million preprints or Correspondence to Professor Jamie J Kirkham; preprint platform and make available almost accepted/published manuscripts have been 3 jamie. kirkham@ manchester. immediately without formal external peer deposited on this platform alone. Since ac. uk review. Posting a preprint enables researchers September 2003, arXiv has supported the Kirkham JJ, et al. BMJ Open 2020;10:e041849. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 1 Open access BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 on 29 December 2020. Downloaded from sharing of quantitative biology preprints under the q-bio METHODS category. The use of preprints in biomedical sciences Preprint platform identification is increasing, leading to the formation of the scientist- A preliminary list of potentially relevant preprint plat- driven initiative Accelerating Science and Publication forms was identified using Martyn Rittman’s original list12 in biology (ASAPbio) to promote their use.4 A preprint and extended using a basic Google web search using the platform dedicated to life science-related research search term ‘preprint’ and the knowledge of the Steering (bioRxiv) founded in 2013 has already attracted nearly Group (study authors). Additional preprint platforms 80 000 preprints.5 This platform was set up to capture that were launched up to 25 June 2019 were included. science manuscripts from all areas of biology, however, medRxiv was launched in June 2019 to provide a dedi- Preprint platform selection cated platform and processes for preprints in medicine We included any preprint platform that has biomedical or and health related sciences6 and it already hosts over medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection 3400 preprints, becoming particularly popular with criteria.13 Generally this covers: ‘(manuscripts) predom- COVID-19. The Center for Open Science (COS)7 has inantly devoted to reporting original investigations in also developed web infrastructure for these new ‘Rxiv’ the biomedical and health sciences, including research (pronounced ‘archive’) services,8 while F1000 Research in the basic sciences; clinical trials of therapeutic agents; has provided instances of its postpublication peer review effectiveness of diagnostic or therapeutic techniques; or and publishing platform for use by several funders (eg, studies relating to the behavioural, epidemiological or Wellcome Trust) and research institutions to encourage educational aspects of medicine.’ preprint- first research publishing.9 Recently, several large We aimed to be overinclusive such that preprint plat- publishers (Springer Nature, Wiley, Elsevier) have devel- forms that hosted work within the above MEDLINE oped, codeveloped or acquired preprint platforms or definition of scope among a broader scope (such as ‘all services, and in April 2020, SciELO launched a preprint physical, chemical and life sciences’) were included. For platform that works with Open Journal Systems.10 Many inclusion, the platforms primary focus needed to act as other preprint platforms also support dissemination of a preprint platform rather than a more general reposi- biomedical and medical sciences within their broader tory where preprints might be incidentally deposited. multidisciplinary platforms. Platforms were included without any language restric- Given the increase in the use and profile of preprint tions on the content accepted for posting. Eligibility of platforms, it is increasingly important to identify how preprint platforms was arrived at in discussion with two many such platforms exist and to understand how they authors (JJK and NCP) and independently approved by operate in relation to policies and practices important the Steering Group. Preprint platforms were excluded for for dissemination. With this aim in mind, we conduct a any of the following reasons: they were no longer active review to identify all preprint platforms that have biomed- (as of 25 June 2019); they were print only or had no web- http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ ical and medical science scope and contrast them in terms presence (‘offline’); their primary function was classed as of their unique characteristics (eg, scope of the preprint, a general purpose repository with no exclusive preprint preprint ownership) and policies (eg, administrative functionality. We also excluded service platforms that checking, copyright and licensing). We also provide a only host postprints (after peer review), such as Science searchable repository of the platforms identified so that magazine’s ‘first release’. researchers, funders
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medical Journals Drastically Speed up Their Publication Process for Covid-19
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.18.045963; this version posted April 18, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19 Author Serge P.J.M. Horbach*,1,2 [email protected] +31243652730 ORCID: 0000-0003-0406-6261 *Corresponding author 1 Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculty of Science, Institute for Science in Society, P.O. box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2 Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social Sciences, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 62A, 2333 AL Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract In times of public crises, including the current Covid-19 pandemic, rapid dissemination of relevant scientific knowledge is of paramount importance. The duration of scholarly journals’ publication process is one of the main factors hindering quick delivery of new information. While proper editorial assessment and peer review obviously require some time, turnaround times for medical journals can be up to several months, which is undesirable in the era of a crisis. Following initiatives of medical journals and scholarly publishers to accelerate their publication process, this study assesses whether medical journals have indeed managed to speed up their publication process for Covid-19 related articles. It studies the duration of 14 medical journals’ publication process both during and prior to the current pandemic. Assessing a total of 669 articles, the study concludes that medical journals have indeed drastically accelerated the publication process for Covid-19 related articles since the outbreak of the pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? an Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2
    Journal of Scientometric Res. 2021; 10(1):130-134 http://www.jscires.org Perspective Paper Is Sci-Hub Increasing Visibility of Indian Research Papers? An Analytical Evaluation Vivek Kumar Singh1,*, Satya Swarup Srichandan1, Sujit Bhattacharya2 1Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA. 2CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, INDIA. ABSTRACT Sci-Hub, founded by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011 in Kazakhstan has, over the years, Correspondence emerged as a very popular source for researchers to download scientific papers. It is Vivek Kumar Singh believed that Sci-Hub contains more than 76 million academic articles. However, recently Department of Computer Science, three foreign academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society) have Banaras Hindu University, filed a lawsuit against Sci-Hub and LibGen before the Delhi High Court and prayed for Varanasi-221005, INDIA. complete blocking these websites in India. It is in this context, that this paper attempts to Email id: [email protected] find out how many Indian research papers are available in Sci-Hub and who downloads them. The citation advantage of Indian research papers available on Sci-Hub is analysed, Received: 16-03-2021 with results confirming that such an advantage do exist. Revised: 29-03-2021 Accepted: 25-04-2021 Keywords: Indian Research, Indian Science, Black Open Access, Open Access, Sci-Hub. DOI: 10.5530/jscires.10.1.16 INTRODUCTION access publishing of their research output, and at the same time encouraging their researchers to publish in openly Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become one accessible forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature
    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Availability of Scientific Publications
    Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications* Final Report January 2018 By: Science-Metrix Inc. 1335 Mont-Royal E. ▪ Montréal ▪ Québec ▪ Canada ▪ H2J 1Y6 1.514.495.6505 ▪ 1.800.994.4761 [email protected] ▪ www.science-metrix.com *This work was funded by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSES or the NSF. The analysis for this research was conducted by SRI International on behalf of NSF’s NCSES under contract number NSFDACS1063289. Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. ii Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Preprints in the Spotlight: Establishing Best Practices, Building Trust 1
    ISSUE BRIEF Preprints in the Spotlight Establishing Best Practices, Building Trust May 27, 2020 Oya Y. Rieger Ithaka S+R provides research and Copyright 2020 ITHAKA. This work is strategic guidance to help the licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 academic and cultural communities International License. To view a copy of serve the public good and navigate the license, please see http://creative- economic, demographic, and commons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. technological change. Ithaka S+R is ITHAKA is interested in disseminating part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit this brief as widely as possible. Please organization that works to advance contact us with any questions about using and preserve knowledge and to the report: [email protected]. improve teaching and learning through the use of digital technologies. Artstor, JSTOR, and Portico are also part of ITHAKA. PREPRINTS IN THE SPOTLIGHT: ESTABLISHING BEST PRACTICES, BUILDING TRUST 1 Introduction Preprints have been getting a lot of attention recently. The COVID-19 pandemic—the first major health crisis since medical and biomedical preprints have become widely available online—has further underscored the importance of speedy dissemination of research outcomes. Preprints allow researchers to share results with speed, but raise questions about accuracy, misconduct, and our reliance on the “self-correcting” nature of the scientific enterprise. As scientists and health care professionals, as well as the general public, look for information about the pandemic, preprint services are growing in importance. So too are the policy decisions preprint platform leaders make. Even before the crisis struck, it was clear that 2020 would be a year of reckoning for preprints.
    [Show full text]
  • Consistent Variations in Personality Traits and Their Potential for Genetic Improvement in The
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.21.257881. this version posted August 23, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Consistent variations in personality traits and their potential for genetic improvement in the 2 biocontrol agent Trichogramma evanescens 3 4 Silène Lartiguea,b,c, Myriam Yalaouib, Jean Belliardb, Claire Caravelb, Louise Jeandrozb, 5 Géraldine Groussierb, Vincent Calcagnob, Philippe Louâprec, François-Xavier Dechaume- 6 Moncharmontd, Thibaut Malausab and Jérôme Moreauc, e 7 8 a ENGREF AgroParisTech, Paris, France 9 10 b UMR Institut Sophia Agrobiotech, INRAE, UCA, CNRS, 06903 Sophia Antipolis, France 11 12 c UMR CNRS 6282 Biogéosciences, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 6 Boulevard 13 Gabriel, 21000 Dijon, France 14 15 d Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, ENTPE, UMR 5023 LEHNA, 69622 16 Villeurbanne, France 17 18 e Centre d'Études Biologiques de Chizé, UMR 7372, CNRS & La Rochelle Université, 79360 19 Villiers-en-bois, France 20 21 * Corresponding author: S. Lartigue, UMR Institut Sophia Agrobiotech, INRAE, UCA, 22 CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, France. E-mail address: [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.21.257881. this version posted August 23, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 23 Abstract 24 Improvements in the biological control of agricultural pests require improvements in the 25 phenotyping methods used by practitioners to select efficient biological control agent (BCA) 26 populations in industrial rearing or field conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and Libgen: Could They Be Our New Partners?
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences 2017 IATUL Proceedings Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners? Louis Houle McGill University, [email protected] Louis Houle, "Google Scholar, Sci-Hub and LibGen: Could they be our New Partners?." Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences. Paper 3. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2017/partnership/3 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. GOOGLE SCHOLAR, SCI-HUB AND LIBGEN: COULD THEY BE OUR NEW PARTNERS? Louis Houle McGill University Canada [email protected] Abstract Since its debut I November 2004, librarians have raised several criticisms at Google Scholar (GS) such as its inconsistency of coverage and its currency and scope of coverage. It may have been true in the early years of Google Scholar but is this still through twelve years after? Is this sufficient to ignore it totally either in our information literacy programs or evaluate its value against the values of subscription-based abstracts and indexes? In this era of severe budget constraints that libraries are facing, can we imagine of substituting most or all of our subject databases with the free access of Google Scholar for discoverability? How much overlap between our databases and Google Scholar? How reliable is Google Scholar? How stable is its content over time? Open Access is getting to be the predominant form of getting access to peer reviewed articles. Many new non-traditional tools (institutional repositories, social media and peer to peer sites) are available out there to retrieve the full-text of peer reviewed articles.
    [Show full text]
  • Superresolution Microscopy of the Β-Carboxysome Reveals a Homogeneous Matrix
    Superresolution microscopy of the β-carboxysome reveals a homogeneous matrix The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Niederhuber, Matthew J., Talley J. Lambert, Clarence Yapp, Pamela A. Silver, and Jessica K. Polka. 2017. “Superresolution microscopy of the β-carboxysome reveals a homogeneous matrix.” Molecular Biology of the Cell 28 (20): 2734-2745. doi:10.1091/ mbc.E17-01-0069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E17-01-0069. Published Version doi:10.1091/mbc.E17-01-0069 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34651752 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA M BoC | ARTICLE Superresolution microscopy of the β-carboxysome reveals a homogeneous matrix Matthew J. Niederhubera,b,†, Talley J. Lambertc, Clarence Yappd, Pamela A. Silvera,b, and Jessica K. Polkaa,b,* aDepartment of Systems Biology, cDepartment of Cell Biology, and dImage and Data Analysis Core, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115; bWyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115 ABSTRACT Carbon fixation in cyanobacteria makes a major contribution to the global carbon Monitoring Editor cycle. The cyanobacterial carboxysome is a proteinaceous microcompartment that protects Benjamin S. Glick and concentrates the carbon-fixing enzyme ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygen- University of Chicago ase (RuBisCO) in a paracrystalline lattice, making it possible for these organisms to fix CO2 Received: Jan 30, 2017 from the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploratory Analysis of Publons Metrics and Their Relationship with Bibliometric and Altmetric Impact
    Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact José Luis Ortega Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC), Córdoba, Spain, [email protected] Abstract Purpose: This study aims to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach: In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data (CED). Findings: The results show that (1) there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; (2) metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and (3) correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r<.2) and not significant. Originality/value: This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Keywords: Publons, Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Peer-review 1. Introduction Traditionally, peer-review has been the most appropriate way to validate scientific advances. Since the first beginning of the scientific revolution, scientific theories and discoveries were discussed and agreed by the research community, as a way to confirm and accept new knowledge. This validation process has arrived until our days as a suitable tool for accepting the most relevant manuscripts to academic journals, allocating research funds or selecting and promoting scientific staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science in Archaeology
    Marwick, B. et al. (2017) Open science in archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record, 17(4), pp. 8-14. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/148887/ Deposited on: 29 September 2017 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Open Science in Archaeology Ben Marwick*, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, C. Michael Barton, Lynsey A. Bates, Michael Baxter, Andrew Bevan, Elizabeth A. Bollwerk, R. Kyle Bocinsky, Tom Brughmans, Alison K. Carter, Cyler Conrad, Daniel A. Contreras, Stefano Costa, Enrico R. Crema, Adrianne Daggett, Benjamin Davies, B. Lee Drake, Thomas S. Dye, Phoebe France, Richard Fullagar, Domenico Giusti, Shawn Graham, Matthew D. Harris, John Hawks, Sebastian Heath, Damien Huffer, Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Mark E. Madsen, Jennifer Melcher, Joan Negre, Fraser D. Neiman, Rachel Opitz, David C. Orton, Paulina Przystupa, Maria Raviele, Julien Riel-Salvatore, Philip Riris, Iza Romanowska, Néhémie Strupler, Isaac I. Ullah, Hannah G. Van Vlack, Ethan C. Watrall, Chris Webster, Joshua Wells, Judith Winters, Colin D. Wren * corresponding author, [email protected] Introduction In archaeology, we are accustomed to investing great effort into collecting data from fieldwork, museum collections, and other sources, followed by detailed description, rigorous analysis, and in many cases ending with publication of our findings in short, highly concentrated reports or journal articles. Very often, these publications are all that is visible of this lengthy process, and even then, most of our journal articles are only accessible to scholars at institutions paying subscription fees to the journal publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language
    Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000- 0003-4277-658X Author Affiliation 1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Abstract The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic. Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow. This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code, publications and peer-review. The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]: “Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process”.
    [Show full text]
  • How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? IZA DP No
    IZA DP No. 7024 How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? Daniel Sgroi Andrew J. Oswald November 2012 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave? Daniel Sgroi University of Warwick Andrew J. Oswald University of Warwick and IZA Discussion Paper No. 7024 November 2012 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
    [Show full text]