Search

In advance of the Recognizing Preprint Peer Review meeting in December 2022, ASAPbio convened two Working Groups of different stakeholders to articulate the added value of incorporating preprint review into assessment processes, catalog potential uses of preprint review as part of assessment processes, develop working definitions for preprint review according to the needs of different stakeholders and discuss how policies and processes may be updated to incorporate preprint review. This report outlines the recommendations developed by the Working Group involving representatives of journals and preprint review projects.

Poster presented at the 2023 Metascience conference. Abstract: Sharing research data in repositories is considered best practice as it supports the FAIR principles but most researchers share data by other methods. To incentivise repository use the scientific publisher PLOS introduced 2 solutions: Dryad repository integration with our manuscript submission system and an "Accessible Data" icon (badge) added to articles that link to data in a repository. Dryad integration use was below expectations (~2% of authors). Common reasons for not using it were lack of awareness, data already uploaded elsewhere, concerns about others using the data and lack of time. ~3500 articles received the Accessible Data icon, which was clicked by readers more than 12,000 times within the first 9 months of the experiment. Despite moderately high awareness (69%), those aware of the feature weren’t more likely to share data in a repository, although some felt this feature made shared data more prominent and would help normalize the practice. Supporting data:10.6084/m9.figshare.22762469

Co-producing scientific research with those who are affected by it is an emerging phenomenon in contemporary science. This article summarizes and reflects on both the process and outcome of a novel experiment to co-develop scientific research proposals in the field of Open Innovation in Science (OIS), wherein scholars engaged in the study of open and collaborative practices collaborated with the ���users��� of their research, i.e., scientists who apply such practices in their own research. The resulting co-developed research proposals focus on scientific collaboration, open data, and knowledge sharing and are available as an appendix to this article., CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 2 (2021)

Scholars across disciplines increasingly hear calls for more open andcollaborative approaches to scientific research. The concept of OpenInnovation in Science (OIS) provides a framework that integratesdispersed research efforts aiming to understand the antecedents,contingencies, and consequences of applying open and collaborativeresearch practices. While the OIS framework has already been taken upby science of science scholars, its conceptual underpinnings requirefurther specification. In this essay, we critically examine the OIS conceptand bring to light two key aspects: 1) how OIS builds upon OpenInnovation (OI) research by adopting its attention to boundary-crossingknowledge flows and by adapting other concepts developed andresearched in OI to the science context as exemplified by two OIS casesin the area of research funding; 2) how OIS conceptualises knowledgeflows across boundaries. While OI typically focuses on well-definedorganizational boundaries, we argue that blurry and even invisibleboundaries between communities of practice may more stronglyconstrain flows of knowledge related to openness and collaboration inscience. Given the uptake of this concept, this essay brings neededclarity to the meaning of OIS, which has no particular normativeorientation toward a close coupling between science and industry. Weend by outlining the essay’s contributions to OI and the science ofscience, as well as to science practitioners.

Labour of Love. An Open Access Manifesto for Freedom, Integrity, and Creativity in the Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences, is the result of an LSE Research Infrastructure and Investment–funded workshop entitled Academic Freedom, Academic Integrity and Open Access in the Social Sciences, organised by Andrea E. Pia and held at the London School of Economics on September 9, 2019., Un acto de amor. Un Manifiesto de Acceso Abierto por la Libertad, la Integridad y la Creatividad en las Humanidades y las Ciencias Sociales Interpretativas, es el resultado de un taller financiado por la Infraestructura de Investigación y la Inversión de la LSE, titulado Academic Freedom, Academic Integrity and Open Access in the Social Sciences, organizado por Andrea E. Pia y celebrado en la London School of Economics el 9 de septiembre de 2019.

Opening up research data has been linked to a host of benefits, not only for the science system but also for broader processes of economic and social innovation. This is why policymakers and funders have taken steps to promote open data and, more recently, data that is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). Yet the positive impacts of open/FAIR data can only be realized if such data, once shared, is actually reused. With practices of data citation still in their infancy, reliable measures of the extent and nature of research data reuse remain elusive; too often, it is simply assumed that once a baseline set of conditions are met, reuse will automatically follow. While scholarly studies of reuse practices are becoming more common, they often limit themselves to specific disciplinary contexts and rarely consider business or societal reusers. Efforts to build more general models (e.g., Kim and Yoon 2017) have tended to ground themselves in psychological theories of planned behavior, which emphasize the interplay of attitudes and norms but say little about their formation. As a result, the dynamic, affectively charged process by which different groups of social actors come to see themselves as data reusers is not well understood. Our exploratory qualitative study draws on an extensive literature review as well as interviews with 26 research data reusers and facilitators, which were transcribed and systematically coded. Our findings confirm the importance for reuse of enabling factors such as suitability for purpose, trust, data characteristics (including FAIRness), and capabilities, which we take to include skills, support by data stewards, and infrastructure usability. But our study breaks new ground by drawing on theories of scientific subjectification (Sigl 2019), which focus on the development of particular forms of self-understanding. We argue that this subjectification stage is a precondition for other factors to become relevant in enabling data reuse, as well as a passage point for broader open science advocacy. These results have concrete implications for open science researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. Researchers may want to undertake qualitative studies of specific subjectification contexts such as trainings and mentoring relationships, as well as quantitative studies of the relative strength of individual, interpersonal, and organizational dynamics. Infrastructure providers and other facilitators need to see these subjectification contexts as integral to their strategies for promoting reuse. Finally, while research organizations and policymakers can encourage data reuse through formal structures of evaluation, they should also socialize these structures by identifying and supporting “data communities” (Cooper and Springer 2019) within which the work of subjectification increasingly takes place.