open-scholarship-strategy / site Goto Github PK

Not sure how the group feels about this?

I suggest to mention for the sort term strategy at lab/department level to start discussions towards an implicit or explicit (shared) open science pledge or code of conduct for the lab.

On the institutional level it is important to from the start engage communication departments and research assessment officials. Organize sessions to tell them about open science and be sensitive to the fact that it may imply they change their entire view of what is important in science and what their role could be.

In the section:

"Availability of Open Scholarship charters and declarations.
This ever-growing range of high-level statements in support of openness (typically Open Access) offers internally consistent sets of goals and actions that are result of a lot of thinking and discussing."

You could link to the overview of charters available at: http://tinyurl.com/scholcomm-charters

Now that the framework is up in public, looking great, would it make sense to finish not with the Threats section, but with a much more future-looking, aspirational call to action?

The whole thing has to be initially converted to either US or UK English. Any preferences from folks here?

It think that in focusing on the individual-lab-institutional-national-international hierarchy of decision making levels we need to add other perspectives, especially ones that connect the lower levels (individual/lab) internationally.

One reason is that culturally determined aspects of open science should be discussed at the field level, e.g. during international conferences.

Another reason is that you can create forces of learning, support and change by having international communities of open science practising researchers etc, because together the have the best insight into real life barriers and how to overcome them and they can create new realities that the national and institutional levels then have to include in their decision making.

If we ignore these, then individuals and labs will feel on their own or may take approach of waiting for the institutions and national levels bodies to tell them what to do.

For the current version of the doc I suggest to at least mention the importance of international coalitions/communities of the lower levels for learning and sharing knowledge of OS practices, especially in varying cultural settings.

This is a very thorough, detailed document that covers many aspects of open scholarship. I would argue that it deserves a summary, ideally one, but certainly no more than two pages of what short term actions stakeholders should strive towards. This could, e.g., be done by first ranking the lists in the very first section according to priority and then formulate the first three in each category to form a one page document.

Of course, this carries the risk of nobody reading further than this page. It would need to be discussed if this is a risk worth taking.

Think to e.g., the BITSS preprint platform.

@Protohedgehog Jon, I think you mentioned someone doing a translation of this to Spanish, right? I'm currently working on a German version - how would you like to have these implemented? atm, I'm simply working in a separate folder that mirrors the original structure but with German text...

Hi all,

Just enquiring if anyone has write access to this repository and/or is planning to continue development, now that Jon Tennant has sadly passed. It would be a shame to see all his hard work go to waste, but then I wasn't following this repo closely and not sure where it's at. Are people still contributing to this project, or are there elements that should be salvaged? At the very least I'd like to continue work on the communication strategy as I'm planning to use this for Project Free Our Knowledge, but if no one else is interested, I can just move that file to the Project FOK repository and continue work there. Let me know,

@brembs @Matherion @tosteiner @lmatthia @cMadan

As @Protohedgehog pointed out in an email, it would be good if the table of contents (TOC) was a sidebar and stayed visible.

I can work on this, with the idea of changing the template a bit. My current plan would be to use this:

• https://mmistakes.github.io/minimal-mistakes/about/ (see TOC on the right)
• https://shaharkadmiel.github.io/Sticky-TOC-Sidebar/

I'm inclined to make the sidebar be on the left, but otherwise generally following that template and 'fix' it to be sticky.

Does anyone know of a better way to visualise the content? It's a bit of a long static page at the moment. Just something like having the table of contents stuck to the sidebar might be useful.

I find that the short term individual strategy misses reuse/contribute/help practices that are essential to create a thriving open science culture. Suggestions to include (but not limit to):

• instead of creating your own data, search for existing data you can reuse
• leave constructive comments/annotations on preprints/code etc
• help answer questions in Ask Open Science, Stack Overflow and on Twitter
• react positively to requests for open review

In the document I miss references of the dangers of not being open to the limitations of openness. In the section on challenges for the community regarding language and appearance I would include:

Enthusiasm for openness carries the danger of not being receptive to critique or not acknowledging that there are situations where the standard open practices have dangers. This may relate to privacy but also to data that being open could be captured by governments for surveillance or by companies for corporate interests (think data on indigenous plants, data showing how local groups or environmental groups work etc.). It also relates to being open to critique regarding the dangers of platform based economies and unequal relation in research cooperations.

The bullet in section 4.2 is now out of date because there is one clinical preprint from pharma. It also looks odd to talk only about preprints. I have therefore given a little more context about the industry and some brief text about changes in open access, ORCID and preprints.
2018-07-30 Open Scholarship Framework input from Tim.zip

The document lists as principles: participation, equality, transparency, cognitive justice, collaboration, sharing, equity, and inclusivity. I would say these are values and not so much principles. If you have these values your can make them into principles for something by making them part of statements.

Thus, I would suggest to call them core values rather than principles.

Under threats (barriers to open access adoption) I would mention that that still is a lack of (an overview of) (high profile) role models for all practices in all fields. Such an overview would make it easier to respond to the "we do not do that in our field" statements.

2 quick things 1) link to metric tide and call for next generation metrics + open citations are missing? 2) need for best practice stories and role models in near term goals is missing.

https://twitter.com/katja_mat

On the first public draft, a bullet is duplicated in section 7.1:

Overcoming the misconception that Open Scholarship is anti-commercial and demonstrating a return on investment (e.g., Balasegaram et al., 2017; Hakoum et al., 2017).

Overcoming the misconception that Open Scholarship is anti-commercial/demonstrating return on investment (e.g., Balasegaram et al., 2017; Hakoum et al., 2017).

Not sure why the images aren't showing up on the website, being broken links instead.. https://open-scholarship-strategy.github.io/site/

note to self - update German translation to reflect the most recent changes

Note to self, and to update links in strategy to point to new versions.

Hi Jon, hi all,

since I'm currently meddling around with the translation over here, I was wondering how we're going about the second release that we announce for the end of this year...

Do you guys think there's more changes needed, do we want to forward this to anyone interested in reviewing/adding stuff, etc ...?

Maybe divided into sections:

1. Papers etc referenced
2. Tools/services mentioned

I notice that there are many assumptions and radical simplifications where it concerns behavior change.

Human behavior and the psychology from which that behavior originated are complex; there are no simple tricks or solutions (although Ted talks might easily give that impression). Basically, it's tempting to think that as a human, as a scientist, you can constructively think about why researchers do or do not adopt Open Scholarship practices/policies; but you can't (see also https://sciencer.eu/2017/08/when-wishful-thinking-kills-the-tragic-consequences-of-misplaced-faith-in-introspection/).

I think that it would be good to implement this, but since it would basically mean a rewrite of the last bit (e.g. the 'resistance to change' section, but also those preceding it), I thought it would be better to open an issue.

One general model that can be useful in exploring the relevant factors is shown here. Note that this is not a theory as much as a way to structure things you have to think about; but still useful.

Many so-called 'determinants' (psychological variables that may or may not be relevant in a given context) have been identified, as well as many methods for targeting those (see e.g. this list), and there is a protocol for developing interventions for behavior change (Intervention Mapping). Using all this theory (and then not proceeding to first producing evidence) seems a bit of a waste, maybe?