This document provides the basis for a talk at the University of Vienna on December 3, 2015, which is a contribution to the kickoff event of the Open Science Lecture Series that they are organizing.
The talk was given in German and has been recorded — after a brief introduction by the organizers, it starts at around 7:15 min and is followed by a panel session at around 58 min.
Open research, peer review and the role of funders
CC0/ Public Domain; all kinds of sharing and feedback welcome; attribution appreciated
- Video introduction
- scientists sharing their research with the world as soon as they record it for themselves
- Open Definition
- no limits to the kind of contexts (e.g. academic, non-commercial) in which the shared research can be reused and adapted
- systematic inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge (for the benefit of humanity)
- the collection of information about a particular piece of research that is sufficiently detailed that people (and increasingly machines) trained in this domain of knowledge can interpret and assess this research in light of existing knowledge and past, ongoing or future research
- providing access to the recorded research by means available to the widest possible audience
- with reuse rights as per the Open Definition
- evaluating whether
- the planning, execution and recording of a particular body of research is appropriate to the research subject
- any conclusions drawn from the research are appropriate based on the available records
- the research is novel/ exciting/ buzzword-compliant (often)
- the research addresses problems relevant outside academia (rarely)
- exists for both proposed research (e.g. research grants, or applications for measurement time at research facilities) and performed research (e.g. classical publications, database entries, project reports)
- traditionally non-public, but with a good deal of experimentation lately, especially in the context of scholarly publications
- point in time:
- before drafting
- during drafting
- before submission (to journals, funders, preprint servers, databases, code repositories etc.)
- after submission
- after publication
- mode:
- submissions
- known to reviewers
- known or not to public
- authors
- known or not to reviewers
- known to public after publication
- reviewers
- known or not to authors
- known or not to public after publication
- reviews
- known or not to authors
- known or not to public after publication
- submissions
- point in time:
- National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, USA
- a Federal Agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- the world's largest biomedical research agency
- NIH Mission
- Associate Director for Data Science (ADDS)
- to "provide input to the overall NIH vision and actions undertaken by each of the 27 Institutes and Centers in support of biomedical research as a digital enterprise"
- ADDS website
- cross-disciplinary, e.g.
- field-specific, e.g.
- Bermuda principles for human genome sequencing
- Policy memorandum by John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "direct[ing] Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D expenditures to develop plans to make the results of federally funded research freely available to the public". (Feb 2013)
- SPARC overview of responses (regularly updated)
- Apart from NIH, three agencies so far (AHRQ, NASA, NIST) opted for an approach based on PubMed Central for handling the literature part
- NIH policies on access and sharing
- NSF policy
- several of these agencies envision a "research data commons"
- SPARC overview of responses (regularly updated)
- Executive Order by President Obama: Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information (May 2013)
- Personalized Medicine Initiative
- Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH to be published this week
- UPDATE: report has been published
- Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH to be published this week
- Blue button
- Rehabilitation Act, Section 508
- NIH Public Access Policy (mandatory since April 2008)
- supported by dedicated infrastructure, in particular PubMed Central
- FAQ
- NIH Data Sharing Policy
- A vision for open data at NIH
- The Commons
- Data citation
- Data discoverability
- also for software and other research outputs
- intramural/ extramural
- 27 of them, e.g. the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
- The report on the strategic vision for the National Library of Medicine recommends that NLM should
- "be a leader and innovator in open science efforts worldwide"
- "lead efforts to support and catalyze open science, data sharing, and research reproducibility, striving to promote the concept that biomedical information and its transparent analysis are public"
- and, in particular, "lead efforts to promulgate and implement best practices in open source, open science, standards, and data harmonization, forming partnerships across communities, stakeholder organizations, agencies, and countries" as well as "be an active participant in the design and oversight of programs that incentivize and celebrate the open sharing of data and resources."
- Anyone here ever booked an organized travel? What did your travel agency provide you with?
- Now imagine it's not people that travel, but data.
- Data management plans at NIH
- Ten Simple Rules for Creating a Good Data Management Plan
- OA Compliance Checking for Wellcome Trust
- my notes on data management plans
- What about funders leading the research community by example in terms of being more open in the way they work?
- Open data from funders might help research about research funding.
- Want a grant? First review someone else's proposal
- What would happen if grant reviews were made public?
- A new journal wants to publish your research ideas
- Annotating the scholarly web
- more notes on open research funding
- Rise of the citizen scientist
- Patient-led innovation
- Patient peer review
- E-consent
- Patient data sharing demo
- Open responses to emergencies
- What about using preprints, or thinking of "reviewables" rather than "publications"?
- Encouraging the reuse of public data
- Streams of public events
- Content mining
- Data-driven journalism