Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
(except logo’s)
Small steps, big opportunities Changing research workflows and the need to move from Open Access to Open Science
Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman Open Acces Week 2015 meeting, Brussels, October 21, 2015
@MsPhelps@jeroenbosman
Support of Open Access / Open Science
Do you support the goal of Open Access ?
89 %
5 %
5 %
90 %
7 %
3 %
Do you support the goal of Open Science ?
Simple cyclic model of the research workflow
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing and application
Iterations of search and reading
Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments and measurements
Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing and application
Iterations of search and reading
Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments and measurements
A multi-cyclic, multi-orderedmodel of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing and application
Iterations of search and reading
Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments and measurements
A multi-cyclic, multi-orderedmodel of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing and application
Iterations of search and reading
Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments and measurements
Three goals for science & scholarship (G-E-O)
• declaring competing interests• replication & reproducibility• meaningful assessment• effective quality checks• credit where it is due• no fraud, plagiarism
• connected tools & platforms• no publ. size restrictions• null result publishing• speed of publication• (web)standards, IDs• semantic discovery• re-useability• versioning
open peer review •open (lab)notes •
plain language •open drafting •
open access •CC-0/BY •
good
efficient open
technical changes & standards
research governance
changes
economic & copyright
changes
researcher
funder
publisher
public
government library
20 minutes of high speed group action!
• groups of 8-10 people, find your corner of the room or walk out of the room
• put you two cents on the 1 development you think is the most important for science, on your own paper sheet
• now tick the same one on the group sheet• discuss your choices, also try to relate this to what you see
happing in your own field/position and what you like to see happening
2005
2010
Discovery
Analysis
WritingPublication
Out
reac
h
Assessm
ent
Example research workflows 1: traditional and innovative
Innovative
Example research workflows 2:Elsevier
?Elsevier
Example research workflows 3:Open Science
Open Science
Survey: scholarly communication tools
Survey results: Researcher profiles
others
MyScienceWork
ResearcherID
Academia.edu
Profile page at own institution
ORCID
Google Scholar Citations
ResearchGate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
PhD student / Postdoc / Faculty (n=3481)
Survey results: Altmetrics’ share
Compare yourself to your peer group
“ The move away from centralized, expensive, and bad-for-science publishers to a more open, institution/government-funded self-regulating
peer review system ”
“ good ”
Thank you !101innovations.wordpress.com
