[{"id":212,"title":"Donation-Driven Open Science Journal","sha":"5b4a7b0f11a9b4da95d2a1014b7b5c82","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Why should taxpayers and funding agencies pay journal publication fees and open access charges? I propose creating a new open access journal funded entirely through donations and foundation funding. The journal would be administered by a nonprofit. All work for the nonprofit would be strictly voluntary including editing and peer review. Costs would be limited to server hosting. Free services such as Medium and Gitlab/Github would be used as much as possible to keep costs down. In fact, early on, github pages could be used to keep all costs to near $0. If this worked, it could demonstrate the value of open science and open data (if data were required to be open as a condition of publication).","created_at":"2015-08-29T18:57:05.409Z","updated_at":"2016-05-14T05:24:30.799Z","zenodo_id":58449,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.29992","subject":null,"tags":["open science","science communication","scientific journals"],"vote_count":2,"view_count":1,"score":2.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":207,"title":"GeoTag-X: crowdsourced photo analysis for humanitarian crises","sha":"060c0b8f513844e21c7db2f0063c6243","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Photos taken in disaster situations and other humanitarian crises by different people on the ground can potentially be a powerful resource for the response teams. Unfortunately, the manpower needed to process the incredible number of photos coming out of these situations makes this duty impossible for a single organization. Therefore we are turning to the crowd to help us rapidly extract meaningful, relevant and structured data from these photos.\r\n\r\nThis is why we launched the [GeoTag-X platform](http://geotagx.org), which gathers a series of pilot projects covering different disaster related events, asking volunteers to answer some short and strictly structured questions about photos related to each event. \r\n\r\nOur final aim is to have an open source platform, with a set of tools, projects, and methodology that can be taken by anyone working in a humanitarian crisis and quickly and easily adapted to their needs and redeployed.\r\n\r\nGeoTag-X relies almost entirely on volunteers. By actively pursuing an open science methodology GeoTag-X can be flexible and adapt quickly and easily to users’ needs, and volunteers benefit and learn from the process. GeoTag-X code, tools, and methodology is open and accessible via the platform, [GitHub](https://github.com/geotagx), and events. \r\n\r\n[Template for creating GeoTag-X projects](https://github.com/geotagx/geotagx-project-template)\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2015-08-26T09:12:19.846Z","updated_at":"2015-09-29T19:55:30.363Z","zenodo_id":57551,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.29582","subject":null,"tags":["open research accelerator","humanitarian","open science","disasters","open source","crowdsourcing"],"vote_count":2,"view_count":1,"score":2.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":"SimpleGeoTag-X.png","attachment_content_type":"image/png","attachment_file_size":99268,"attachment_updated_at":"2015-08-26T09:12:18.268Z"},{"id":249,"title":"From Budapest via San Francisco to The Hague: a bird's eye view of two dozen scholarly communication charters.","sha":"9e3b861206db81e6aba6b0329ae0a68d","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Idea: speeding up the transition towards a scholarly commons by summarizing and reviewing existing charters and pinpointing where there’s still work to be done.\r\n\r\nScience is in transition. But in what direction, demanded by whom, accepted by whom and realised where and how? This is what we would like to find out in a review of scholarly communication charters, manifestos and roadmaps drawn up over the last 15 years. We have identified some 30 of these charters, from famous ones such as the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to more niche ones such as the Leiden Manifesto on Research Metrics.\r\n \r\nOur idea is to classify these charters according to what part of the research cycle they address, and compare them on their demands and acceptance. Then, we'll try to determine to what extent the demands put forward have been implemented in tools, included in written norms and applied by stakeholders such as research institutions, funders, publishers, libraries, and research evaluation organisations. For this, we propose to collect quantitative impressions available in the literature and on the charter websites. The research will hopefully contribute to priority setting and cooperation by organisations working towards more open, efficient and reproducible science.\r\n","created_at":"2015-10-08T17:24:12.486Z","updated_at":"2020-08-09T00:09:46.472Z","zenodo_id":63930,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.31943","subject":null,"tags":["charters","scholarly communication","open science","research cycle"],"vote_count":3,"view_count":1,"score":3.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":1152,"title":"Open access publishing and public literacy in human nutrition ","sha":"9ad01ba771127bee3986a7327b5b953b","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Open Access (OA) publishing is widely recognized as a critical resource for the advancement of scientific progress. The attention in biomedical research regarding OA is testified by the adherence of the World Health Organization (WHO) OA policy to the principles of the Plan S initiative whereby “from 2021, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms” (https://www.coalition-s.org/). As we highlighted by querying the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database, more than half of the scientific papers (articles, review articles, editorial materials, early access papers and letters; access date August 22, 2023) regarding general and internal medicine (81.4%) and research and experimental medicine (74.2%) have been published OA in the period January 1, 2021 – July 31, 2023. Concerning the specific subfield of human nutrition and dietetics, we observed a situation in line with this trend (62% of papers published OA) for the same period. This vast availability of scientific information is undoubtedly crucial for the researchers’ work, but less effective to incentivize public literacy in human nutrition. Unfortunately, the general public finds more attractive the nutrition content disseminated on websites and social networks, often scientifically inconsistent but easier to read than the academic papers (Capocasa and Venier 2023; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-023-03228-3).\r\n   ","created_at":"2023-08-24T08:56:10.776Z","updated_at":"2023-11-16T08:14:08.586Z","zenodo_id":8280506,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8280506","subject":null,"tags":["open access","open science","human nutrition","medicine"],"vote_count":2,"view_count":1,"score":2.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":836,"title":"Benefits of publishing power analysis reports","sha":"4582e686fa9babba50605ebf45471fc0","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"I propose that a lack of opportunities for publishing \"power analysis reports\" may be a gap worth addressing in scientific publishing. Scientific journals offering a \"power analysis report\" article type could have a number of benefits:\r\n\r\n1 - It would provide a suitable outlet for well-conducted power analyses (that often require a large investment of time and expertise) that have led to required sample sizes not feasible for the authors to achieve on their own, that may otherwise never be made public. Research waste could be reduced as power analysis reports could  \r\ninform other researchers and research funders on appropriate sample sizes and could stimulate large collaborations. \r\n\r\n2 - It may provide incentive to avoid \"power analysis hacking\" to reach a desirable sample size, both acutely (the well conducted power analysis can be published if the study cannot be conducted) and chronically (increased awareness and the number of published, high quality power analysis reports within the field may reduce the ease of publishing studies with a poorly or nefariously conducted power analysis).\r\n\r\n3 - It would draw more attention to the value of well-conducted power analysis within the field of the journal.\r\n\r\n4 (overlapping with 1-3) - It would provide researchers on temporary contracts certain reassurance in knowing that time invested in a well-conducted power analysis could result in a publication of scientific merit on its own.\r\n\r\nSelf-publishing power analysis reports could, and perhaps should, already be done, but this potentially lacks visibility that an article type at a journal would provide within the relevant field.","created_at":"2021-03-04T21:29:00.280Z","updated_at":"2021-05-21T06:01:19.698Z","zenodo_id":4775072,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4775072","subject":null,"tags":["power analysis","sample size","statistical power","scientific publishing","open science"],"vote_count":0,"view_count":1,"score":0.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":1089,"title":"A Participatory Platform for Addressing Knowledge Gaps on Wikimedia projects in an Open-Science Fashion","sha":"cab8754c68b586c2713deee4f1079ddb","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"I propose to create a virtual research environment with the mission to address knowledge gaps in Wikimedia projects in a transparent and participatory fashion. Research undertaken through this environment would be organized in an open-by-default fashion, through dedicated projects continuously documented in public that welcome constructive edits, feedback and other forms of collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Such a facility would complement existing quality control workflows on the platforms,  strengthen the way in which they could leverage relevant expertise, and enrich the open research landscape with a somewhat universal edit button. It would connect Wikimedia projects with ongoing research pertaining to these knowledge gaps, thereby broadening the scope for both participation in such research and for spillovers into education, while maintaining the community-driven approach and commitment to transparency that has made Wikimedia so successful. This translates into using participatory community processes to define, identify and prioritize knowledge gaps and research needs as well as suitable governance and collaboration mechanisms. The approach can be piloted with knowledge gaps already identified by the Wikimedia community or in expert-led analyses of Wikimedia content. Likewise, the pilot would initially be using existing Wikimedia infrastructures, which can already support many digital research workflows. ","created_at":"2023-03-24T10:42:16.760Z","updated_at":"2023-06-09T02:09:45.063Z","zenodo_id":8019257,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8019257","subject":null,"tags":["participatory platform","knowledge gaps","wikimedia projects","open science","virtual research environment","quality control","collaboration","transparency"],"vote_count":1,"view_count":1,"score":1.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":1134,"title":"Open science and open government: where fairness does not always apply to its governance","sha":"b5afb5f4cff7317133a9a6688bc5838b","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Although the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability, stakeholders' participation, as well as participation and collaboration, are shared by both the open government and open science paradigms, referring to these practices often excludes relevant actors who are crucial for their successful implementation, leaving responsibility only to some institutions or researchers. This limitation poses challenges in finding the implementation, by example, of FAIR principles in government regulations documents or in documents that establish guidelines for science and research evaluation. Additionally, it isn't easy to locate the use of persistent indicators in these documents or to find well-declared data of a funding foundation associated with the corresponding persistent indicator designed to identify it. The practitioners fail to apply the principles they advocate for, reflecting a lack of alignment and coordination between institutions that promote these paradigms. To better understand the adoption of open science, could enrich our understanding to know how educational institutions and their governing bodies are organized and interconnected to foster the widespread adoption of these practices.","created_at":"2023-06-22T23:25:24.309Z","updated_at":"2023-06-29T06:00:09.362Z","zenodo_id":8092604,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8092604","subject":null,"tags":["open science","open government","fair"],"vote_count":0,"view_count":1,"score":0.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":186,"title":"Sharing standards before sharing resources? The case of research biobanks","sha":"285b43d27af0753d4913e54796108251","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"In biobank research, one of the main obstacles for full applicability of Open Access to biomedical resources is the researchers’ reluctance to make immediately and freely available these materials before having adequately exploited their potential. To analyse this issue from a wider perspective, we need to consider the role of research biobanks as main repositories in which human biological samples are stored, with or without accompanying them with genetic or clinical data (Haga and Beskow 2008). If withholding of biobanks’ resources drastically reduces their full value, their wide sharing is not simple to put into practice. The first and most complex barrier hindering Open Access is the lack of common standards, guidelines and legal frameworks due to socio-cultural differences of countries where biobanks operate (see Capocasa et al 2015 https://peerj.com/preprints/1212/). Developing harmonised standards is a challenge that primarily needs to foster international norms for donors’ privacy, intellectual property and patentability.","created_at":"2015-07-07T06:04:32.407Z","updated_at":"2015-07-10T06:00:34.021Z","zenodo_id":35568,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19837","subject":null,"tags":["open access","biobanks","open science","research ethics"],"vote_count":0,"view_count":1,"score":0.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null}]