every individual has the means to decide how their knowledge is governed and managed to address their needs
This concept is addressed further in https://ocsdnet.org/principles-and-practice-in-open-science-addressing-power-and-inequality-through-situated-openness/
knowledge commons
The idea of a "knowledge commons" was referenced in the book, "Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture" by Eric Holt-Giménez in the context of agroecological knowledge inherent in agrarian communities in Latin America.
This is one of the most important decisions in an EFA (Thompson, 2004; Warne & Larsen, 2014), and these decisions can make g artificially easier or harder to identify.
Deciding the number of factors to retain can be extremely subjective. But that was why it was so important to pre-register our work. We wanted to choose methods for making this decision before seeing the data so that no one could accuse of us of trying to monkey with the data until we got the results we wanted.
For the sake of transparency, we find it important to explicitly state deviations from our preregistration protocol. First, in our preregistration, we stated that we would search for (cognitive OR intelligence) AND the name of a continent or population. However, searching for a continent was not feasible in finding data sets. We also had difficulty generating a list of population groups (e.g., ethnic groups, tribal groups) that would be useful for our search procedures.
This was my second time I pre-registered the study and the first time my student co-author had. We are still getting the hang of it.
Le commerce de l’échange savant dont les règles, les formes et les lieux peuvent être mis en cartes produit diverses sortes de validations qui permettent à leurs bénéficiaires d’entrer dans la négociation de situations matérielles : l’expression République des Lettres couvre, et mêle tout à la fois ces formes, ces lieux et un bon nombre de ces situations. Alors que l’échange et la validation des savoirs par les institutions académiques sont soumis à des conditions d’accès étroites et à des délais de publication encore plus longs pour les mémoires reçus par les sociétés que pour ceux de leurs propres membres, les périodiques savants s’ouvrent à des contributions d’origines très diverses qu’ils publient rapidement.
cohabitation et complémentarité des formes de communication savante (voir l'intervention de Judith). Le périodique apparaît comme une ouverture.
Freedom of intramural expression means that teaching personnel is not only allowed to teach according to their knowledge, but that they can take part in the administration of their institutions. This is supported by the freedom of extramural expression, which gives teachers the capacity to share their research outcomes and disseminate the knowledge acquired.
participation in activities to share research outcomes.
Researchers now typically engage in a range of ‘questionable research practices’ in the hunt for the glory of publication, with such conditions leading to mental health issues in a higher proportion than any other industry.
'publish or perish' culture creating mental health issues.
At the same time, we now have several years of experience launching and running new and innovative publications in broad fields. For example, PeerJ – the Journal of Life & Environmental Sciences covers all of biology, the life sciences, and the environmental sciences in a single title; whilst PeerJ Computer Science is targeted towards a more well-defined community. In 2013 we also launched a preprint server (PeerJ Preprints) which covers all the areas in which we publish; and we have developed a comprehensive suite of journal and peer-review functionalities.
New journals released by PeerJ
Tamper-proof evidence for photographs, videos and preprints using timestamp, blockchain etc.
Preprints
Timestamps for prepritns
Blockchain for open scholarly publishing:
Blockchain for scholarly publishing
To ensure that research findings are shared widely and are made freely available at the time of publication, Wellcome and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have today (Monday) joined cOAlition S (opens in a new tab) and endorsed the principles of Plan S.
First charitable funders to join Plan-S
Open Science has the potential to make the scientific enterprise more inclusive, and bridge North-South divides in research,
Open science towards reducing the north-south divide
Each aspect of the scientific cycle—research design, data collection, analysis, and publication—can and should be made more transparent and accessible.
Cmp. article draft from 2011 related to science in general, not particularly for education science.
We’re delighted to announce that the California Digital Library has been awarded a 2-year NSF EAGER grant to support active, machine-actionable data management plans (DMPs).
protected platform whereby many expert reviewers could read and comment on submissions, as well as on fellow reviewers’ comments
Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.
intelligent crowd reviewing
Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.
Commons search results display text that has been extracted from PDFs to show search terms in context. If preprints are displayed, they can be displayed as PDFs. All pages are tagged with schema.org meta tags to ensure that content is discoverable.
Centre for Integrative Neuroscience and Neurodynamics
This is the most awesomest research Centre ever!!
Montreal Neurological Institute
sharing all data associated with its research; no patents for 5 yrs (see video) - first major research institute of it's kind - check if this is really true?
European Union, Japan and the United States
Find out specifically which of these are "open" and if they are all focused on neuroscience?
Democratizing science does not mean settling questions about Nature by plebiscite, any more than democratizing politics means setting the prime rate by referendum. What democratization does mean, in science as elsewhere, is creating institutions and practices that fully incorporate principles of accessibility, transparency, and accountability. It means considering the societal outcomes of research at least as attentively as the scientific and technological outputs. It means insisting that in addition to being rigorous, science be popular, relevant, and participatory.
The point of replication isn't to shame researchers — it's to build better science
Hi there, I am using this open source tool to promote open science by make open annotations directly on the was as a platform for collaboration. You also can jot down your comments in the context where it belongs.
VIA EFF
Excellent report on the state of academic publishing— and why so much of it is still locked down.
NOTE
if we can Not access the works we fund, we can Neither annotate all knowledge.
And this case, it may pertain the most crucial body of all our knowledge — the knowledge upon what we are to found our own futures for us all. What is to be recognized as "the Human knowledge", whilst yet unknown by almost everyone us Humans ourselves.>
A history of open access academic publishing from the early 1990s to 2016.
“papers are the only scientific artifacts that are guaranteed to be preserved.”
Under the current mode of action.
Writing and submission. The process of compiling findings, writing accompanying narrative and making this available for public view and scrutiny can be simplified by the use of new improved software. These tools can help identify relevant papers through increasingly powerful learning algorithms (e.g. F1000Workspace, Mendeley, Readcube). They can also enable collaborative authoring (e.g. F1000Workspace, Overleaf, Google docs), and provide formatting tools to simplify the process of structuring an article to ensure all the necessary underlying information has been captured (e.g. F1000Workspace, EndNote). Submission for posting as a preprint, and/or for formal publication and peer review, should be as simple as a single click.
How can an "Open Science Platform" be built upon proprietary tools only? Maybe is meaning of "open" to define here?
While there are some features shared between a university repository and us we are distinctly different for the following reasons: We offer DOIs to all content published on The Winnower All content is automatically typeset on The Winnower Content published on the winnower is not restricted to one university but is published amongst work from peers at different institutions around the world Work is published from around the world it is more discoverable We offer Altmetrics to content Our site is much more visually appealing than a typical repository Work can be openly reviewed on The Winnower but often times not even commented on in repositories. This is not to say that repositories have no place, but that we should focus on offering authors choices not restricting them to products developed in house.
Over this tension/complementary between in house and external publishing platforms I wonder where is the place for indie web self hosted publishing, like the one impulsed by grafoscopio.
A reproducible structured interactive grafoscopio notebook is self contained in software and data and holds all its history by design. Will in-house solutions and open journals like The Winnower, RIO Journal or the Self Journal of Science, support such kinds of publishing artifacts?
Technically there is not a big barrier (it's mostly about hosting fossil repositories, which is pretty easy, and adding a discoverability and author layer on top), but it seems that the only option now is going to big DVCS and data platforms now like GitHub or datahub alike for storing other research artifacts like software and data, so it is more about centralized-mostly instead of p2p-also. This other p2p alternatives seem outside the radar for most alternative Open Access and Open Science publishers now.
open Science
Die Auswirkungen des digitalen Wandels in der Forschung erforschr der Leibniz-Forschungsverbund Science 2.0. Die derzeit 37 Partner bearbeiten die Forschungsschwerpunkte „Neue Arbeitsgewohnheiten“, „Technologieentwicklung“ und „Nutzungsforschung“. Damit untrennbar verbunden sind die aktuellen Entwicklungen im Hinblick auf die Öffnung des gesamten Wissenschaftsprozesses oder Teilen davon („Open Science“)
We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.
We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.
However, if an open access version of a text is available, this must always be treated as the primary text. Here the commercial version of the text becomes the secondary version and it should always be cited second and in a manner that makes this completely clear. For instance, after the primary reference to the full text, you could write: ‘Also available as: ….’
Would be interesting to write a tool that could take a paper as input and replace all citations with references to freely available versions