I would include "open data" and "data sharing" as keywords too.

There is some good discussion on HN about the realistic nature of this estimated expense and how it is not likely out-of-line with what it should be and may actually be quite reasonable.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22317244

If a project becomes unmaintained, people will stop using it.

These citizen scientists in Finland helped identify a new type of "northern light". Basically, 2 people were able to take a shot of the same display at the same second, 60 miles apart, allowing for depth resolution.

Even a normal conference in the geo-sciences is more open than this "open science" conference. There is a limited amount of time for speakers, but why would anyone deny someone the possibility to present a poster and try to find an audience for their research? There is no scientific need for this gate keeping.

True that! I'd love to work on open-source projects like this if only I could feed my family while working on them...

First sighting of Jupyter Notebook (that I recall).

This is a great initiative. Hat's off to this company - Octant-bio for encouraging open sourcing of their hard work and optimization.

Open research working paper version: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/427678/1/LosingFace_workingversion_nomarpar.pdf

Source at: https://github.com/xuhcc/mindstream

Apparent limitation:

• can only choose priority from A-C. I want A-Z.

For: the app represented by https://padloc.app/

Source at: https://github.com/ZachSaucier/Just-Read/

Source code at: https://github.com/synfig/synfig/

Source code at: https://github.com/opentoonz/opentoonz

Sense Collective's Climate Tagger API and Pool Party Semantic Web plug-in are perfectly suited to support The Wilson Center's metadata schema project. Creating a common metadata schema that is used across multiple organizations working within the same domain, with similar (and overlapping) data and data types, is an essential step towards realizing collective intelligence. There is significant redundancy that consumes limited resources as organizations often perform the same type of data structuring. Interoperability issues between organizations, their metadata semantics and serialization methods, prevent cumulative progress as a community. Sense Collective's MetaGrant program is working to provide a shared infastructure for NGO's and social impact investment funds and social impact bond programs to help rapidly improve the problems that are being solved by this awesome project of The Wilson Center. Now let's extend the coordinated metadata semantics to 1000 more organizations and incentivize the citizen science volunteers who make this possible, with a closer connection to the local benefits they produce through their efforts. With integration into Social impact Bond programs and public/private partnerships, we are able to incentivize collective action in ways that match the scope and scale of the problems we face.

compare to Downes' MOOC design principles. Autonomy - diversity - openness - interactivity

Of special interest is that a reviewer openly discussed in blog his general thoughts about the state of the art in the field based on what he had been looking at in the paper. This blog came out just after he completed his 1st round review, and before an editorial decision was made.

http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/thoughts-on-assemblathon-2.html

This spawned additional blogs that broadened the discussion among the community-- again looking toward the future.<br> See: https://www.homolog.us/blogs/genome/2013/02/23/titus-browns-thoughts-on-the-assemblathon-2-paper/

And

https://flxlexblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/on-assembly-uncertainty-inspired-by-the-assemblathon2-debate/

Further the authors, now in the process of revising their manuscript, joined in on twitter, reaching out to the community at large for suggestions on revisions, and additional thoughts. Their paper had been posted in arxiv- allowing for this type of commenting and author/reader interaction See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5406

The Assemblathon.org site collected and presented all the information on the discussion surrounding this article. https://assemblathon.org/page/2

A blog by the editors followed all this describing this ultra-open peer review, highlighting how these forms of discussions during the peer review process ended up being a very forward-looking discussion about the state of based on what the reviewers were seeing in this paper, and the directions the community should now focus on. This broader open discussion and its very positive nature could only happen in an open, transparent, review process. See: https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/07/23/ultra-open-peer-review/

a different open ed/info lit connection. Does the bias towards recent research play a part in this?

Interesting licensing solution/choice...

Sure. And others also care about the way open is used in educational contexts beyond OER, to mean more than just specific copyright statuses.

I like this idea. There is a closed-ness to most rubrics that I've encountered, where goals and measures of mastery are determined without learner input. "Transforming" implies a further step along a journey rather than an endpoint, and a process that is under an individual's own control.

Relieving the Burden of Navigating Health and Social Services for Older Adults and Caregivers

Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing

Educational Technology offers free articles with sources.

Rating: 5/10

Forbes is a business website that also focuses on innovation and technology

Rating: 8/10

Good and necessary questions

Lots to like in a little statement. Best philosophies over best practices. Also the idea of philosophies as plural. Different situations may require different models.

I still wonder to what degree open educational practices are necessarily or always tied to copyright. That is, can OEP be implemented on copyrighted texts?

Arno Klein and Satrajit S. Gosh published this research idea in 2016 and opened it to review. In fact, you could review their abstract directly in RIO, but for the MOOC activity "open peer review" we want you to read and annotate their proposal using this Hypothes.is layer. You can add annotations by simply highlighting a section that you want to comment on or add a page note and say in a few sentences what you think of their ideas. You can also reply to comments that your peers have already made. Please sign up to Hypothes.is and join the conversation!

Timothy Robbins emphasizes this goal in his guidelines for contributors to the latest Rebus Community iteration of the Open Anthology of Earlier American Literature. In a distillation I find particularly elegant, he notes: "In its best iteration, “open pedagogy” entails the spread of access to knowledge with an invitation to participate in the re-creation of new knowledge" ("Guidelines: Section Introductions.") 

Google Translate translation into English:

Freedom of information. The movement behind Open Science will soften the academic evaluation culture and pull researchers out of the clutches of journals. Interview with one of the movement's front figures, the "detached paleontologist" Jon Tennant.

All data is born free

By RASMUS EGMONT FOSS

More and more researchers are frustrated by the state of science in 2019. Academic journals have too much power over research, they say. Many test results cannot be reproduced. And they are tired of being measured and weighed with a wealth of numbers that quantify the fruits of their labor. In a revolt against the prevailing norms, a growing number of dissatisfied scientists are gathering in these years behind the Open Science movement. People are angry about many things: publishers' profit margins. The time it takes to publish in journals. The way they are evaluated. Open Science is a reaction to all that, a counter-movement that brings together the frustration of a big wave that no one really knows what stands for or where to go, says British Jon Tennant, one of the leading proponents of the movement. Tennant has paused a promising career in paleontology and travels around the world as a "looser" for years to spread the enthusiasm for an open science. In particular, he has been noted as the founder of Open Science MOOC, an online community and educational platform in the field. He is currently visiting the University of Southern Denmark. The broad group of supporters ranges from those who simply want scars to make all academic articles freely available on the web, to those who want to revolutionize the work of researchers. They strive to engage colleagues in every aspect of their work, for example, by exchanging ideas, releasing early data, or the crowdsource editing process. Several organizations and scientists are joining the cause in these years. The movement is particularly characterized by iniciacives such as Plan S, a project to release all government-funded research from 2021, which is, among other things, larger by the European Commission. Also, foundations such as the Gates Foundation have promoted the ideas by forcing all beneficiaries to share their data. Common to followers is that they will bring modern research closer to the real purpose of science, as they see it: to increase the knowledge base of society by working in groups rather than in silos. Several of them have now started pointing fingers at the universities' growing evaluation culture as the main obstacle to achieving that goal. It distorts researchers' motivation and creates an unhealthy environment, they say. The biggest problem today is how scientists are measured and who has control over that evaluation system, Jon Tennant believes. Researchers are to a greater extent measured by how much and how much they publish than what they publish. It gives wrong incentives. At the same time, the evaluation process itself is guided by the commercial interests of a narrow group of publishers who do not always share the researchers' interests. Today, scientists are not in control of systems, and that is a major problem, he elaborates.

JON Tennant and the Open Science movement will do away with what German sociologist Steffen Mau has dubbed “the quantification culture of science. Over the past few decades, many universities have begun to adapt their culture to live up to the rankings and scoring systems that give prestige in the field. In the researchers' everyday life, factors such as circulation rates and h-indices (a measure of a researcher's influence) as well as the impact factors of journals, for example, have gained great importance for their career and reputation among colleagues. The voices behind Open Science want a new model. It must promote quality research and be responsible to the community rather than narrow interests. The first step is to expand access to academic articles. Researchers need to be able to build on everyone's work, and private publishers should not have the power over the product, they say. According to advocates like Jon Tennant, we should also open up the entire scientific process by using the Internet better. The journals must still have a place in the system, but today their old-fashioned model stands in the way of communicating our research effectively. We are not taking advantage of network technology opportunities well enough, he says. From a new idea arises, until the method is developed, data is obtained and the conclusions are available, everyone should be able to follow and propose improvements, the invitation reads. For example, researchers should publish their plans for new projects before they begin collecting data (a so-called pre-registration) and should be encouraged to share their results before the article is published (a micro-publication). But as long as publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature have power over researchers' careers, researchers lack the incentive to collaborate openly and inspire each other, Jon Tennant believes. A more open and free process could also solve the reproducibility crisis in science by making studies more transparent. At the same time, it has the potential to prevent large amounts of time wasting, as researchers will be able to see other people's failed projects before starting their own. OPEN Science is part of a larger modern movement, which, according to Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, is "the first since 1789 to invent a whole new freedom of value information. There is the idea that data has the right to be free and that humans should not restrict its movements. The mindset is the phloxof behind projects like Wikipedia, Google and Open Source in software programming. Based on that logic, the power must lie with the community and not a narrow group of editors when the quality of the researchers' work needs to be assessed (for it must, after all). We should not discard the peer review model, merely reform it, says Jon Tennant: We still need to evaluate the quality of research, but we should take advantage of opportunities in online community and networking. However, a new evaluation culture has its own pitfalls, and the biggest uncertainties about the Open Science agenda stem from this. Prestigious journals such as Nature and Science give scientists and lay people confidence that their articles are trustworthy. Everyone needs these kinds of pointers when navigating the academic world. At the same time, there is no guarantee that the quality of research will increase when the masses decide. The risk of a democratic evaluation system is that it creates a new and more intense quantification cult, where research articles are instead measured on colleagues' ratings, as we know it from services like Uber and Tripadvisor. Competition for prestige is an inevitable part of any industry, and today's race will simply be replaced by a new one - on other terms. Here, other studies will lose the battle, probably those with a narrower appeal. The established institutions have an ambivalent relationship with the Open Science movement. Leaders at universities and publishers positively mention it in closed forums, Jon Tennant says, but would rather stick to their existing benefits as long as they can. They also hesitate because the consequences of the new regime are unpredictable. Everyone is scared to move like the first, he says.

Original content in Danish:

Informationsfrihed. Bevægelsen bag Open Science vil mildne den akademiske evalueringskultur og trække forskerne ud af tidsskrifternes kløer. Interview med en af bevægelsens frontfigurer, den «løsgående palæontolog» Jon Tennant.

Alle data er født frie

Af RASMUS EGMONT FOSS

Flere og flere forskere er frustrerede over videnskabens tilstand anno 2019. Udgiverne af akademiske tidsskrifter har for stor magt over forskningen, siger de. Mange forsøgsresultater kan ikke reproduceres. Og de er trætte af at blive målt og vejet med et væld af tal, som kvantificerer frugten af deres arbejde. I et oprør mod de herskende normer samler et stigende antal utilfredse forskere sig i disse år bag bevægelsen Open Science. Folk er vrede over mange ting: Udgivernes profitmargener. Tiden, der tager at publicere i tidsskrifter. Måden, de bliver evalueret på. Open Science er en reaktion mod alt det, en modbevægelse, der samler frustrationen i en stor bølge, som ingen rigtigt ved, hvad står for, eller hvor bevæger sig hen, fortæller britiske Jon Tennant, en af de førende fortalere for bevægelsen. Tennant har sat en lovende karriere inden for palæonrologien på pause og rejser verden rundt som «løsgænger« for ar udbrede begejstringen for en åben videnskab. Han har især gjort sig bemærket som stifter af Open Science MOOC, et online fællesskab og uddannelsesplatform på området. I disse måneder er han på besøg på Syddansk Universitet. Den brede gruppe af støtter spænder fra dem, der blot ønsker ar gøre alle akademiske artikler frit tilgængelige på nettet, til dem, som ligefrem vil revolucionere forskernes arbejde. De stræber efter at indvie kolleger i alle aspekter af deres arbejde, for eksempel ved at udveksle ideer, frigive tidlige data eller crowdsource redigeringsprocessen. Adskillige organisationer og videnskabsfolk slutter sig til sagen i disse år. Bevægelsen er især kendetegnet ved iniciaciver som Plan S, et projekt om at frigive al statsfinansieret forskning fra 2021, der blandt andet størres af EU-Kommissionen. Også fonde som Gates Foundation har fremmet ideerne ved at tvinge alle støttemodtagere til at dele deres data. Fælles for tilhængerne er, at de vil bringe den moderne forskning tættere på videnskabens ækte formål, som de ser der: at forøge samfundets vidensbase ved at arbejde i flok frem for i siloer. Flere af dem er nu begyndt at pege fingre ad universiteternes voksende evalueringskultur som den vigtigste hindring til at nå det mål. Den forvrænger forskernes motivation og skaber er usundt miljø, siger de. Det største problem i dag er, hvordan forskere bliver målt, og hvem der har kontrollen over det evalueringssystem, mener Jon Tennant. Forskere bliver i højere grad målt på, hvor og hvor meget de publicerer, end hvad de udgiver. Det giver forkerte incitamencer. Samtidig er selve evalueringsprocessen styret af kommercielle interesser hos en snæver gruppe udgivere, som ikke altid deler forskernes interesser. I dag er forskerne ikke i kontrol over systemer, og det er et stort problem, uddyber han.

JON Tennant og Open Science-bevægelsen vil gøre op med det, som den tyske sociolog Steffen Mau har døbt "kvantificeringskulturen i videnskaben. Over de seneste årtier er mange universiteter begyndt ar tilpasse deres kultur for at leve op til de ranglister og pointsystemer, som giver prestige på feltet. l forskernes hverdag har faktorer som cirationsrater og h-indeks (en målestok for en forskers indflydelse) samt tidsskrifternes impact factors for eksempel opnået stor betydning for deres karriere og anseelse blandt kolleger. Stemmerne bag Open Science ønsker en ny model. Den skal fremme kvalitetsforskning og være ansvarlig over for fællesskabet frem for snævre interesser. Første skridt er ar udbrede adgangen til akademiske artikler. Forskere skal kunne bygge videre på alles arbejde, og private udgivere bør ikke have magten over produktet, siger de. I følge talsmænd som Jon Tennant bør vi også åbne hele den videnskabelige proces op ved at bruge internettet bedre. Tidsskrifterne skal fortsat have en plads i systemet, men idag står deres gammeldags model i vejen for at kommunikere vores forskning effektivt. Vi udnytter slet ikke netværksteknologiens muligheder godt nok, siger han. Fra en ny ide opstår, til metoden udvikles, data indhentes, og konklusionerne foreligger, skal alle kunne følge med og foreslå forbedringer, lyder opfordringen. Forskere bør for eksempel publicere deres planer for nye projekter, inden de går i gang med at indsamle data (en såkalt førregistrering) , og de skal opfordres til at dele deres resultater, før artiklen udkommer (en mikroudgivelse). Men så længe udgivere som Elsevier og Springer Nature har magt over forskernes karrierer, mangler forskerne incitamentet ril at samarbejde åbent og inspirere hinanden, mener Jon Tennant. En mere åben og fri proces vil også kunne løse reproducerbarhedskrisen i videnskaben ved at gøre studier mere transparente. Samtidig har det potentialet til at forhindre store mængder tidsspilde, da forskere vil kunne se andres fejlslagne projekter, før de begynder deres eget. OPEN Science er del af en større moderne bevægelse, som ifølge den israelske historiker Yuval Noah Harari er "den første siden 1789, der har opfundet en helt ny værdiinformationsfrihed. Der er ideen om, ar data har ret til at være frit, og at mennesker ikke bør begrænse dets bevægelser. Tankesættet udgør fllosofien bag projekter som Wikipedia, Google og Open Source inden for softwareprogrammering. Ud fra den logik skal magten ligge hos fællesskabet og ikke en smal gruppe af redaktører, når kvaliteten af forskernes arbejde skal vurderes (for der skal den trods alt). Vi skal ikke kassere peer review-modellen, blot reformere den, siger Jon Tennant: Vi skal stadig evaluere kvaliteten af forskningen, men vi bør udnytte mulighederne i online fællesskab og netværk. En ny evalueringskultur har dog sine egne faldgruber, og de største usikkerheder ved agendaen i Open Science stammer herfra. Prestigefyldte tidsskrifter som Nature og Science giver forskere og lægfolk tillid til, at deres artikler er troværdige. Alle har brug for den slags pejlemærker, når de skal navigere i den akademiske verden. Der er samtidig ingen garanti for, at forskningens kvalitet stiger, når masserne bestemmer. Risikoen ved et demokratisk evalueringssysrem er, at det skaber en ny og mere intens kvantificeringskult, hvor forskningsarcikler istedet måles på kollegernes ratinger, som vi kender det fra tjenester som Uber og Tripadvisor. Konkurrencen om prestige er en uundgåelig del af enhver branche, og dagens ræs vil blot erstattes af et nyt – på andre præmisser. Her vil andre studier tabe kampen, formentlig dem med en smallere appel. De etablerede institutioner har et ambivalent forhold til Open Science-bevægelsen. Ledere hos universiteter og udgivere omtaler den positivt i lukkede fora, fortæller Jon Tennant, men vil helst holde fast i deres eksisterende fordele, så længe de kan. De tøver også, fordi konsekvenserne af det nye regime er uforudsigelige. Alle er bange for ar flytte sig som de første, siger han.

Jeff Spies of the Center for Open Science provides an anecdote about this process at work in other fields in an interview with documentarians for the film Paywall. He notes:

"Research efficiency comes with increases in quality, increases in inclusivity, increases in diversity, increases in innovation. . . . I had a visit to the University of Belgrade a few years ago, and I was meeting with grad students before my lecture, and we were going around the room talking about what each researcher did and were working on for their thesis. And almost everyone in the room was working on implicit cognition. And it was amazing that there were so many students working on this particular area of research, and so I said, 'Why are all of you doing this? How has that become this be the area that's so popular?' And the immediate response was, 'Well, we can access the literature in this area.' 'What do you mean?' I said. 'Well, there is a norm of all the leading researchers in your field: all of you put your papers online. So, we can find them and we can know what’s going on right now in this literature that we can’t get access to in other sub-disciplines.' I was blown away by that, right? That they made some decisions about what to study based on what they could access (Paywall 00:16:19 - 00:17:54)

This is an interesting conclusion as it has oft been stated that OER are a gateway to OEP. While that appears to be the case for 3 of the participants, for the rest it appears that OER was not the starting point to OEP. What bears deeper investigation is whether the second or third step to OEP was OER. Reminds me of a blog post I wrote a few years back wondering if OEP required OER http://clintlalonde.net/2017/02/04/does-open-pedagogy-require-oer/

Great quote

This is an important change in perception that has occurred in the past 10-15 years of OER. OER's used to be met with much skepticism by faculty. It is nice to see that these are now becoming "less threatening" and, by extension, more accessible.

Giving learners more autonomy in their learning is a great pedagogical principle, and in the context of the article focusing on learning design, I can see how this fits with "open" as it does require that the course design needs to be more "open" as in flexible to allow for this kind of learner autonomy. There is overlap here between authentic learning and open pedagogy.

Changes the audience and gets students to think about writing for a larger, perhaps more general audience. This is an important aspect if we want to have, say, highly technical disciplines, like sciences, learning to engage more broadly with the public. Having learners understand the importance of writing for an audience that is more general could become an important open pedagogy principle for disciplines that want to have their work have a broader impact with the general public.

I have trouble believing many faculty members will be swayed by undergraduate students' perceptions of quality. There's a difference to be explored in "quality of disciplinary content in the abstract" vs. "quality as a study aid for this particular course."

This is of course a broader concern for advocacy for OERs, not a critique of this particular study.

The absence of the teacher here seems like an issue. To what extent may the students have come up with that perception on their own, or might they perceive it because the teacher told them about the work involved in vetting this particular textbook? What, if anything, did the traditional textbook teachers say?

(Further down the paragraph it's made clear that the OERs were adapted to be more relevant, which I agree is part of the attraction of OERs and including that is fair. But I'd still like to know what the teachers said in class about it, if anything.)

Seems to hint to me that on-campus students may be receiving (or perceiving) a superior level of instructor support (thereby making the textbook less relevant). Interesting responsibility for F2F faculty and interesting possible criticism of the level of instructor support provided to online students.

Students who have been primed with the knowledge that this course uses a lower-cost OER text are more critical of textbook price vs use in other courses?

There are several companies that although they have closed-source products, they have large open-source projects that are core-components to their product. Thing Facebook and it's open-source projects or Microsoft and their open-sourcing of the asp.net and corresponding frameworks. It seems like in general, there is a trend toward companies open-sourcing their DX tools, which is what a majority of open-source projects are....

Zero-textbook cost degrees is still a long way off as far as India goes. Our students are now extremely proficient in the use of the internet and open sources. However, compared to open access resources use of standardised textbooks in traditionnal classrooms is definitely better as teachers has a personal connect with the student. This is particularly necessary as students are becoming victims of PUBG and other such addctive games leading to either suicide or other behavioural problems. We do not need a plethora of zombie students in our schools and colleges!

Replacing text books with open resources does push teachers out of their comfort zones!

I found this blog post by David Wiley very honest and interesting, seeing as though we didn’t talk about ‘before Creative Commons’ at all in this course. While we most likely don’t have time in the course and didn’t really need to talk about the before CC, it’s really intriguing to see that people were talking about the foundations of CC already back in 1998 and that the bones of CC were already there.

another body working on scholarly comms infrastructure - but for AI

requires a open, sharing, collaborative environment. Promotes pedagogical dialogue. OER have potential to transcend "geographic, economic, or language barriers". Also, OER strengthens digital literacy.