HEPLAB: Matlab scripts to facilitate heartbeat-evoked potential analysis

The heartbeat-evoked potential is a measure of the brain’s electromagnetic response to individual heartbeats that is emerging as a novel and promising index of brain-body communication. Just like any other evoked brain potential, its visualisation and quantitive assessment require the averaging of several trials to reduce the influence of fluctuations that are not related to the evoking stimulus. Although the process of creating custom events that correspond to the R-peak of the electrocardiographic signal is pretty straightforward, to my knowledge there is still no commercial software to facilitate this task. Continue reading “HEPLAB: Matlab scripts to facilitate heartbeat-evoked potential analysis”


Slides from my Ghent talk on Open Science

Last week I was in Ghent to give another introductory talk on Open Science —it is becoming an addiction! First, Ghent was much prettier than I expected! Second, researchers are still hesitant to open up to new practices until a clear academic reward is  promised. But we are getting there, slowly but steadily…

Here are the slides:

Open scientists in the shoes of frustrated academics part I: Open-minded scepticism

Originally published at: http://blog.euroscientist.com/open-scientists-in-the-shoes-of-frustrated-academics-part-i-open-minded-scepticism/

Last week I was in Oslo, invited by the organising committee of Eurodoc2017, to give an introductory talk on Open Science [1]. One thing that became apparent during this two-day event was that, although irresistibly trendy, Open Science remains an elusive concept. Many continue to confuse Open Science with Open Access, not to mention that almost everyone still thinks Open Access is equivalent to publishing in open access journals. In this series of posts, I will discuss a few issues that will hopefully help clarify the meaning of Open Science, why is it important, and how individual scientists can make a difference. I will start by offering my definition of Science, its purpose, and the correct approach to maximise its benefits. Continue reading “Open scientists in the shoes of frustrated academics part I: Open-minded scepticism”

The Laboratory for Network Physiology launches its official website

NetworkPhysiology-logoThe Laboratory for Network Physiology directed by Plamen Ch. Ivanov recently launched its official website. Professor Ivanov, with whom I collaborate closely for the past six years, is leading a unique team of statistical physicists, neuroscientists, applied mathematicians and biomedical engineers that have as their mission to understand how organ systems dynamically interact and collectively behave as a network to produce health or disease. This coordinated effort proposes a new scientific field, Network Physiology, to probe the network of interactions among diverse physiologic systems.

In the website interested readers can find information about the group’s research projects, publications, news, job opportunities and more.

Visit the website here.

Europe’s unpreparedness to support peer review innovation

I recently came back from Brussels where I attended the Information Days on the Horizon 2020 Research Infrastructures Work Programme. I was there to present the LIBRE project —you can watch a video of all presentations here (LIBRE starts at 2:22:08)— and to have the chance to meet other project coordinators looking for European funding.

In his opening presentation on the call for open access e-infrastructures, Jarkko Siren from the European Commission made clear that one of the scopes of this grant is to develop new services in support of open science, including new forms of publishing and new forms of peer review. The budget for this grant is 13 million Euros from which 4 million will be spent for article processing fees to support the gold open access model. For this call only one proposal will be selected and it is a common secret that this money will go to the consortium that includes OpenAIRE, an open access repository that was supported by the previous European Framework Programme FP7. In other words if you want a part of the pie you are either in the OpenAIRE consortium or you do not stand a chance. Naturally, I approached OpenAIRE’s technical coordinator who was present at the meeting and asked her what are their plans regarding peer review. She replied that they are still investigating on the matter and do not have a clear agenda. I then sent a more formal letter to her and to the project coordinator asking if they would be interested in considering Open Scholar as a member of their consortium to assist in peer review innovation. The reply was that they would examine our offer at the next OpenAIRE scientific board meeting, but they do not expect to have room for many more additional partners. Continue reading “Europe’s unpreparedness to support peer review innovation”