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:
One influential theory about the brain postulates that its main job is to optimise its predictions about future states of the world. It accomplishes this by minimising the mismatch between predictions and actual sensory data, either by gathering more data or by modifying its model of reality to better fit the data.
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 . 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”
Last week I attended the COAR (@COAR_eV) 2016 annual meeting hosted by the University of Vienna. I was invited by COAR’s executive director Kathleen Shearer to give a talk on peer review on top of repository networks and to participate in a working group that will discuss and provide recommendations for “Next Generation Repositories”. Continue reading “Report back from the COAR 2016 annual meeting”
A commentary I coauthored with Gary McDowell for the forthcoming ASAPbio conference on the future of preprints in Biology. It was originally published at the ASAPbio commentaries section: http://asapbio.org/open-scholar
In reforming the culture of peer review and moving towards a system that embraces the use and recognition of pre-print servers, we are cognizant of the need to avoid re-inventing the wheel, by identifying and using existing infrastructure and initiatives that can assist in furthering this goal. Continue reading “Using existing infrastructure to transform peer review”
In this post I share a recent experience as an example on how to negotiate with a publisher your right to make your research freely available without having to pay any money. Hope it proves useful to more researchers in a similar position.
In this post I share a recent experience as an example of how to negotiate with a publisher your right to make your research freely available without having to pay any money. Hope it proves useful to more researchers in a similar position. I also offer my personal opinion on how researchers can change the current inefficient and unethical system of scholarly communication by gradually developing an alternative model that will foster collaboration instead of competition. Continue reading “How to negotiate with publishers: an example of immediate self-archiving despite publisher’s embargo policy”
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”
Today I made a brief presentation of Open Scholar and the LIBRE project at the Information Days on Horizon 2020 that was held in Brussels from 12-14 of February. I had the chance to receive first hand information about the e-Infrastructures calls, listen to many interesting proposals and discuss about possible collaborations with potential partners.
Here is a link with all the presentations: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/events/cf/h2020-e-infrastructures/ec-presentations.cfm Continue reading “LIBRE presentation for Horizon 2020”