Pete Etchells: Replication is the bedrock of science. But what happens when a scientist can’t – or won’t – share the experimental materials that allow it? (...) - The Guardian, by Pete Etchells, October 16, 2015
Après deux journées de travail, la conférence « Science ouverte — de la vision à l’action », organisée par le secrétaire d’État Sander Dekker dans le cadre de la présidence néerlandaise de l’UE, s’est achevée sur un résultat de taille : le Plan d’action d’Amsterdam sur l’innovation en matière de science ouverte. (...) - eu2016.nl
En novembre dernier, je me souviens avoir participé dans le cadre du Paris Open Source Summit 2014 à une table-ronde sur l'Open Science. Lors de la séance de questions avec la salle, une discussion particulièrement intéressante a eu lieu à propos des liens entre l'Open Access et les licences libres. Pendant ma présentation, j'avais soutenu…
Last week marked the annual celebration/marketing event that is Open Access Week, and this year it seemed something of a mixed bag. Open access (OA) is growing into maturity, and has rapidly become integrated into the scholarly publishing landscape over the last fifteen or so years. We have now reached a point where experiments have been in place for a while and results can be analyzed. Early assumptions can now be measured and the move to OA seems to have reached something of a crossroads. (...) - the scholarly kitchen, by David Crotty, Octobre 28, 2015
When the English philosopher Herbert Spencer introduced the phrase “survival of the fittest” in 1864, he could not have imagined that it would summarize the plight of young scientists years later (1). As competition for coveted faculty appointments and research funding continues to intensify, today’s researchers face relentless pressure to publish in scientific journals with high impact factors. (...) - PNAS, vol. 112 no. 26, 7875–7876, by I.M Verma
Research data sharing: enhances chances that studies will be reproduced.
Over the past few years, the scientific community has expressed concerns over the reliability of scientific research, particularly biomedical research. Making the primary results of research–the actual data–more easily accessible to other scientists is seen as an important step to solve this problem. After all, reproducibility of research is at the heart of science. However, old habits die hard. And the custom of making all data fully available so that others can re-analyse and re-assess them is not yet fully ingrained in scientists’ modus operandi. Training may be required to change such habits while giving credit for people producing the original data, may also encourage data sharing and enhance reproducibility. (...) - Euroscientist, by Constanze Böttcher, 29/04/2015
Julien Hering, PhD's insight:
"Not all scientists are willing to open up their data collections..." but #openscience is an advantage for scientific research and #reproducibility
C’est un changement de culture scientifique auquel convie les NHI (National Health Institutes), le pendant américain des IRSC (Instituts de recherches en santé du Canada).
Que le directeur des NIH, Francis Collins, le dise haut et fort témoigne de la gravité de la situation. Il en va de la confiance dans les recherches des sciences biomédicales. Il en va des risques pour la population lorsque vient le temps de faire des essais sur l’humain. Il en va de l’intégrité en recherche. (...) - L’éveilleur, par Sonia Morin, 18/03/2015
Transparency, open sharing, and reproducibility are core features of science, but not always part of daily practice. Journals can increase transparency and reproducibility of research by adopting the TOP Guidelines. TOP includes eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to adopt for their journal, and select a level of implementation for the selected standards. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards.
Oliver Sacks's new memoir contemplates the pitfalls of mass media engagement.
To hear Oliver Sacks tell it, writing books for a mass audience was once considered one of the worst things a doctor could do.
In his new memoir On the Move, Sacks recalls the day his first book was published in 1970. Born in 1933 to two prominent doctors, Sacks happened to be staying in his family's London home at the time. (...) - vox.com, by Julia Belluz, April 30, 2015
Julien Hering, PhD's insight:
Intesting articles about why physicians or scientists have to be more open to outside academia to communicate #scicom #openscience #citizenscience
Lors de formation, je suis justement critiqué quand j'explique que le pdf ne représente plus les articles scientifiques et qu'il faut abandonner ce format pour lire un article ! Lisez un article du Guardian le 11 février 2015 intitulé "Researchers: it's time to ditch the pdf". Je cite : 'le pdf, c'est comme le tiroir de votre bureau : un... (...) - Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique, 02/03/2015
Soil sample collection project designed to find new drugs explodes in popularity.
Thousands of citizen scientists around the country are getting their hands dirty collecting soil samples after the Internet bestowed a recent burst of attention on a soil sampling project. The crowdsourced project, which aims to find new drugs by cultivating fungi from soil samples, drew only moderate interest since it began in 2010. But it caught a lucky break on social media and has now exploded, surpassing researchers' wildest dreams in just a few days. (...) - Science, by Emily Conover, 18 March 2015
I have been a registered user of Academia.edu for several years now, and to be honest until recently I only used it from time to time, mostly as a place for green copies of my work. I did not see it as being a crucial part of my research workflow. Now this is slowly changing, and I am glad to say that it is a useful tool, which helps me a lot, especially in finding new, open access articles that are really interesting for me. But it seems to me that Academia.edu has the potential to do even more. (...) - Blog "Open Science", by Witold Kienc, March 18, 2015
Sabina Leonelli and Louise Bezuidenhout argue the study of data itself is an excellent entry point to reflect on the activities and claims associated to the idea of scientific knowledge. How scientists perceive their research environments, what they recognize as strengths and limitations, and what in these environments pose material or social challenges to data engagement all influence how data travels. (...) - Blog LSE 'Impact of Social Science', by Sabina Leonelli & Louise Bezuidenhout, 2015/10/05
Présentée au Conseil des ministres mercredi 9 décembre 2015, le projet de loi pour une République numérique doit permettre aux chercheurs de republier leurs travaux financés par le public en accès ouvert… mais n’impose aucune contrainte. Un entre-deux qui ne satisfait pas la communauté. (...) - EducPros, par Martin Clavey, 09/12/2015
Is archive content relevant to current research and why is it still so valued in the ‘digital era’?
‘Archive content’ can simply be defined as artefacts from the past. This content appears in many forms, such as documents, photographs and recordings, all of which represent former discoveries and offer a background to past research findings. Often a reliable source of primary research, archive content documents significant historical findings, providing a level of accountability to current research. In this digital age, why is older research still valuable in university teaching and relevant to present-day research? (...) - Research Information, by Taylor & Francis Group, 2015/06/12
Mikio Braun is a machine learning researcher who also enjoys software engineering. We first met when he co-founded a real-time analytics company called streamdrill. Since then, I’ve always had... (...) - O'Reilly Radar, by Ben Lorica, April 9, 2015
“Peer review is supposed to be the quality assurance system for science, weeding out the scientifically unreliable and reassuring readers of journals that they can trust what they are reading. In reality, however, it is ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud" (former British Medical Journal editor Richard Smith) and irrelevant.”
Discussing specific shortcomings of scientific research is no longer confined to scientific publications and discreet letters, but can be found online in blogs and across social media. This has opened up fruitful discussion, encouraging a more public form of peer review. But not all scientists are happy with public criticism. Sabine Hossenfelder argues that while not all scientific discourse should be conducted in public, the moment you make your paper publicly available, you have to accept that it can be publicly commented on. (...) - Blog of LSE 'Impact of Social Sciences', by Sabine Hossenfelder, 2015/02/03
Open Humans” project backed by Knight and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation invites individuals to share their most personal health information to accelerate medical breakthroughs. (...) - Open Humans, by Jason Bobe, March 24, 2015
[Communiqués et dossiers de presse - CNRS] Au cours de ces derniers mois, de nombreux commentaires, pour la plupart anonymes, ont été publiés sur le site internet PubPeer, rapportant des manipulations effectuées sur des figures concernant une trentaine d'articles signés ou co-signés par Olivier Voinnet, directeur de recherche au CNRS actuellement en détachement à l'Ecole polytechnique fédérale (ETH) de Zürich (Suisse). (...) 09/04/2015
Data, computer code and manuscripts are the produce of scientific work. It is what we make. Nowadays, people claim that all of it has to be open access or open source. But what is that all about? (...) - by Florian D. Schneider, 01 March 2015
Julien Hering, PhD's insight:
Interesting and useful article about #licencing and #openlicence in science
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.