(except logo’s)

Small steps, big opportunities Changing research workflows and the need to move from Open Access to Open Science

Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman

Open Acces Week 2015 meeting, Brussels, October 21, 2015

@MsPhelps @jeroenbosman

Support of Open Access / Open Science

Do you support the goal of Open Access ?

89 %

5 %

5 %

90 %

7 %

3 %

Do you support the goal of Open Science ?

analysis

outreach assessment publication

writing discovery

Simple cyclic model of the research workflow

preparation

analysis

writing publication

outreach

assessment discovery

Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow

preparation

analysis

writing publication

outreach

assessment discovery

Rounds of grant writing and application

Iterations of search and reading

Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting

Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting

Rounds of experiments and measurements

Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow, with loops

preparation

analysis

writing publication

outreach

assessment discovery

Rounds of grant writing and application

Iterations of search and reading

Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting

Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting

Rounds of experiments and measurements

A multi-cyclic, multi-ordered model of the research workflow, with loops

preparation

analysis

writing publication

outreach

assessment discovery

Rounds of grant writing and application

Iterations of search and reading

Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting

Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting

Rounds of experiments and measurements

A multi-cyclic, multi-ordered model of the research workflow, with loops

preparation

analysis

writing publication

outreach

assessment discovery

Rounds of grant writing and application

Iterations of search and reading

Drafting, receiving comments,rewriting

Submit, peer review, rejection, resubmitting

Rounds of experiments and measurements

Three goals for science & scholarship (G-E-O)

• declaring competing interests • replication & reproducibility • meaningful assessment • effective quality checks • credit where it is due • no fraud, plagiarism

• connected tools & platforms • no publ. size restrictions • null result publishing • speed of publication • (web)standards, IDs • semantic discovery • re-useability • versioning

open peer review •

open (lab)notes •

plain language •

open drafting •

open access •

CC-0/BY •

good

efficient open

technical changes & standards

research governance

changes

economic & copyright

changes

researcher

funder

publisher

public

government library

20 minutes of high speed group action!

• groups of 8-10 people, find your corner of the room or walk out of the room

• put you two cents on the 1 development you think is the most important for science, on your own paper sheet

• now tick the same one on the group sheet • discuss your choices, also try to relate this to what you see

happing in your own field/position and what you like to

see happening

2005

2010

An

alysis Ou

trea

ch

Example research workflows 1: traditional and innovative

Innovative

Example research workflows 2: Elsevier

? Elsevier

Example research workflows 3: Open Science

Open Science

Survey: scholarly communication tools

Survey results: Researcher profiles

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

others

MyScienceWork

ResearcherID

Academia.edu

Profile page at own institution

ORCID

Google Scholar Citations

ResearchGate

PhD student / Postdoc / Faculty (n=3481)

Survey results: Altmetrics’ share

Compare yourself to your peer group

“ The move away from centralized, expensive, and bad-for-science publishers to a more open, institution/government-funded self-regulating

peer review system ”

“ good ”

Thank you !

101innovations.wordpress.com