oksciencede / open_science_101 Goto Github PK

Think of it as a travel guide to open science.

Examples:

• visit open notebooks, code repos, citizen science projects or databases
  • check for recent changes and engage the audience with what you find
• visit #openscience or related hashtags, searches or lists on Twitter
• visit Open Science Q&A to see what issues around Open Science are being discussed

The grand goal of the project looks more and more like a full database of resources for open science. It would need to a searchable, sortable database with a flexible schema. For example, a NoSQL database of some sort.

Most resources would need the following data:
Basic Type: Organization, Project, Conference, Lecture, etc.
Contact info including URL, original content date, last edit date, last confirmed date

Organizations:
Name including abbreviations, logo, slogan
Legal status, approximate membership, founders and primary donors, contact info, focus, domain (or "cross diciplinary")

Projects:
Contributors sought, e.g., "in house", "post-docs", "citizen scientists"
Domain, scope, short and long summaries,
Name, contact info,

If the project goes this way, I expect discussions about schema will continue for the life of the project.

As per mozillascience/global-sprint-2016#53 .

Add topic Citizen Science.

Add (domain specific?) exercises to each topic

Add the topic Open Education Resources

Some scholars in disciplines outside "science" in the narrow sense do not feel represented/ engaged etc. by the term "open science", sometimes even if they already engage in practices that could be considered open science. Using alternative terms like "open research" or "open scholarship" goes some way to alleviate these concerns, but is not enough.

Also people without knowledge of git and github should be able to contribute. E.g. if somebody can just write in only MS Word she/he a simple workflow should be offered. For example the raw document could be stored at Zenodo or in this repository and the content can then be included by somebody else. The same could/should be done for graphic contributions.

I'm really excited about this project and would love to help development here.

Perhaps it's already been suggested, but there's also a little outline for an Open Science Utility Belt or Primer, developed by @BillMills.

Would love to help or add a label to this issue but sadly I that isn't an option, maybe because I'm not a core contributors; anyway, great work!

With an open science training there are possibly different target groups that have different interests in open science and thus require different scopes and/or motivation (undergraduate students, PhD's, senior researchers all have their own view). It might be worth thinking about defining the "relevant" target groups and make material available that caters the different needs (maybe also in recombination of various material).

This issue is closely related to #4.

This issue has formerly been part of #6.

This issue takes up the personas designed for the Mozilla Sprint.

Dear all,
my colleagues and I initiated our project "Science 2.0 and Open Science in Higher Education" last year during our barcamp. We are all members of the Leibniz Research Alliance Science 2.0 (https://www.leibniz-science20.de/).
So far, we collected issues on a checklist and discussed with colleagues at the OER camp in Berlin in Feb this year:

• 1st checklist - to be expanded
• a poster summarizing 1st results
• discussion pad form OER camp

We are looking forward to exchanging ideas and collaborating.

https://science.mozilla.org/projects/open-science-101

Lots of things have been written or otherwise produced about open science already.

We should attempt to get an overview of that landscape, so that we can make conscious decisions as to whether to link to/ ignore/ incorporate/ (re)start some specific materials.

If you know such materials, please post them over at Open Science Q&A, so that this ticket can concentrate on what to incorporate into this 101.

Make a checklist out of our core topics, but make it open and inclusive, more like a general overview. An inspiration for Open Science projects. Could then lead to badges for projects.

Add the topic Open Access (OA) including green, golden, diamond open access.

Preprinting (as opposed to open access, #9) seems like an omission from the current topic suggestions.

The research cycle covers all steps from an initial ideal to the final publication. Each of the steps should be made open.

I have not found a convincing visual representation so far but this is a starting point: https://science20study.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-29-at-08-38-40.png

We should specifically define in the project what we want to include and what we don't want (e.g. not a collection of tools, hard to maintain etc.).

Software/Data Carpentry was/is a strong inspiration for the format of the and the way the material is compiled. Other project also adapted the name an we would fit very well in this community. I suggest to send an email to the Software Carpentry mailing list and ask if they would see a problem with this.

More detail on the even page.

E.g. recordings of or other materials from comedians, politicians and other non-academics.
Recent example from a related topic: Comedian John Oliver on science communication.

https://github.com/StilettoFiend/OpenScienceTraining

It might be helpful to work on a categorization system to mark which material is reasonable for which target group. This could be done by tags, icons or badges - similar to the idea behind Open Badges, or the badge system that the Association for Psychological Science has implemented with the Open Practices.

This issue has formerly been part of #6.

What doe we want to do at the Mozilla Science Lab Global Sprint 2016 (#10) and what do we want to have after it?

We should have a consistent way of presenting the different topics. E.g. each if we assume handout format each topic could have a section like "2 min abstract "Problem/Current status", "Solution", "Further Reading". Also the length should be harmonize between the different documents.

Each topic should have one, maybe two maintainers who are responsible for the document and take care of the scope as well as consistency (#25) and quality. They might be also the main writer of the text.

I think this approach is also practised by Software Carpentry

The diagram:

https://github.com/aleimba/Facettes_of_Open_Science/blob/master/facettes_of_open_science.png

only has open access reviews but does not mention open access publications. Seems a bit odd to have one but not the other.

Add the topic Open Peer Review.

With an open science training there are possibly different target groups that have different interests in open science and thus require different scopes and/or motivation (undergraduate students, PhD's, senior researchers all have their own view). It might be worth thinking about defining the "relevant" target groups and make material available that caters the different needs (maybe also in recombination of various material).

This issue is closely related to #4.

Furthermore it might be helpful to work on a categorization system to mark which material is reasonable for which target group. This could be done by tags, icons or badges - similar to the idea behind Open Badges, or the badge system that the Association for Psychological Science has implemented with the Open Practices.

The initial planning is to use Github to develop and provide open science teaching/training materials since we want the materials to be reusable and adaptable. This can be easily established by Github, as initiatives as the Software Carpentry, the Data Carpentry or Mozilla Science Lab trainings have shown.

However, there were a couple of suggestions from people on the open science mailing list to also consider other platforms for provisioning (besides Github) and/or dissemination (besides the website) due to reasons of motivation/incentives for scientists and long-term preservation of the materials.

Platforms to consider/discuss:

• RIO Journal
• Zenodo
• Figshare

The mailing list discussion can be followed here (first mail in the thread - please read the following ones).

Perhaps an overarching "where have we come from, why is this important, where are we now" part, to help frame the rest of the 101. Lots of examples you can pull from here.

As a rough guidance we should develop guidelines (including style guidance) for how to create training and teaching material and how to adapt it.

Maybe containing:

1. some guidelines (or references) to markdown
2. some guidelines on what material can be used (e.g. images, videos, etc.), in particular what kind of licenses can be used and how to attribute properly
3. some writing style guidance

I put that into the #mozsprint Milestone since I think that might be quite helpful once we get started with actually developing the material (after having defined the structure).

We are using open Edx in the Sci-GaOA project - see http://courses.sci-gaia.eu - to deliver courseware.

Would this be interesting to you ? We are mostly focussed on providing federated services and infrastructure, rather than the actual execution of open science, so maybe we could provide access to your project to this ? #

I think we should focus on quality not quantity. For this we should start with a small set of topics to cover instead of trying to touch every single aspect.

The ongoing transition from the current system to open science has multiple dimensions, which can roughly be summed up as sharing research earlier than through the system of traditional formal publications as well as more comprehensively and more openly.

Open science means a default of sharing research

• as soon as it can be shared (technically, legally etc.);
• under open licenses.

Becoming an open scientist does not imply that everyone has to switch all of their research to entirely open in an all-at-once fashion, let alone immediately.

There are many elements of/ steps in/ precursors to open science. All of them can serve as entry points in principle, but their utility does vary with context (e.g. discipline, topic, career stage etc.).

Highlighting such entry points could be a useful feature of this 101, and it corresponds well with
#1 #2 #3.