Downloaded 24 times
Bosman-Kramer Changing Research Workflows
The document discusses the evolution of research workflows towards openness, efficiency, and reproducibility, emphasizing the shift from traditional company silos to open science practices. It highlights findings from global surveys regarding data sharing, tool preferences, and researcher roles within the open science framework. Additionally, it outlines goals for science and scholarship that focus on transparency, credit distribution, and effective communication among researchers, funders, and the public.
More Related Content
Similar to Bosman-Kramer Changing Research Workflows
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
Bosman-Kramer Changing Research Workflows
- 1. (except logo’s) Changing researchworkflows Driving forces for openness, efficiency and reproducibility Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman ICSTI-NISO joint webinar, October 26, 2016 @MsPhelps @jeroenbosman
- 2. Simple or complicated? Amodel of the research workflow preparation analysis writingpublication 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
- 3.
- 4. Changing research workflows: companysilos vs. open science Open Science y y y y Elsevier y
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9. Data sharing http://101innovations.wordpress.com Dataset DataNote ScriptsDashboard
- 10.
- 11. Open Science Framework(OSF) 6021 respondents
- 12. Open Science Framework(OSF) 1237 OSF users
- 13. Open Science Framework(OSF): Disciplines 1237 OSF users
- 14. Open Science Framework(OSF): Research roles 1237 OSF users What is their research workflow like?
- 15. What tools areused preferentially with OSF?
- 16. What tools areused preferentially with OSF?
- 17. What tools areused preferentially with OSF? Archive/share data & code
- 18. What tools areused preferentially with OSF? Read / view / annotate
- 19.
- 20. Researcher profiles /author identifiers 13139 of 14896 researchers answered this question
- 21. Researcher profiles /author identifiers % researchers using ORCID
- 22. Three goals forscience & 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
- 23. Three goals forscience & scholarship (G-E-O) good efficient open researcher funder publisher public government library
- 24.
- 25. Inform Support Advise,advocate (Co-)shape policies e.g.: Info on website, in LibGuides, etc. Offer training, Q&A What’s a good choice, why, what’s important Think with institution, graduate schools, etc. asks for: Knowledge, organizing info Communication skills, expertise Advocating priorities, field-specific knowledge; a vision Authority, role being accepted Types / levels of research support
- 26. Constraining and enablingcontexts for open and ‘good’ workflows political support at (inter)national level • pressure from funders • public stance on Open Science by institution • user-friendly and powerful tools • interoperability • role models • attention for positive effects • • assessment criteria • institutional policies/culture • PI demands • learning curves • agreements with collaborators • uncertainty over effects & legitimacy
- 27. “Openness and Outreach! Togetherwith an efficient workflow and minimal costs for researchers. Impact should be shared with and created by the public. That is only possible with Open Science.”
- 28.