This poster will present two initiatives furthering Open Research RSpace, is an electronic lab notebook cum research data management engine that underpins an ecosystem of connected tools enabling Open Research. The FAIR Data Podcast, a new podcast devoted to conversations around FAIR data and Open Research.
{"title":"Mr Two Initiatives Furthering Open Research","authors":"Rory Macneil","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.7084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.7084","url":null,"abstract":"This poster will present two initiatives furthering Open Research \u0000RSpace, is an electronic lab notebook cum research data management engine that underpins an ecosystem of connected tools enabling Open Research. \u0000The FAIR Data Podcast, a new podcast devoted to conversations around FAIR data and Open Research.","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123254427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) addresses the underappreciated pedagogical aspect of open and reproducible science and its associated challenges, including a need for curricular reform, an account of epistemological pluralism, the development of new methods of education, and questions around how open science practices relate to social justice and a principled academic education. Teachers’ and researchers’ time constraints are substantial, posing a challenge to developing course materials and integrating new research practices in teaching. FORRT has developed strategies and proposed solutions to mitigate time constraints and help scholars implement open and principled education in their workflows. FORRT’s e-learning platform is a hub for community-driven initiatives and resources. FORRT’s community conceptualized our educational Nexus as integrating diverse components into one infrastructure serving those wishing to learn, adopt, and disseminate open and reproducible science tenets. In this talk, we will explain each element of FORRT’s open educational resources, FORRT’s ethos and modus operandi. Elements of the Nexus (https://forrt.org/nexus) are: FORRT’s Clusters (a pedagogically-driven organization of OS literature), Curated Resources (database of >1000 resources on OS), Initiatives Towards Social Justice in Academia (where we link mentees of unprivileged backgrounds to mentors of privileged ones), Open & Reproducible Science Summaries (having more than 300 summaries of OS literature), 7-ways to adopt principled teaching and mentoring practices (listing 100+ low commitment ways to interact with OS), Open & Reproducible Science Syllabus (a boiler-plate template for OS course that can be readily adapted and implemented in teachers’ courses), Self-Assessment Tool (a dynamic survey giving teachers feedback on how to integrate OS into their teaching), and finally, Educator’s Corner (offering a platform for educators of all stripes to share their stories, experiences, successes and hardships in teaching and mentoring, as well as for sharing educational practices and initiatives that are of interest to the OS community).
{"title":"Introducing a Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT)","authors":"F. Azevedo","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.6968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.6968","url":null,"abstract":"The Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) addresses the underappreciated pedagogical aspect of open and reproducible science and its associated challenges, including a need for curricular reform, an account of epistemological pluralism, the development of new methods of education, and questions around how open science practices relate to social justice and a principled academic education. Teachers’ and researchers’ time constraints are substantial, posing a challenge to developing course materials and integrating new research practices in teaching. FORRT has developed strategies and proposed solutions to mitigate time constraints and help scholars implement open and principled education in their workflows. FORRT’s e-learning platform is a hub for community-driven initiatives and resources. FORRT’s community conceptualized our educational Nexus as integrating diverse components into one infrastructure serving those wishing to learn, adopt, and disseminate open and reproducible science tenets. In this talk, we will explain each element of FORRT’s open educational resources, FORRT’s ethos and modus operandi. \u0000Elements of the Nexus (https://forrt.org/nexus) are: FORRT’s Clusters (a pedagogically-driven organization of OS literature), Curated Resources (database of >1000 resources on OS), Initiatives Towards Social Justice in Academia (where we link mentees of unprivileged backgrounds to mentors of privileged ones), Open & Reproducible Science Summaries (having more than 300 summaries of OS literature), 7-ways to adopt principled teaching and mentoring practices (listing 100+ low commitment ways to interact with OS), Open & Reproducible Science Syllabus (a boiler-plate template for OS course that can be readily adapted and implemented in teachers’ courses), Self-Assessment Tool (a dynamic survey giving teachers feedback on how to integrate OS into their teaching), and finally, Educator’s Corner (offering a platform for educators of all stripes to share their stories, experiences, successes and hardships in teaching and mentoring, as well as for sharing educational practices and initiatives that are of interest to the OS community). ","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"205 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116151938","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Depression Detectives was a (pilot) online user-led citizen science project which ran between Feb-Sep 2021. It brought together people with lived experience of depression, and researchers who study it, as EQUAL partners. Each participant gave as much or as little time as suited them. Method: Depression Detectives took part in Q&A sessions where they quizzed scientists and discussed where there were gaps in the research. They then designed their own research study. From a huge list of over 50 potential research areas, the group settled on the question: “Do people report all episodes of depression to their GP? And if not, why not?” They looked at this in two ways: A data science project, carried out by PhD student, Melissa Lewins. A set of Focus group questions and an anonymous survey that were answered by members of the Facebook Group. Results: Focus group / Survey: 84% of our respondents had gone to the doctors with half or less of their episodes of depression. Many went only with their more serious episodes or when they needed practical help (e.g. to be signed off work). Half of them had regretted not going afterwards. 50% had used private talking therapy instead. Many had managed their episodes using things like exercise, meditation, yoga or social contact. Thus, many of the ways they treated their depression would not be visible within their health records (i.e. not available to data science researchers). UK Biobank 1,342 people within UK Biobank answered questionnaires in a way that suggested they had experienced depression AND had given permission for UK Biobank to analyse their GP records. Of those, Melissa found that 67% had no mention of depression in their GP records. Impact Public “ I liked the way that participants were involved in at an early stage. It felt like we had more influence and choice because of this. It's much more meaningful to involve people early in the project, before major decisions have been made.” All of the participants spoke about their realisation that depression is more complex than they had realised. Some felt more motivated to read research literature. Others had developed a more critical perspective on research and its limitations. One person said they would approach their health-care provider differently – giving more information about complexities/comorbidities. Depression Detectives was not a peer support project, but participants still benefitted immensely from sharing experiences. All interviewees said that they would take part again / recommend to others. Researchers “We discovered that things researchers might take for granted are unknown by the public and vice versa.” “Insightful directions for future research.” “Really useful to get the opinions of people with lived experience over time.” Dissemination of Results A short report and infographics for researchers, GPs, policymakers and patients can be found on our blog: https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/depressiondetectives/ This project was a c
{"title":"Depression Detectives (Citizen Science)","authors":"I. Beange, Sophia Collins","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.7114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.7114","url":null,"abstract":"Depression Detectives was a (pilot) online user-led citizen science project which ran between Feb-Sep 2021. It brought together people with lived experience of depression, and researchers who study it, as EQUAL partners. Each participant gave as much or as little time as suited them. \u0000Method: Depression Detectives took part in Q&A sessions where they quizzed scientists and discussed where there were gaps in the research. They then designed their own research study. \u0000From a huge list of over 50 potential research areas, the group settled on the question: “Do people report all episodes of depression to their GP? And if not, why not?” They looked at this in two ways: \u0000 \u0000A data science project, carried out by PhD student, Melissa Lewins. \u0000A set of Focus group questions and an anonymous survey that were answered by members of the Facebook Group. \u0000 \u0000Results: Focus group / Survey: 84% of our respondents had gone to the doctors with half or less of their episodes of depression. Many went only with their more serious episodes or when they needed practical help (e.g. to be signed off work). Half of them had regretted not going afterwards. \u000050% had used private talking therapy instead. Many had managed their episodes using things like exercise, meditation, yoga or social contact. Thus, many of the ways they treated their depression would not be visible within their health records (i.e. not available to data science researchers). \u0000UK Biobank 1,342 people within UK Biobank answered questionnaires in a way that suggested they had experienced depression AND had given permission for UK Biobank to analyse their GP records. Of those, Melissa found that 67% had no mention of depression in their GP records. \u0000Impact Public \u0000“ I liked the way that participants were involved in at an early stage. It felt like we had more influence and choice because of this. It's much more meaningful to involve people early in the project, before major decisions have been made.” All of the participants spoke about their realisation that depression is more complex than they had realised. Some felt more motivated to read research literature. Others had developed a more critical perspective on research and its limitations. One person said they would approach their health-care provider differently – giving more information about complexities/comorbidities. Depression Detectives was not a peer support project, but participants still benefitted immensely from sharing experiences. All interviewees said that they would take part again / recommend to others. \u0000Researchers “We discovered that things researchers might take for granted are unknown by the public and vice versa.” “Insightful directions for future research.” “Really useful to get the opinions of people with lived experience over time.” \u0000Dissemination of Results A short report and infographics for researchers, GPs, policymakers and patients can be found on our blog: https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/depressiondetectives/ \u0000This project was a c","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125467392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a campaigning initiative to improve the ways that we evaluate research and researchers. It aims particularly to help people understand the problems associated with over-reliance on aggregate metrics like the journal impact factor or H-index in assessment processes. Such metrics have enduring appeal because they appear to offer the simplicity and objectivity of numerical analyses. However, we need to be mindful of the subjective nature of decisions that lead to citation counts – the raw material of many performance metrics – and the biases that perturb them. The challenge now, if we are to move to more robust and equitable forms of evaluation, is to ensure that these are as effective and as efficient as possible. Embracing this challenge will also help to clear the way for more open and impactful science, and for a more inclusive academy.
{"title":"The intersections between DORA, open research and equity","authors":"Stephen Curry","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.7051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.7051","url":null,"abstract":"The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a campaigning initiative to improve the ways that we evaluate research and researchers. It aims particularly to help people understand the problems associated with over-reliance on aggregate metrics like the journal impact factor or H-index in assessment processes. Such metrics have enduring appeal because they appear to offer the simplicity and objectivity of numerical analyses. However, we need to be mindful of the subjective nature of decisions that lead to citation counts – the raw material of many performance metrics – and the biases that perturb them. The challenge now, if we are to move to more robust and equitable forms of evaluation, is to ensure that these are as effective and as efficient as possible. Embracing this challenge will also help to clear the way for more open and impactful science, and for a more inclusive academy.","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121531086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Livia C. T. Scorza, Tomasz Zieliński, S. Baby, A. Millar, Graeme J. Cameron
Particles of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the causative agent of the COVID-19 disease, can enter the sewage system through faeces of infected people. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has been monitoring viral levels in wastewater since May 2020 in over 100 locations, as such data is a good indicator of COVID-19 spread throughout the population. These estimates are combined with others to provide the best overall estimate of disease prevalence and viral reproduction (R) values, at the Scottish and UK levels. These longitudinal, geospatial data are costly to obtain while they have a high potential for re-use. However, access to the data risks deteriorating over time once COVID-19 becomes an endemic infection and monitoring programmes terminate. Our team worked on the open research front of the programme monitoring SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, with the aim to develop appropriate preservation strategies while following open science and FAIR data principles. Here we will present the curation process of making the outputs complete and unambiguous. We will describe the multiple ways in which we disseminated the data to maximize their visibility and re-usability, while assuring cost-free, long-term preservation, as well as share some recommendations for such multi-institutional initiatives. Briefly, our work included sharing data in public repositories, submitting a data paper to a scientific data journal, and curating and transcribing protocols, which were also published in online platforms. A dashboard webpage containing the links to published outputs was also created: https://biordm.github.io/COVID-Wastewater-Scotland. By making these data open and FAIR, we are supporting COVID-19 data transparency, assisting with government decisions and accountability. Additionally, the detailed data and methodologies can help with the implementation of similar surveillance programmes in the future, as well as assist with the modelling and analysis of the past SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. Funding: CREW; Grant CD2019_06 Tracking SARS-CoV-2 via municipal wastewater
{"title":"Not Going to Waste - Preserving Scotland’s COVID-19 Wastewater Data","authors":"Livia C. T. Scorza, Tomasz Zieliński, S. Baby, A. Millar, Graeme J. Cameron","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.6988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.6988","url":null,"abstract":"Particles of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the causative agent of the COVID-19 disease, can enter the sewage system through faeces of infected people. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has been monitoring viral levels in wastewater since May 2020 in over 100 locations, as such data is a good indicator of COVID-19 spread throughout the population. These estimates are combined with others to provide the best overall estimate of disease prevalence and viral reproduction (R) values, at the Scottish and UK levels. These longitudinal, geospatial data are costly to obtain while they have a high potential for re-use. However, access to the data risks deteriorating over time once COVID-19 becomes an endemic infection and monitoring programmes terminate. Our team worked on the open research front of the programme monitoring SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, with the aim to develop appropriate preservation strategies while following open science and FAIR data principles. Here we will present the curation process of making the outputs complete and unambiguous. We will describe the multiple ways in which we disseminated the data to maximize their visibility and re-usability, while assuring cost-free, long-term preservation, as well as share some recommendations for such multi-institutional initiatives. Briefly, our work included sharing data in public repositories, submitting a data paper to a scientific data journal, and curating and transcribing protocols, which were also published in online platforms. A dashboard webpage containing the links to published outputs was also created: https://biordm.github.io/COVID-Wastewater-Scotland. By making these data open and FAIR, we are supporting COVID-19 data transparency, assisting with government decisions and accountability. Additionally, the detailed data and methodologies can help with the implementation of similar surveillance programmes in the future, as well as assist with the modelling and analysis of the past SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. \u0000Funding: CREW; Grant CD2019_06 Tracking SARS-CoV-2 via municipal wastewater","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129936951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How Research Integrity, Research Culture, and Open Research overlap and interact
研究诚信、研究文化和开放研究如何重叠和互动
{"title":"Open Research, Research Culture and Research Integrity","authors":"M. Macleod","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.7100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.7100","url":null,"abstract":" How Research Integrity, Research Culture, and Open Research overlap and interact","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"225 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130769068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When we talk about research integrity, what we’re talking about are the principles, ideas and behaviours that make up good research practice. It’s about defining what excellence in the conduct of research looks like and creating frameworks to help researchers do the very best research they can. In Edinburgh Research Office, the work we do in the Research Integrity space is mainly focused on engagement with colleagues in the Schools and Colleges, as well as in central University functions, Edinburgh Innovations and the Institute for Academic Development. Our remit includes ensuring that the University complies with the requirements of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, reviewing and updating policies and working with colleagues to ensure that we have the right training in place for our research community. We also act as a bridge between the University community and key external stakeholders including the funders, the UK Research Integrity Office and the Russell Group.The past four years have seen a series of important developments in this area. The publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report on Research Integrity in summer 2018 raised the profile of research integrity as a topic and led to the establishment of the new UK Committee on Research Integrity. More recently, the UK Government’s Trusted Research campaign was emblematic of an increased spotlight on international partnerships. From his vantage point as Research Integrity Manager in Edinburgh Research Office, Alan Campbell will outline the impact that these and other developments have had on the research integrity landscape. He’ll also discuss the steps that the University is taking to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.
{"title":"Research Integrity: the view from the Research Office","authors":"Alan Campbell","doi":"10.2218/eorc.2022.7338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2218/eorc.2022.7338","url":null,"abstract":"When we talk about research integrity, what we’re talking about are the principles, ideas and behaviours that make up good research practice. It’s about defining what excellence in the conduct of research looks like and creating frameworks to help researchers do the very best research they can. \u0000In Edinburgh Research Office, the work we do in the Research Integrity space is mainly focused on engagement with colleagues in the Schools and Colleges, as well as in central University functions, Edinburgh Innovations and the Institute for Academic Development. Our remit includes ensuring that the University complies with the requirements of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, reviewing and updating policies and working with colleagues to ensure that we have the right training in place for our research community. We also act as a bridge between the University community and key external stakeholders including the funders, the UK Research Integrity Office and the Russell Group.The past four years have seen a series of important developments in this area. The publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report on Research Integrity in summer 2018 raised the profile of research integrity as a topic and led to the establishment of the new UK Committee on Research Integrity. More recently, the UK Government’s Trusted Research campaign was emblematic of an increased spotlight on international partnerships. From his vantage point as Research Integrity Manager in Edinburgh Research Office, Alan Campbell will outline the impact that these and other developments have had on the research integrity landscape. He’ll also discuss the steps that the University is taking to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.","PeriodicalId":244254,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Open Research","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130189324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：