1. Robustness and reliability: Ensuring that AI systems perform as intended under various conditions and do not exhibit unexpected or harmful behavior.
2. Ethical considerations: Addressing issues related to fairness, accountability, transparency, and privacy in AI systems to prevent harm or discrimination against individuals or groups.
3. Value alignment: Aligning the goals and values of AI systems with those of human users and society at large to prevent conflicts or unintended consequences.
4. Risk mitigation: Developing strategies and mechanisms to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks associated with the development and deployment of AI technologies, such as unintended side effects, misuse, or unintended consequences.
5. Long-term impacts: Anticipating and planning for the long-term societal, economic, and existential impacts of AI technologies, including issues related to employment, inequality, and the potential for AI to surpass human capabilities.

Overall, the goal of AI safety is to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed in a way that maximizes their benefits while minimizing their risks and potential for harm to individuals, society, and the broader environment.

AI safety research is still an emerging field, and new questions and concerns about safety can arise almost daily. However, with increasing use of AI in different aspects of academia, it’s important for stakeholders to understand key issues in AI safety.

Data Poisoning

Data poisoning is a type of cyber attack or manipulation aimed at corrupting the training data used to develop or fine-tune machine learning models. In data poisoning attacks, adversaries strategically inject malicious or misleading data into the training dataset with the goal of undermining the performance or integrity of the machine learning model.

Data poisoning attacks can take various forms, including

1. Label Flipping: Adversaries manipulate the labels or annotations associated with data points to mislead the model during training. For example, they may change the label of a cat image to “dog” to confuse the model.
2. Feature Tampering: Attackers modify certain features or attributes of the data to introduce biases or distortions that can mislead the model’s learning process. This can involve altering pixel values in images or modifying text to include misleading information.
3. Data Injection: Adversaries inject entirely fabricated or malicious data points into the training dataset to skew the model’s decision boundaries or induce specific behaviors. These injected data points can be carefully crafted to exploit vulnerabilities in the model’s learning algorithms.
4. Data Manipulation: Attackers may manipulate the distribution of the training data by selectively adding or removing samples to bias the model’s predictions in favor of certain outcomes or classes.

Deepfakes

Deepfakes are synthetic media, typically videos, that are created using deep learning techniques, particularly generative adversarial networks (GANs) and deep neural networks (DNNs). These technologies allow for the manipulation of visual and audio content to produce highly realistic forgeries that are often difficult to distinguish from genuine footage.

Deepfakes have garnered significant attention due to their potential for misuse, including

1. Misinformation and Fake News: Deepfakes can be used to create convincing but entirely fabricated videos of public figures, politicians, or celebrities saying or doing things they never actually did. This poses a significant risk for spreading misinformation and undermining trust in media and public figures.
2. Privacy Concerns: Deepfake technology can be used to create non-consensual pornography or to fabricate compromising videos of individuals without their consent, leading to privacy violations and potential harm to victims.
3. Fraud and Social Engineering: Deepfakes could be employed for fraudulent purposes, such as impersonating individuals in video calls or creating fake audio messages to deceive people into believing they are communicating with someone they trust.

Transparency and Bias

Many AI systems, particularly those based on complex deep learning models, operate as “black boxes,” making it difficult to understand how they arrive at their decisions. Ensuring transparency and explainability in AI is essential for building trust, enabling accountability, and facilitating human oversight in critical applications where the consequences of errors or failures can be significant.

Moreover, bias in AI systems can lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes, particularly when these systems are used in high-stakes decision-making processes such as hiring, lending, and criminal justice. Addressing bias and promoting fairness in AI requires careful consideration of the data used to train models, as well as the design and evaluation of algorithms to mitigate biased outcomes.

The post AI Safety Aspects That Universities, Publishers, and Journals Need to Understand appeared first on CACTUS.

The recent Barcelona Declaration, on the other hand, advocates for such research information to be open, that is, freely available to all users and without restrictions on how such data can be used.

Below, we’ve compiled some of the main questions universities, publishers, and researchers have around the Barcelona Declaration.

What is the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information?

The Barcelona Declaration is a call for the scientific community to make the following 4 commitments:

1. To make openness the default for the research information they use and produce
2. To use services and systems that support and enable open research information
3. To support the sustainability of infrastructures for open research information
4. support collective action to accelerate the transition to openness of research information

Who prepared it?

Over 25 research information experts, from organizations involved in conducting, funding, and evaluating research, as well as those providing research information infrastructures, collaborated to prepare the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. They convened in Barcelona in November 2023 for a workshop hosted by the SIRIS Foundation.

When was it released?

April 16, 2024.

Who supports it?

The Barcelona Declaration already has an impressive list of signatories, ranging from prominent funders like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to organizations like the UK Reproducibility Network and Science Europe. cOAlitionS, Crossref, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), and Europe PMC are also in support of this declaration.

How can I learn more about it?

A webinar in English will be held on April 23 1.00-2.30pm CEST, to officially launch the Barcelona Declaration in English. Attendees can learn about the text of the Barcelona Declaration and its aims. They can also interact with members of signatory organizations and find out the next steps for community coordination. 

Organizations that would like to know more about the Declaration or that would like to sign the Declaration can email contact@barcelona-declaration.org.

The post A Step Towards Open Research Information: FAQs about the Barcelona Declaration appeared first on CACTUS.

See also: The Digital Development of China’s Academic Publishing Industry

Educational Emphasis and Research Commitment

China’s unwavering commitment to education is evident in its prioritization of research and development. The government’s consistent focus on building a knowledge-based society has led to a proliferation of universities and research institutions across the nation. This emphasis creates a robust demand for cutting-edge academic materials, providing Western publishers with an eager and intellectually curious audience.

See also: What Is PubScholar, China’s New Academic Database? An Introduction for Western Research Publishers, Societies, and Universities

Growth of Higher Education Institutions

The number of universities in China has been steadily increasing, reflecting the country’s dedication to fostering a highly educated workforce. This surge in higher education institutions translates into a substantial market for Western academic publishers. Collaborations with Chinese universities can facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and ideas, creating a symbiotic relationship that benefits both parties.

Global Knowledge Exchange

China’s integration into the global academic community has been accelerating. International collaborations and partnerships with Western institutions have become increasingly common. Western publishers entering the Chinese market not only tap into a vast consumer base but also contribute to the cross-cultural exchange of knowledge, fostering a more interconnected global academic landscape.

See also: How Culture Shapes Academia in China: A Guide for Western Publishers and Journals

Digital Transformation and E-Learning Trends

The rapid digitalization of education in China aligns with global trends, opening up avenues for Western publishers to provide e-learning solutions and digital resources. Embracing technology allows publishers to meet the evolving needs of Chinese researchers, educators, and students, offering dynamic and interactive content that enhances the learning experience.

See also: Five Key Digital Marketing Trends in China That Western Academic Publishers Need to Know

Conclusion

In 2024, China’s role as a pivotal market for Western academic publishers is undeniable. The confluence of a commitment to education, a growing number of higher education institutions, an expanding middle class, and the embrace of digital learning creates a fertile ground for publishers to thrive. By understanding and tapping into the unique opportunities presented by China, Western academic publishers can not only expand their market share but also contribute to the global dissemination of knowledge in this dynamic era of research.

The post Unlocking Opportunities: China’s Significance for Academic Publishers in 2024 appeared first on CACTUS.

What is the S2O Model?

S2O offers a systematic and gradual shift from subscription-based models to open access. Publishers have the opportunity to convert journals one year at a time, ensuring a well-managed and sustainable transition. Using S2O, a publisher offers a journal’s current subscribers continued access. If all current subscribers agree to the S2O offer, the publisher makes the content covered by that year’s subscription open access. If a significant number of subscribers do not participate or delay their subscriptions, that year’s content does not become open access.

The offer is repeated every year; that is, each year’s content could become open access depending on whether sufficient subscribers participate. In some cases, publishers offer access to backfile content to encourage subscribers to opt for S2O.

See also: The Changing Role of Libraries in an Open Data World

The S2O Community of Practice

The S2O Community of Practice serves as a forum for publishers, librarians, funders, scholars, and other stakeholders to share experiences, collaborate, and work towards a consensus on S2O as a sustainable mechanism for delivering open access.

Coordinating Committee

The S2O Community relies on a dedicated Coordinating Committee, comprised of six volunteers committed to coordinating monthly meetings, managing the membership list, and facilitating communication among members.

See also: Unlocking the Potential of Open Access: A Publisher’s Roadmap for Advancing Global Health Research

Advantages of S2O

1. Empowering Participation for Open Access: Central to S2O’s success is encouraging participation from current subscribers. By extending continued access to these subscribers, publishers can unlock the content covered by the annual subscription, making it freely accessible to readers.
2. Flexibility and Inclusivity: In cases where full participation is not achieved initially, S2O persists in its mission. Publishers can repeat the offer annually, allowing more time for subscribers to embrace the open access approach.
3. Alignment with Plan S: Plan S seeks to promote unrestricted access to research findings, aligning with the principles of open science. S2O complements these goals by providing publishers with a practical and gradual approach to make content openly accessible without the need for article processing charges.
4. Encouraging Collaboration: The S2O Community of Practice fosters collaboration among publishers, librarians, funders, scholars, and other stakeholders. This collective effort helps in sharing best practices, building consensus, and advancing open access initiatives.
5. Financial Stability for Publishers: Unlike some other open access models, S2O enables publishers to maintain their existing revenue streams by continuing subscriptions while simultaneously increasing access through open access. This approach offers financial stability during the transition to open access.
6. Lower Author Burden and Enhanced Global Reach: By removing both article processing charges and paywalls, S2O ensures that researchers worldwide can both publish and access critical research, fostering a more diverse and impactful academic landscape.

See also: Making Research Both Available and Accessible: Going Beyond Open Access

Risks of S20

While S2O offers several benefits, it is essential to consider its potential disadvantages:

1. Risk of Reduced Revenue: S2O relies on sufficient participation from current subscribers to unlock content. If a significant number of subscribers opt-out or delay renewals, publishers may face reduced revenue, potentially affecting the financial viability of the journal.
2. Inequitable Access: While S2O aims to increase open access, it may not address the issue of affordability for institutions in lower-income regions. Some libraries, especially from resource-constrained areas, might still find it challenging to afford subscriptions, leading to inequitable access to scholarly content.
3. Content Gating: If the participation threshold is not met in a given year, content for that period remains gated. This could create uncertainty for readers, although articles once published open access will still remain freely available.
4. Complexity in Implementation: Transitioning from a subscription-based model to S2O requires careful planning and communication. Publishers might face challenges in coordinating with multiple institutions and subscribers, potentially leading to logistical complexities.

While S2O presents a viable path towards open access, these potential disadvantages need consideration and thoughtful management to ensure successful implementation and equitable access to scholarly information.

See also: Geographical Differences in Open Access Ecosystems: Implications for Research Societies and Publishers

Conclusion

In conclusion, S2O presents an opportunity for publishers to unlock the potential of open access in scholarly publishing. With S2O as a pragmatic and sustainable solution, publishers can play a pivotal role in fostering open access and contributing to the broader vision of open science promoted by Plan S.

The post Converting Subscription-Based Journals to Open Access: A Handy Guide to the “Subscribe to Open” Model appeared first on CACTUS.

What is Threads?

Built by the Instagram team, Threads is a new app meant primarily for sharing text updates and joining public conversations. It’s considered a rival to Twitter, and marketing experts believe it is intended to capitalize on the growing migration of Twitter users who’ve been disappointed by Twitter after Elon Musk’s takeover. As of July 10, Threads had already crossed 100 million users.

Is Threads the Same as Instagram?

No, Threads is a different app and needs to be downloaded separately from the App Store or Google Play. But as of now, an Instagram account is required to log into Threads, and once you log in, you get the option to follow users whom you already follow on Instagram. Also, your Instagram username and verification will carry over to Threads, though you can customize your profile specifically for Threads.

What Can be Posted on Threads?

As Instagram is meant primarily for photos and videos, Threads is meant primarily for text (though photos, GIFs, and videos up to 5 minutes long can be included). Posts can be up to 500 characters long and include links. A Threads post can also be shared on your Instagram story or as a link on any other social media platform.

How Can Academic Publishers and Societies Use Threads?

Threads presents a unique opportunity for academic publishers and societies to enhance brand visibility, drive readership or engagement, and nurture relationships with relevant stakeholders. Here are some potential ways Threads can fit into your social media strategy:

1. Building Communities: Use Threads to establish vibrant communities centered around specific academic disciplines or subject areas. Curate content and foster meaningful discussions to attract scholars, researchers, and authors, providing a platform for disseminating academic publications and fostering collaborations.
2. Promoting Scholarly Content: Share snippets, abstracts, or summaries of academic publications within relevant discussions. This approach piques the interest of potential readers and drives traffic to your website or publication platforms, ultimately increasing visibility and readership.
3. Thought Leadership and Expertise: Engage actively in discussions on Threads to establish yourself as a thought leader and industry expert. Share valuable insights, engage with scholars, and provide guidance to enhance your credibility and position your publishing brand as a reliable source of scholarly content.
4. Real-time Engagement: Take advantage of Threads’ emphasis on focused conversations to engage in real-time discussions. Address queries, respond to comments, and promote your publications directly to interested users. This instant and interactive engagement fosters stronger connections with the academic community.

What Are the Future Plans for Threads?

Instagram has announced plans to make Threads compatible with ActivityPub, which is an open social networking protocol established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, which is responsible for creating the open standards that drive the modern web). By implementing ActivityPub compatibility, Threads will be able to seamlessly connect with other apps that also support this protocol, including popular platforms like Mastodon and WordPress. This means that people using compatible apps will be able to follow and interact with Threads users without having a Threads account, and vice versa (i.e., your posts would be accessible from other apps, which enables you to reach more people with minimal effort).

The post Five Questions Academic Publishers and Societies Have About Threads: The Latest Twitter Alternative appeared first on CACTUS.

In the pre-GPT3 era…

A group of authors specifically developed an AI tool to experimentally investigate how well AI approximate human decisions in a journal’s manuscript quality assessment and peer-review process. When reporting their results, Checco et al. (2021) remarked “Machine-learning techniques are inherently conservative, as they are trained with data from the past.” They also point out that if a tool similar to theirs is used for actual peer review, it could “… lead to unintended consequences, like the creation of biased rules that could penalise under-represented groups or even individuals.”

A look at the pros and cons

Hosseini and Horbach (2023) specifically examined the use of LLMs in the publication process. They found that while LLMs could be used to summarize peer review reports and draft editorial decision letters, they also “might exacerbate existing challenges of the peer review system such as fake peer reviews as they allow fraudsters to create more unique and well-written reviews.” Further, they point out that “LLMs are still in early stages of their development and for the moment seem only suitable to improve the first draft of a review instead of writing a review from scratch.” Consequently, they strongly recommend that journal editors and peer reviewers fully disclose whether and how they’ve used LLMs in manuscript-related decision making.

A case strongly against LLMs in peer review

One author, Donker (2023), shared his experience about using an LLM to generate a peer review in an article published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. He found that the AI-generated peer review report produced a number of comments that sounded genuine but didn’t actually pertain to the manuscript under review. In fact, the LLM even generated a list of spurious references to cite. “The real risk here is that the LLM produced a review report that looks properly balanced but has no specific critical content about the manuscript or the described study. Because it summarises the paper and methodology remarkably well, it could easily be mistaken for an actual review report by those that have not fully read the manuscript. Even worse, the specific but unrelated comments could be perceived as reason for rejection.”

His experience led him to strongly recommend against using LLMs for peer review: “Editors should make sure that comments in review reports truly relate to the manuscript in question, and authors should be even more ready to challenge reviewer comments that are seemingly unrelated, and above all, reviewers should refrain from using LLM tools.”

What journals and publishers have to say

Recently, in April 2023, a social sciences researcher pointed out fictitious authors and papers in an AI-generated peer review of his paper from an unspecified Emerald journal. An unnamed spokesperson from Emerald Publishing was quoted by Times Higher Education as saying “ChatGPT and other AI tools should not be utilised by reviewers of papers submitted to journals published by Emerald. As with authorship, AI tools/LLMs should not replace the peer review process that relies on human subject matter expertise and critical appraisal.”

The Program Chairs of the ICCV 2023 conference are even more explicit in their stance against LLMs in peer review. Their guidelines for peer reviewers state “It is unethical to resort to Large Language Models (e.g., ChatGPT) to automatically generate reviewing comments that do not originate from the reviewer’s own opinions.” They also require every reviewer to confirm that each review reflects their original opinions and that no part of their report has been generated by an automatic system.

Some journals still prefer to maintain a neutral stance. An April 2023 editorial simultaneously published in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology stated that “Although we do not anticipate substituting human peer reviewers with LLM AI tools, we will monitor whether such tools can be a useful adjunct.”

The bottom line…

As the demands of academic publishing continue to evolve, incorporating LLMs into the peer review process presents an attractive option for peer reviewers to boost their efficiency and productivity. However, at the current stage of LLMs, caution must be exercised due to ethical considerations and the need for human judgment. As newer and more sophisticated LLMs are developed, they could potentially be valuable allies in the peer review process, acting as a second pair of eyes and eliminating repetitive writing tasks while preserving the essence of human expertise.

The post Using ChatGPT for Peer Review: A Snapshot of Views appeared first on CACTUS.

Hitherto, one of the most common forms of open-access publishing has been the gold model, which usually requires the payment of APCs by the author. The new EU regulation acknowledges the inequalities in the ability of authors to pay such APCs. According to reports, the EU is set to back non-profit scholarly publishing models, which could have implications for commercial publishers.

Currently, many papers remain behind subscriber paywalls until an embargo period, often lasting a year or more, has elapsed. Embargoes were enforced on the uploading of papers to open-access repositories. The EU’s position on open access is a signal to researchers not to publish their work through routes that would impose embargoes or to circumvent those delays.

Further, the EU policy encourages rights-retention strategies that allow researchers to retain copyright over the accepted versions of their papers.

The new regulations are expected to be adopted by the Council of the EU member state governments by the end of May 2023; however, their exact contents are so far not released to the public. Until the final regulations are published, the scholarly publishing world will continue to speculate on the potential impact of this move to end or drastically limit APCs.

The post EU poised to adopt immediate open access with no charges for authors, for publicly funded research appeared first on CACTUS.

Flexibility Around Membership Fees

Budget cuts and limited funding opportunities hit ECRs particularly hard, as they have had less time to build a solid track record than their senior colleagues. Consequently, they prioritize immediate and necessary research-related expenses over society memberships. In response, societies can offer creative and flexible payment solutions for membership fees. For instance, the Society for Social Medicine & Popular Health waives membership fees for the 2^nd year for ECR members. The British Neuroscience Association allows full members (usually tenured researchers) to give membership for free to up to nine members of their research teams.

Support with Childcare Needs

ECRs, the majority of whom are millennials and Generation Z, are more likely to be parents or caregivers of young children than mid-career or senior researchers are. Hence, in 2020 and 2021, ECRs were likely to have been severely impacted by the closures of schools, daycares, etc. Some societies have realized that childcare is a key concern for ECRs who are parents, and have devised strategies to support them accordingly. For example, the American Mathematical Society offers childcare grants to cover daycare or babysitting costs for attendees of its various meetings. Similarly, in a 2022 study, family support grants were found to aid attendance at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual conference among early-career female researchers who are parents. The American Society of Human Genetics allowed attendees at its 2022 conference to bring along their babies below 6 months old.  

Leveraging Social Media Strategically

While email remains an important communication channel, Baby Boomers value it more highly than millennials and Generation Z do. ECRs find social media a powerful tool for sharing their research, finding collaborators, keeping abreast of research developments, and even raising funding. When developing a social media strategy, societies are beginning to go beyond Facebook and Twitter, and look at platforms with high appeal for millennials and Gen Z, such as Instagram, Snapchat, and even TikTok. One example is the American Association for Cancer Research, which uses Snapchat particularly to target younger researchers.

Catering to Networking Needs

ECRs are under pressure to network, but networking opportunities tend to be more accessible to senior researchers. The biggest networking opportunities for academics are conventional in-person academic conferences, which tend to heavily favor the old boys club (older white men). ECRs are looking for relatively low-cost, inclusive opportunities for networking. To meet this need, societies can explore solutions like virtual conferences, online networking events, and mentorship programs that facilitate networking. For instance, The Physiological Society hosted a virtual networking hour dedicated to ECRs.

Offering Leadership Opportunities

Most leadership positions in societies are held by senior researchers, leaving ECRs limited opportunities to contribute to key society policies or decisions. As a consequence, ECRs can feel frustrated and unheard. To resolve this issue, societies can formulate policies to include a judicious mix of senior and younger researchers on various boards and committees. For example, the American Association for Anatomy includes two ECRs in its Board of Directors (both of which are currently women!). The American Society for Plant Biology includes ECRs in several major committees (membership, publications, science policy, etc.) as well as its Council.

Conclusion

In the wake of the Great Resignation in academia, research societies have a role to play in tackling the widespread discontent among researchers at all levels. Given the significant proportion of ECRs in society membership, societies will find it worthwhile to understand and address the needs of this member segment. In the long run, ECR-friendly policies and practices will benefit societies themselves, as they effectively engage with new talent and the lead scientists of the future.

An earlier version of this article was published in February 2022.

The post Engaging and Retaining Early Career Researcher Members: Strategies for Academic Societies appeared first on CACTUS.

Can you tell us a little about yourself and your journey in scientific publishing?

After training as a biochemist, I moved into publishing in 2003, when I joined the editorial team for the BMC-series of journals at BioMed Central. It was the early days of open access, and an interesting time to learn the ropes as an editor in a digital-only open access environment. I then worked as a freelance editor for several years, which brought me opportunities to build skills in handling publication ethics and research integrity issues. I later joined the editorial team of PLOS ONE, working on internal editorial processes and policy development. I became very interested in how to make research more open beyond open access, and worked on initiatives around open data, registered reports, and preprints. I recognized the potential for preprints to bring positive change to science communication and this brought me to my current position at ASAPbio, where I promote the productive use of preprints in the life sciences, working closely with stakeholders in science communication as well as an inspiring community of researchers.

Although preprints have been around for decades, the biomedical sciences have only recently begun to normalize them. How do research societies, especially those in the biomedical sciences, encourage their members to post preprints? And what can such societies do to support and promote preprints?

Some research societies have been influential in supporting adoption of preprints in the life sciences. The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and the American Society for Microbiology, which operate highly respected journals, clearly expressed support for preprints in their editorial policies quite early on as preprints started to pick up in biology. Molecular Biology of the Cell, one of the ASCB journals, has also pioneered interesting innovations focused on preprints, such as its MBoC Preprint Highlights which provide brief summaries and badges outlining research contributions for preprints selected by early-career editors. This type endorsement from research societies is an important reassurance for researchers of their community’s support for preprints.

Societies will often run sessions related to science communication as part of their annual conferences or other programs for their members. This is another opportunity to raise awareness among members and to provide forums for researchers to learn how they can incorporate preprints into the communication plans for their research.

There are also examples of societies in different fields that have taken a step further and developed their own preprint servers for their disciplines. ChemRxiv, a preprint server for chemistry, is a collaboration by five of the largest chemical societies, and the Earth and Space Science Open Archive (ESSOAr) is a server for earth, environmental, and space sciences operated by the American Geophysical Society.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, people have become a lot more aware about the fact that many studies aren’t reproducible. While the onus is often on individual scientists or journal editors to ensure that published research is reproducible, what is the role that research societies could play here?

One of the purposes of research societies is to educate its members, as well as the general public, about the latest scientific developments, research practices, as well as the value of science to society. Research reproducibility is an important part of research best practices, and of building public trust in science. Research societies can emphasise the importance of reproducibility in their outreach activities, and provide training for their members in steps they can take to make their own research more reproducible. Societies can also develop dedicated awards to recognize researchers who demonstrate reproducible and open science practices.

Research societies often also have a publishing arm. They can implement policies that promote reproducibility at their journals, as well as for submissions to their conferences, for example, by implementing policies that require data sharing, invite the submission of negative results or replications, or by encouraging the use of reporting guidelines by both authors and reviewers.

In a talk organized by the PRBB Good Science Practice Working Group (https://ellipse.prbb.org/iratxe-puebla-asapbio-if-we-value-rigor-and-open-science-it-has-to-become-part-of-the-reward-system/#:~:text=As%20concluded%20by%20Puebla%2C%20%E2%80%9CIf,do%20for%20the%20greater%20good%E2%80%9D), you mentioned that open science can be the solution to a lot of the issues that plague science today. Could you elaborate on this? Also, what role can research societies play in promoting open science?

One of the points I made in that talk is that scrutinizing an article after its journal publication, which compresses years of work into just a few pages, is often too little too late. We now have tools that allow researchers to disseminate different outputs at all stages of the research process. Open science allows moving the communication of research upstream: researchers can document their findings more fully and open them for community feedback earlier on, allowing oversights or errors to be rectified before they make it to the final journal article. There are plenty of ways in which researchers can engage with open science: research plans can be archived as a pre-registration or even published as a Registered Report, data, code and protocols can be deposited in dedicated repositories, and preliminary or ongoing work can be posted as a preprint for community feedback. This allows researchers closest to each of these outputs to look at the work, reuse it, and raise questions and suggestions. It also means that researchers no longer need to make choices about what results to put in the journal submission or commit to the file cabinet, a variety of outputs can be shared with the community, which strengthens the evidence available and helps tackle publication bias.

Research societies can play a role in supporting open science by training their members in open practices, and by developing policies that endorse and enact those open practices, for example, by implementing data policies at their journals, or encouraging pre-registrations, full reporting and preprints.

The post <strong>The Role of Research Societies in Promoting Open Science, Preprints, and Reproducibility: An Interview with Iratxe Puebla</strong> appeared first on CACTUS.

See also: The New US Government Guidelines on Access to Federally Funded Research: A List of FAQs for Research Journals and Publishers

What is TOPS about?

The TOPS mission is expected to span around 5 years, with the following goals:

• Accelerate major scientific discoveries
• Broaden participation by historically excluded communities
• Increase understanding and adoption of open science principles and techniques

Under the TOPS mission, NASA TOPS plans to partner with 12 scientific societies to advance the adoption of open science, develop and disseminate an open science curriculum, and accelerate open science practices in minority serving institutes (MSIs) through prizes, challenges, and hackathons.

Why did NASA launch TOPS?

In an article in Nature, Chelle Gentemann, the TOPS mission lead explained the need for open science in the context of the multiple intersecting challenges that the world faces today, such as food and water insecurity. She pointed out that efforts to solve these challenges will “require a fundamental shift: from simply sharing results in journal articles to collaborating openly, publishing reproducible results and implementing full inclusivity and transparency.” She also added that “Much of NASA’s success can be attributed to a culture of openness for the public good.”

What is going to happen next?

NASA has already announced plans of conducting free in-person and online workshops throughout the Year of Open Science on basic skills that researchers need to practice open science, such as how to write a data management plan or software management plan. MSIs in the US will likely receive special attention for such activities. In addition, NASA will conduct similar workshops at 12 scientific conferences in 2023.

TOPS and inclusion in science

It’s worth noting that inclusivity is a key feature of the TOPS mission, with its focus on MSIs and under-represented communities. Since open science is based on transparency, collaboration and participation, successful open science requires strong commitments toward diversity and inclusion. As Gentemann remarked, “To change everything, we need everyone.”

See also: OSTP Mandate Will Increase Scholarly Society Focus on Author Services

The post What is the TOPS mission? A Quick Look at NASA’s Latest Commitment Toward Open Science appeared first on CACTUS.