scholarly journals What are the Usage Dimensions of Open?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Archambault ◽  
Lorcan Dempsey ◽  
Christopher Erdmann ◽  
Stephanie Fulton ◽  
Dee Magnoni ◽  
...  

What are the usage-related challenges currently faced by open efforts? For instance, open data is intriguing in principle, but in reality, making underlying data open can be problematic, conflicting with the need for research secrecy (whether driven by the desire to be first to publish, or the desire of funders to hold onto data to protect future discovery potential), the potential for misinterpretation by other researchers, and so on. Publishing clinical trial data in open formats is also intriguing but would run afoul of many current consent agreements, particularly older consents. Open access is similarly challenged in some instances by a conflict between which version of papers is allowed appear in open repositories. What is the value of archiving non-final versions? What are the range of issues here, what are the perspectives, and what might be some possible solutions?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Archambault ◽  
Lorcan Dempsey ◽  
Christopher Erdmann ◽  
Stephanie Fulton ◽  
Dee Magnoni ◽  
...  

The Usage Dimensions of Open workgroup came together and considered definitions and priorities around its topic. From priorities, themes were identified. One theme included the character of research outputs and the actual research workflow process. The second theme represented economic considerations. Stakeholders were identified, and solutions consid­ered. Solutions included both short- and long-term actions.OSI2016 Workgroup QuestionWhat are the usage-related challenges currently faced by open efforts? For instance, open data is intriguing in principle, but in reality, making underlying data open can be problematic, con­flicting with the need for research secrecy (whether driven by the desire to be first to publish, or the desire of funders to hold onto data to protect future discovery potential), the potential for misinterpretation by other researchers, and so on. Publishing clinical trial data in open formats is also intriguing but would run afoul of many current consent agreements, particularly older consents. Open access is similarly challenged in some instances by a con­flict between which versions of papers is allowed to appear in open repositories. What is the value of archiving non-final versions? What is the range of issues here, what are the perspec­tives, and what might be some possible solutions?


2016 ◽  
Vol 172 ◽  
pp. 64-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Pencina ◽  
Darcy M. Louzao ◽  
Brian J. McCourt ◽  
Monique R. Adams ◽  
Rehbar H. Tayyabkhan ◽  
...  

JAMA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 316 (6) ◽  
pp. 666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Ross ◽  
Harlan M. Krumholz

JAMA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 316 (6) ◽  
pp. 666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Marie Navar ◽  
Michael J. Pencina ◽  
Eric D. Peterson

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Mirko Gabelica ◽  
Damir Sapunar ◽  
Matko Marušić ◽  
Livia Puljak

In this article, we suggest a blueprint for an ideal open-access repository for clinical trial data with a description of a model of such a repository using a business process analysis approach. Firstly, we suggested which features an ideal repository should have. Secondly, we used business process management software to describe the whole process, from the decision to share clinical trial data to either publication of data in a repository or discarding data. The research community, legislators and society at large should be interested in a transparent open-access repository that will host clinical trial data. We hope this work can inspire relevant stakeholders to engage in discussion about the necessity of creating such repository, and that we will witness the creation of such a repository in the near future.


JAMA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 315 (12) ◽  
pp. 1283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Marie Navar ◽  
Michael J. Pencina ◽  
Jennifer A. Rymer ◽  
Darcy M. Louzao ◽  
Eric D. Peterson

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. K. Kramer ◽  
Fred Geisler ◽  
Leanne Ramer ◽  
Ward Plunet ◽  
Jacquelyn J. Cragg

Recovery from acute spinal cord injury (SCI) is characterized by extensive heterogeneity, resulting in uncertain prognosis. Reliable prediction of recovery in the acute phase benefits patients and their families directly, as well as improves the likelihood of detecting efficacy in clinical trials. This issue of heterogeneity is not unique to SCI. In fields such as traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, one approach to understand variability in recovery has been to make clinical trial data widely available to the greater research community. We contend that the SCI community should adopt a similar approach in providing open access clinical trial data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document