scholarly journals pyOpenSci: Open and reproducible research, powered by Python

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Trizna ◽  
Leah Wasser ◽  
David Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Application Programming Interface ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reproducible Research

pyOpenSci (short for Python Open Science), funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, is building a diverse community that supports well documented, open source Python software that enables open reproducible science. pyOpenSci will work with the community to openly develop best practice guidelines and open standards for scientific Python software, which will be reinforced through a community-led peer review process and training. Packages that complete the peer review process become a part of the pyOpenSci ecosystem, where maintenance can be shared to ensure longevity and stability in code. pyOpenSci packages are also eligible for a “fast tracked” acceptance to JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software). In addition, we provide review for open science tools that would be of interest to TDWG members but are not within scope for JOSS, such as API (Application Programming Interface) wrappers. pyOpenSci is built on top of the successful model of rOpenSci, founded in 2011, which has fostered the development of several useful biodiversity informatics R packages. The pyOpenSci team looks to following the lessons learned by rOpenSci, to create a similarly successful community. We invite TDWG members developing open source software tools in Python to become part of the pyOpenSci community.

scholarly journals Ways to Open Science. Open Research Infrastructures and the role of repositories

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Blumesberger
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Access Policies

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.The Way to Open Science contains many  components. One of these  components would be open repositories based on open source software  with free access to researchers. Open access policies are essential, as are open infrastructures and open contents. Repositories can support this openness by offering open licenses, open metadata , the possibility to use open formats  and open thesauri.  Another principal point is transparency. Open peer review should be possible, and the description of processes should also be transparent. Of course, an open license should provide all data types and metadata as well.It is important to help researchers to make their results visible and accessible and to encourage them to publish in OA-Journals and use repositories for the underlying data. Open Access Policies are supporting these efforts. Open data can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose. In order to do so, Open Licenses are required.Also Metadata are important components of the Way  to Open Science. Metadata are data about data which should be free of all restrictions on access, structured and based on standards.Open formats are defined by a published specification and are not restricted in their use. They are mainly used by open-source software. Open Thesauruses are freely accessible for everyone without costs and with a free license.Open Processes should be documented, transparent, repeatable and reusable.An open peer review process is also  a step  forward to Open Science. Authors and referees are no longer anonymous. The whole process and the decision letters are open.Of course Open licenses allow the reuse of any work or data without any restrictions.The lecture will deal with various aspects of open science and focus on the role of repositories – with all chances and challenges.

Point and Click Data: An Assessment of Editorial Perceptions and Recommendations for the Peer-Review Process in the New Data Frontier

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay C. Thibodeau ◽  
L. Tyler Williams ◽  
Annie L. Witte
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Data Streams ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Data Integrity ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Online Labor ◽  
New Research

ABSTRACT In the new research frontier of data availability, this study develops guidelines to aid accounting academicians as they seek to evidence data integrity proactively in the peer-review process. To that end, we explore data integrity issues associated with two emerging data streams that are gaining prominence in the accounting literature: online labor markets and social media sources. We provide rich detail surrounding academic thought about these data platforms through interview data collected from a sample of former senior journal editors and survey data collected from a sample of peer reviewers. We then propound a set of best practice considerations that are designed to mitigate the perceived risks identified by our assessment.

scholarly journals Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 60-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Sukjin You ◽  
Rath Manasa ◽  
Dietmar Wolfram
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Mining ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Current Characteristics ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Analytical Tools

AbstractPurposeTo understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approachThis research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.FindingsPeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitationsThis research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process.Practical implicationsThese findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.Originality/valueThis is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.

scholarly journals Open text editing tools for open scholarly communications

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Wilm
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
Scholarly Communications

Scholarly communication is undergoing a revolution with the move to open access. This has opened new opportunities and also new challenges. One of the most problematic issues are the costs of publishing. Some of this may be excessive profits of some publishers, but another part are actual costs associated with typesetting and document conversion.In 2012, the open source Fidus Writer editor was born with the vision of creating a fully web-based semantic editor for academics that would not require manual typesetting after the authors are finished with their text. Since 2015 the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences and University of Bonn have been working on the “Open Scholarly Communications in the Social Sciences” project. The project is financed by the German Research Foundation, DFG, and it has been enhancing Fidus Writer and connecting it with a number of other tools, such as citation databases for automatic citation retrieval and the Open Journals Systems (OJS) to offer an integrated peer-review process. The aim is to create a fully integrated system for social Scientists and others that does away with conversion steps and makes scientific text creation both less costly and improves the tools available, also for non-technically inclined users.While several other projects have come into being simultaneously with Fidus Writer, their focus has been somewhat different: ShareLatex/Overleaf have focused on LaTeX users and is therefore not suitable for scientists who do not code. Other editors are either not open source, not working as collaborative editors or do not provide the tools needed by humanists and social scientists.We have written several papers collaboratively using our combined tool that have been submitted and published and are now working with two journals to obtain real-world experience using Fidus Writer with social scientists in the journal peer review process. In this poster I would like to present the current status of our tool and project.

PsyArXiv

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
Margie Ruppel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Accessibility Issues ◽  
Science Framework

PsyArXiv, an Open Access preprint service, is the only platform in North America dedicated to making psychology and psychological science papers available to scholars, students, and the general public prior to peer review. The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science operates PsyArXiv; two governing boards provide guidance; and member institutions provide financial support. Key features include an abundance of new scholarship in all areas of psychology, an Open Access infrastructure using the Open Science Framework, and links to associated outputs, thus improving access to research and grey literature. Drawbacks include some accessibility issues and a lack of prominent notices on preprints indicating they have not gone through the peer review process.

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

scholarly journals Open science in practice: 300 published research ideas and outcomes illustrate how RIO Journal facilitates engagement with the research process

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Mietchen ◽  
Lyubomir Penev ◽  
Teodor Georgiev ◽  
Boriana Ovcharova ◽  
Iva Kostadinova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Challenges ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
Zoom In ◽  
Published Research

Since Research Ideas and Outcomes was launched in late 2015, it has stimulated experimentation around the publication of and engagement with research processes, especially those with a strong open science component. Here, we zoom in on the first 300 RIO articles that have been published and elucidate how they relate to the different stages and variants of the research cycle, how they help address societal challenges and what forms of engagement have evolved around these resources, most of which have a nature and scope that would prevent them from entering the scholarly record via more traditional journals. Building on these observations, we describe some changes we recently introduced in the policies and peer review process at RIO to further facilitate engagement with the research process, including the establishment of an article collections feature that allows us to bring together research ideas and outcomes from within one research cycle or across multiple ones, irrespective of where they have been published.

scholarly journals Open Code and Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Eglen ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Applied Mathematics ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Theoretical Physics ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
The University

In this episode, we are talking about code and the benefits of making your code available in a peer review process and having it checked. Our guest is Dr. Stephen Eglen from the department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Together with Dr. Daniel Nüst, from the University of Münster, he has created CodeCheck – an Open Science initiative to facilitate the sharing of computer programs and results presented in scientific publications. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. This episode was first published 20 January 2020.

How efficient are Early Career Scientists in peer-review activities?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Casado ◽  
Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽  
Kelsey Aho ◽  
Jilda Caccavo ◽  
Nicolas Champollion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Closing The Gap

<p>In our collective endeavour towards global sustainability, there is now a broad appreciation that producing scientifically robust knowledge requires new forms of engagement between scientists, stakeholders and society. But what is the role of Early Career Scientists (ECS) in these processes that are closing the gap between science and policy? Because opportunities to interact with more experienced peers through science refereeing are scarce, the role of ECS in the peer-review process remains minor despite ECS possessing strong academic credentials. Such engagement in the peer-review process represents a valuable opportunity for ECS and the scientific community as a whole. This opportunity provides a robust platform for ECS to understand the overall review process and editorial activities related to high-credibility publications such as those conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). During May/November 2018, 174 ECS on behalf of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) reviewed the first and second-order drafts of the IPCC “Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere and in a Changing Climate (SROCC)”. Here, we present the methodology, results, and lessons learned from these group reviews. Altogether, data from participant surveys on their experience and their comments catalog illustrate ECS as competent reviewers, comparable to more experienced researchers. The diverse disciplines and geographic perspectives, fostered through APECS and its partners, are currently being mobilized in the First Order Draft of the Working Groups I and II of the Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC, and will continue during the second round of reviews of these reports in early 2020. Information gathered during these ongoing reviews will add to the findings obtained during the review of the SROCC.</p>

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document