?pne data er ett aspekt av ?pen forskning. Samtidig med UHR-konferansen ble en rapport om deling av forskningsdata lansert. Rapporten ble levert av et utvalg satt ned av 中国竞猜网_中国足彩网-足球推荐sr?det og ledet av Jan Magnus Aronsen ved Medisinsk fakultet, UiO. Mottoet for denne rapporten, som for mye av det andre arbeidet med ?pne forskningsdata, er: s? ?pent som mulig, s? lukket som n?dvendig.
Noe av det fine med rapporten er at den eksisterer.
Det er lovende for det videre arbeidet med deling av forskningsdata at saken er blitt rimelig grundig utredet, og at utvalget underveis i arbeidet har lagt s? mye vekt p? ? ta imot innspill fra en rekke h?ringsinstanser.
Det virker n? som det er alminnelig enighet om at ?pne data er slike som oppfyller FAIR-kriteriene. Dataene skal v?re F – Findable; A – Accessible; I – Interoperable; og R – Reusable. Dette betyr at ?pne data skal v?re av h?y kvalitet, og de skal v?re mulig ? finne og bruke av de vi ?nsker skal bruke dem – andre gode forskere.
Fagn?r kompetanse b?r vurderes
For ? lykkes med ? gj?re dataene FAIR trengs investeringer i infrastruktur for forskningsdata. De store investeringene b?r gj?res gjennom internasjonalt 中国竞猜网_中国足彩网-足球推荐. Men det er ogs? mulig ? handle lokalt her. Et eksempel er UiOs Tjenester for Sikre Data (TSD), som mange av forskerne ved SV-fakultetet har god nytte av allerede. Et tiltak fakultetet b?r vurdere for ? lykkes med ? gj?re v?re data FAIR er ? bygge opp fagn?r kompetanse i datar?kting, inkludert tilrettelegging og sikring av dataene vi samler inn og bruker. Om dette skal gj?res gjennom ? styrke forskerst?tten ved fakultetet i form av datar?ktingskompetanse eller p? andre m?ter, m? vi se n?rmere p?.
En grunn til ? ha fagn?r kompetanse p? dette omr?det er at det er essensielle forskjeller mellom fagene, ogs? mellom de vi har p? v?rt fakultet, i mulighetene forskerne har til ? gj?re dataene FAIR. Her har flere av fagene v?re ulike utfordringer, bl a n?r det gjelder personvern og informert samtykke, som gj?r at en tilrettelegging av forskningsdata ikke enkelt kan f?lge generelle retningslinjer. En fin ting med rapporten til Aronsen-utvalget som jeg nevnte over, er at utvalget ser dette poenget.
Synlighet og kvalitet viktig
Et annet aspekt ved ?pen forskning er ?pen tilgang til publiserte artikler. Ikke overraskende er h?y kvalitet og synlighet blant relevante brukere avgj?rende suksess-kriterier ogs? her. 中国竞猜网_中国足彩网-足球推荐 er en dynamisk prosess, og dagens forskere bruker det de finner av nye forskningsresultater og nye forskningsmetoder, for ? komme videre med egen forskning. Da er det helt sentralt at resultatene og metodene som publiseres, holder h?y kvalitet og er mulig ? finne for de forskerne som trenger dem for ? komme videre.
For ? lykkes med dette trenger vi gode tidsskrifter. Gode tidsskrifter har dyktige redakt?rer og ?rgjerrige fagfeller som bidrar til ? holde oppe kvaliteten p? artiklene som publiseres, gjerne etter flere runder mellom forfattere og redakt?r.
Det vi ikke trenger, er d?rlige tidsskrifter.
En fersk studie i tidsskriftet PNAS viser at store mengder publiserte artikler i et fagfelt gj?r at de gode artiklene drukner i mengden og ikke blir oppdaget av andre forskere, i en slik grad at fremgangen i forskningen svekkes.
H?ye publiseringsavgifter
De gode tidsskriftene har h?ye refusjonsrater. Dette er n?dvendig for ? holde kvaliteten p? artiklene oppe. For ? holde det g?ende, trenger disse tidsskriftene diamant-tilgang, som betyr at tidsskriftene er gratis for b?de lesere og forfattere. Alternativet vil v?re veldig h?ye publiseringsavgifter (APCs, article processing charges), i mange tilfeller langt over 100 000 kroner per artikkel. Slike h?ye avgifter ser vi eksempler p? allerede, og de har gjort det umulig for de fleste universiteter ? opprettholde sine publiseringsfond. Forskere med begrensede midler vil presses over i tidsskrifter med lavere refusjonsrater, og dermed lavere kvalitet og synlighet, eller de m? la v?re ? publisere forskningen sin i tidsskrifter, en situasjon forskere i fattige land allerede st?r i.
Her omtrent st?r saken for ?pen tilgang n?. De som gjerne ?nsket ? gjennomf?re Plan S, har undervurdert den positive verdien av de gode tidsskriftene, og den negative verdien av de d?rlige som verden n? oversv?mmes av, og de har feilregnet hvor h?ye publiseringsavgiftene kom til ? bli.
De kan ikke ha skj?nt at den ekstremt h?ye l?nnsomheten vi har sett i den abonnementsbaserte tidsskriftsindustrien, fort vil dukke opp ogs? blant forlag som baserer seg p? publiseringsavgifter.
Og de kan ikke ha skj?nt faren ved at mengden d?rlig forskning n? bare ?ker p?.
Trenger internasjonalt 中国竞猜网_中国足彩网-足球推荐
L?sningen er ikke ? g? tilbake til tiden med abonnementstidsskrifter. Det som trengs, enda mer enn for deling av forskningsdata, er et internasjonalt 中国竞猜网_中国足彩网-足球推荐 om infrastruktur for tidsskrifter. Verdens forskningsfinansi?rer b?r g? sammen, ikke for ? komme med p?bud og forbud, men for ? skaffe finansiering slik at verdens viktige forskningstidsskrifter kan opprettholde sin h?ye kvalitet uten ? ta betalt fra verken lesere eller forfattere. H?pet v?rt ligger i diamant ?pen tilgang for gode tidsskrifter. En god ting jeg tok med meg fra den f?r nevnte UHR-konferansen, er at ledelsen i 中国竞猜网_中国足彩网-足球推荐sr?det synes ? v?re p? vei i riktig retning.
Editorial: Open science
“Research is a dynamic process, and today’s researchers use all kinds of research results and new research methods from a range of sources. Consequently, it is essential that the results and methods that are published are of high quality and are accessible to the researchers who need them to move forward with their research”, writes Research Dean Tore Nilssen in his editorial in the Faculty of Social Sciences’s newsletter SV-nytt.
The research community is currently undergoing a sea change. The key word is open science, and some aspects of the changes were recently highlighted at a conference organised by Universities Norway (UHR).
Open data is one aspect of open science. Parallel to the UHR conference, a report on the sharing of research data was presented. The report was written by a committee appointed by the Research Council of Norway, headed by Jan Magnus Aronsen of the University of Oslo’s Faculty of Medicine. The main principle propounded in this report, in line with much of the other work on open research data, is “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”.
One of the great things about the report is that it exists.
It bodes well for the future work on the sharing of research data that the matter has been thoroughly examined and considered, and that the committee has attached such great importance to obtaining input from a wide range of consultative bodies.
There now appears to be general consensus that open data can be defined as data that meet the FAIR criteria. The data must be F – Findable; A – Accessible; I – Interoperable; and R – Reusable. This means that open data must be of high quality, and it must be possible for the people we want to use the data (other good researchers) to find and use them.
Discipline-specific competencies
In order to ensure that research data are FAIR, investments are needed in infrastructure for research data. The large investments should be made through international partnerships. However, various things can be done locally. For example, the University of Oslo has its Services for Sensitive Data (TSD), which many of the researchers at the Faculty of Social Sciences already use extensively. One measure the Faculty ought to consider implementing in order to ensure our data are FAIR is to build up discipline-specific competencies in data management for the various fields, including curating and securing the data we collect and use. Whether this should be done by strengthening the research support services at the Faculty through additional data management expertise or in some other way remains to be decided.
One reason for having discipline-specific competencies in this area is that there are fundamental differences between the various disciplines, even among those within our faculty, in how easy it is for researchers to make their data FAIR. Many of the disciplines at our Faculty face different challenges in respect of, among other things, privacy and informed consent, making it very difficult to formulate general guidelines for the curation and processing of research data. As mentioned above, one great thing about the Aronsen Committee’s report is that the committee recognises this.
Visibility and quality are important
Another aspect of open science is open access to published articles. Not surprisingly, high quality and visibility among relevant users are crucial criteria for success here as well. Research is a dynamic process, and today’s researchers use all kinds of research results and new research methods from a range of sources to move forward with their own research. It is therefore essential that the results and methods that are published are of high quality and are findable by the researchers who need them to progress in their work.
To this end, we need good academic journals. Good journals have skilled editors and ambitious reviewers who help maintain the quality of the articles that are published, often only after several rounds back and forth between the author(s) and the editorial team.
What we don’t need is bad journals.
A recent study in the journal PNAS shows that large numbers of published articles in a particular field of study cause the good articles to become lost in the crowd, meaning they are not discovered by other researchers, to such an extent that progress in research is hampered.
High publishing fees
Good journals have high rejection rates. This is necessary to maintain the high quality of the articles. To keep going, these journals need to be so-called “diamond” open access journals, which means the journals are free for both the readers and the authors. The alternative would be very high article processing charges (APCs), in many cases well over NOK 100,000 per article. There are already journals that operate with these kinds of high fees for authors, and they have made it impossible for most universities to maintain their publishing funds. Researchers with limited funds will be forced into journals with lower rejection rates, and thus poorer quality and less visibility, or they must simply not publish their research in journals at all – a situation that is already the reality for many researchers in poor countries.
This is roughly where the case of open access currently stands. The parties that are pushing to implement Plan S have clearly underestimated the positive value of good journals – and the negative value of bad ones, of which there is now a deluge – and they have miscalculated how high the publishing fees would become.
They cannot have realised that the extremely high profitability we have seen in the subscription-based journal industry will soon be replicated among publishers that rely on APCs.
Nor can they have understood the perils entailed by the growing volume of sub-standard research.
International collaboration is key
The solution is not to return to the era of subscription-based journals. What is needed – even more so than for the sharing of research data – is international collaboration on an infrastructure for journals. The world’s research funders must join forces, not in order to lay down restrictions, but to provide funding so that the world’s important research journals can maintain their high quality without having to charge readers or authors. Our hope lies in diamond open access for good journals. One positive takeaway from the aforementioned UHR conference is that the management at the Research Council of Norway seems to be on the right track.