OpenAccess

La investigación en tiempos de #coronavirus. #COVID19 #investigacion #research #openAccess

Posted on

coronavirus

Afrontando grandes retos

El mundo ya ha cambiado, esto es un hecho, creo que nada volverá a ser como antes, aunque también creo que volveremos a una cierta normalidad y todo ello, gracias a dos pilares fundamentales:

  • Un robusto sistema sanitario en el que trabajan, como se ha demostrado, personas increíbles con vocación y formación extraordinaria y que están dando lo mejor de sí mismos para salvar nuestras vidas.  Trabajando en turnos imposibles afrontando situaciones realmente críticas. Creo que es algo que jamás podremos llegar a compensárselo.
  • Por otro lado, tenemos a los investigadores trabajando sin descanso para conseguir la deseada vacuna contra el coronavirus. Pero no solo eso, también realizando grandes esfuerzos para conseguir avances en todos aquellas invenciones e innovaciones que van ayudar a salir de esta crisis. Estamos reinventando industrias, aplicaciones, negocios, etc.. para un mismo objetivo.

Considero que somos afortunados, dentro de la gravedad del tema, de tener todo esto.

El escenario de la investigación

Dicho esto y centrándome en el escenario de la investigación, de las muchas cosas que tienen que cambiar, la investigación es una de las más importantes.

El acceso abierto a contenidos se está fortaleciendo y acelerando. Podemos ver diferentes artículos que hablan como relevantes editoriales científicas, están abriendo contenidos por la crisis del COVID-19.

Así, muchas editoriales están tomando iniciativas solidarias para facilitar el acceso gratuito a sus libros y revistas electrónicos que ofrezcan información y datos sobre el COVID-19.

Por otro lado, otras editoriales, museos, etc… están facilitando acceso a sus contenidos digitales para el simple entretenimiento de esa población que estamos recluidos en casa. Lo cual se agradece muchísimo también.

Todo ello iniciativas que considero muy interesantes y/o necesarias en estos momentos.

También vemos constantemente noticias sobre cómo se están agilizando (o intentando agilizar) sistemas de validación y test, de patentes, de burocracias para convocatorias, para la financiación de la investigación, para permitir acelerar el proceso de investigación en general.

(ver algunas referencias a todo ello al final del post).

Conclusión

La cuestión es: “sí se puede” es decir, existen alternativas para acelerar el proceso de investigación y el acceso y la validación de la ciencia, y aunque ahora se deban aplicar por imperativo, se debería estudiar cómo se deben revisar estos procesos de cara al futuro.

Por lo tanto, creo que muchos de los cambios han llegado para quedarse o deberían quedarse, porque están demostrando alta efectividad en todo el proceso de investigación.

Referencias y ejemplos:

Listado de editoriales con acceso libre a recursos:

https://noticias-biblioteca.unav.edu/2020/03/25/covid-19-editoriales-acceso-libre-recursos/

Para recoger toda esa información abierta a la investigación EBSCO Health. ha creado la página Trusted open access research, en la que presenta más de 125 editoras con los enlaces a sus contenidos.

Podemos acceder, entre otros, a los recursos de:

  • Lancet,
  • UpToDate,
  • Fisterra,
  • Institut Pasteur,
  • Dynamed,
  • Cochrane Library.

Otros artículos relacionados:

Elsevier abre contenidos para acelerar la lucha contra el Coronavirus:

https://www.elsevier.com/es-es/connect/coronavirus/elsevier-da-acceso-completo-a-su-contenido-sobre-el-covid-19-para-acelerar-la-lucha-contra-el-coronavirus

Otras editoriales ofrecen acceso abierto a sus revistas ante la alerta sanitaria:

https://www.apmadrid.es/hearst-espana-ofrece-acceso-gratuito-a-todas-sus-revistas-ante-la-alerta-sanitaria-del-coronavirus/

Las bibliotecas públicas abren sus contenidos digitales:

https://elpais.com/espana/madrid/2020-03-21/las-bibliotecas-publicas-abren-de-forma-temporal-sus-contenidos-digitales-a-los-usuarios-sin-carnet.html

España propone a la Unión europea un banco europeo de patentes abiertas frente al Coronnavirus:

https://elglobal.es/politica/espana-propone-un-modelo-de-misiones-y-un-banco-europeo-de-patentes-abiertas-frente-al-covid-19/

The #euroCRIS membership meeting in #Muenster #Germany #research #CRIS @euroCRIS_org @SIGMA_AIE

Posted on Actualizado enn

eurocris

I attended the Autumn 2019 Strategic Membership Meeting that was held in #Münster #Germany from 18th to 20th November. This time, the key topic was: ” Exploring challenges to achieve a more effective system interoperability in research information management

It was a really interesting meeting, were a hundred of participants had the opportunity to share knowledge and opinions related to the researh information management, among others.

There were many interesting presentations. One of them, related to Research Information in the Selection Process of Germany`s Universities of Excellence. Inka Spang  from the German council of research explained an initiative of German Excellence strategy for funding. They don’t consider rankings, nor bibliometrics to select university of excelence, it’s all about the data and what researchers do (research information): What they do about funding, PHD lectures, awards, publications, and so on. They have an excellent commission that elaborates 19 evaluation reports and a table comparing the research data of the applicants. They demonstrate that multidimensional approach was effective. Combining peer review and sets of indicators, combining quality and quantitative information, combining open formats and standardized specifications, etc. The balance of this 7-year initiative is good.

There were some presentations related to new research identifiers: Josh Brown from Crossref, related to the creation of grant IDs, and Stephanie Hagemann-Wilholt – TIB – German National Library of Science and Technology, about identifiers for congresses (avoiding the ambiguity of conference titles and with equal acronyms or fake congresses). Also there were presentations about data classifications, explaining that the main objects of classification are: persons, institutes and projects. Which persons interact in a project? And so on…

The euroCRIS board explains in their summary, their 2019-2020 strategy that focuses on the advances of the interoperability through CERIF and the promotion of the external collaborations, such VIVO, among others.

Stefan Schelske presentation was about new professional roles in research, the interesting project BERTI – Research on CRIS Managers works is about : A new type of research manager “The CRIS manager” emerging? seems the answer is yes…

Following, Christian Hauschke, from TIB Hannover , presented the ROSI project. This project is about the implementation of Open Sciencometric indicators. Based on the need to change the evaluation and  their perception. So, they asses that it’s needed to open scientometric data, indicators and infrastructures; it’s needed to have the scientific community in control and to design a prototype based on user needs.

I presented a project that we are developing in SIGMA this year about the automatic integration of the CRIS with the institutional repository DSPACE (The CRIS/IR interoperability project), that will led to easy and  gives speed to the upload process of the publication to the repository, through the CRIS.

In short, it was a really interesting meeting, with very interesting initiatives, focusing the attention on new metrics systems for the research evaluation, new identifiers and new professional roles for research, confirming that the research scenario is evolving rapidly.

Here, you can access to my presentation. In the same directory can find the other presentations

EuroCRIS Strategic membership meeting @euroCRIS_Org #research #CRIS #SMMWarsaw #OpenScience

Posted on

This week (from 26 to 28 of November) it was carried out the Warsaw Strategic Membership Meeting 2018.

I attend and participate in the event that was really interesting.

The theme for this meeting was: Research Information Management: from an Institutional to a National-Level Implementation.

The main topics discussed were:

  • Open Science advances  and policies, case Plan S, (the European funders initiative for open Access and  Open Data publishing).
  • New evaluation methods for researchers and for the research due to the OpenScience scenario.
  • Some examples of national-Level implementations of  CRISs, like in Poland, POLON (The Integrated System of Information on Science and Higher Education)
  • Repository and  CRIS integrations
  • Semantic approaches of science
  • The openAIRE advances with the integracion of Repositories and CRISs. The OpenAIRE Guidelines for CRIS Managers was presented.
  • P-O-PF an  interesting interchange of data between funders and CRISs.
  • A presentation of EUNIS organisation and  an invitation to collaborate in EUNIS 2019.

We, SIGMA, presented our Universities consortium model, as an example of success model in Europe.

Always a great opportunity to share knowledge and experiences  at International level!

Photo Gallery:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Repositorios institucionales vs Redes sociales académicas #openaccess #openaccessweek #RG #Academia.edu

Posted on

Al hilo de la semana del acceso abierto, da gusto ver la de actividades e iniciativas que han llevado a cabo universidades y centros de investigación, así como las bibliotecas. La verdad es que ha sido una semana muy interesante en la que ha sido posible ver y acceder a mucha información y muchas opiniones y que ha proporcionado una foto bastante clara del momento en el que estamos respecto al acceso abierto.

A destacar para mi, el papel cada vez más relevante que están adquiriendo las bibliotecas universitarias en el soporte, la curación de datos y la implicación en general, en todo el movimiento del acceso abierto. Tal y como muestra la infografía de Rebuin:

rebuin en cifras

Uno de los temas que me ha llamado la atención ha sido la, podríamos decir, “discusión” sobre si publicar en abierto en un repositorio institucional o bien en ResearchGate o Academia.edu. Como por ejemplo, el tuit de Isidro F. Aguillo (con el que estoy de acuerdo):

Para mí, se trata de temas totalmente distintos. Por un lado, tenemos una ley de la ciencia que obliga a publicar en abierto todas aquellas publicaciones que derivan de investigaciones realizadas con financiación pública, y tiene que ser publicado en un repositorio de acceso abierto, donde, lo que hay que hacer, si se investiga en una universidad, es publicarlo en su repositorio institucional. O bien, buscar repositorios de acceso abierto de prestigio que podemos encontrar, por ejemplo, en Recolecta [1] (RECOLECTA o Recolector de Ciencia Abierta es una plataforma que agrupa a todos los repositorios científicos nacionales y que provee de servicios a los gestores de repositorios, a los investigadores y a los agentes implicados en la elaboración de políticas. Nace fruto de la colaboración, desde 2007, entre La Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) y la Red de Bibliotecas Universitarias (REBIUN) de la CRUE con el objetivo de crear una infraestructura nacional de repositorios científicos de acceso abierto. Permite buscar entre 1.260.000 documentos provenientes de 127 recursos).

RECOLECTA

Otra cosa muy distinta es que queramos tener redes sociales para poder contactar con otros investigadores y poder ver qué es lo que están haciendo, entonces lo más habitual es darse de alta en redes sociales como ResearchGate o Academia.edu. Allí, se puede subir cualquier tipo de publicación sin apenas ningún control, porque, realmente no es el objetivo de velar por la calidad de las publicaciones que hay, sino más bien de “socializar” el ámbito de la investigación, en el mundo digital.

Pienso que si hablásemos de Facebook en vez de ResearchGate o Academia.edu, nadie dudaría del objetivo que tiene ni se plantearía entre publicar en Facebook o en el repositorio institucional, dado que está más que claro el objetivo de una red social como Facebook.

Estas redes sociales, deben ayudar a los investigadores a crear y mantener su reputación, así como facilitarles realizar tareas de divulgación, a mi modo de ver.

[1] Fuente, artículo de Julián Maquina: https://www.julianmarquina.es/14-buscadores-repositorios-y-agregadores-de-articulos-en-acceso-abierto/

 

#openScience event at Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona #research

Posted on Actualizado enn

Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to participate in an event organised by the Natural Sciences museum of Barcelona. The event theme was the Open Science and the impact in all the Research lifecycle.

There were great presentations, and it was really interesting. The conclusion was clear: OpenScience is an unstoppable movement but there are already some aspects that need more definition and debate.

The session was presented for Anna Omedes, the Director of the Museum, Joan Carles Senar, Head of Research and publications, Montserrat Navarro, Head of the Documentation Centre, and special mention to Miguel Navas, Librarian at the Centre of Documentation who was in charge of the event organisation and chair. They explained how is the Research process in the Museum and related to the OpenScience. Talking about some initiatives to promote openScience between researchers and research managers and librarians, and also that they have open publications and so on. Then explained the purpose of the event: to give more information about openScience to the public.

museu0

Afterwards, Lluís Anglada from CSUC, open the presentations block. He talked about the definition of the term OpenScience and it’s implications in the research lifecycle. Talked about a disruption, a paradigm shift in the Research scenario that has been the same for a long time. In short he tells that the science must be open, collaborative and society oriented.

museu1

Then, I presented the state-of-the-art of the OpenScience. I talked about the main aspects or the more rellevant aspects of the OpenScience that are: OpenAccess, OpenResearchData, OpenEvaluation and OpenData. Also about the OpenScience movement in the three main international scientific producers that actually are: USA, Europe and the emergent Xina. Finally I talked about the most used research networks such as: Google Scholar and SciHub and presented some examples of Open Research Platforms highlighting Intechopen, a new open platform of Scientific books. Concluding that OpenScience is a non stoppable movement, but also that is not new, telling the example of SciELO-Scientific Electronic Library On Line, that this year celebrate 20 years of OpenAccess publicacions.

museu11

Then, was the turn of  Ernest Abadal, professor of the Biblioteconomy Faculty of the UB, and Director Of the Research Centre of Information, Communication and Culture. He talked about the challenges of the Scientific Journals with the OpenScience. With issues such as: sustainability of openJournals, new metrics and OpenPeerReview.

museu9

Clara Armengou, presented the DOAJ-Directory of OpenJournals explaining the features that the journals must have to be in this Directory, that they have a lot of requests and the future of this Directory.

museu7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Àlex López-Borrull, aggregated professor of Information and Communication sciences of the UOC, presented new journals, new formats and the changes in the scientific communication. The transformation of the big scientific editors and that now there are too many scientific journals.

museu8.jpg

There was the turn of Ignasi Labastida, Head of the Research Unit CRAI of the UB. He talked about the ever interesting and controversial copyright and intellectual property. Talked about the Creative Commons and so on, giving very clear explanations.

museu16

Ismael Ràfols, researcher at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), made another interesting presentation about the future of evaluation with the OpenScience, he questioned the use of bibliometrics and altmetrics in research evaluation and introduce the term evaluation frameworks depending on the area or kind of research, making a more plural evaluation of the researchers and their research.

museu6

And finally, Reme Melero, titular scientist of the CSIC, talked about the FAIR data concept and their implications and also explained some examples of data reusing awards!

museu13

In short it was a very interesting session with great presentations and speakers and confirming that the OpenScience movement is here to stay, but also there is an issue that more or less appear in all presentations that is: “who finances the openScience”? Good question that must be debated.

To me was a great opportunity that has been possible thanks to my experience working in the group SIGMA AIE working close to our member universities (UAB, UAM, UPF, UCO, UC3M, UPNA, UBU, UVA, UVIC, UNED, UZ) and been a member of the euroCRIS organisation .

 

The #euroCRIS international conference 2018 #research #FAIR #openScience #cris2018

Posted on

IMG_20180613_190113

Last month I attended the international conference of euroCRIS in the beautiful location of UMEA, Sweeden.

The mission of euroCRIS, is to promote collaboration within the research information community and advance interoperability through CERIF. CERIF is the Common European Research Information Format, a format that allows the interoperability of the CRISs. A CRIS is a Current Research Information System, is a Database that unifies all the research information of an institution with data quality and fiability.

The general theme of the conference was “FAIRness of Research Information”. In a broader sense this theme reflects on the question of how to optimally present research (projects), its practitioners (researchers, institutions) and – above all – its products (datasets, publications) and make them optimally discoverable and useful, first of all for fellow researchers, but in a wider perspective also for professional communities and the general public as a whole.

There was a lot of interesting presentations, worshops, posters and so on, and with a conference of this kind you can be aware of the main trends a the ‘state-of-the-art’ related to the research information management.

In this way, there were several presentations of universities and other centres, explaining their experiences with the CRIS’s, and their evolution, and, related to this, the interoperability with CERIF.

There was much talk about OpenScience and the need of having policies, metrics and incentives to promote the broad openness of the research publications (openAccess) and data (openData), and not only this but, open-peer-review and other elements of the OpenScience. Also it was presented many interesting initiatives about this.

Also, the increasingly relevance of the CRIS in the institutions as a central repository of scientific information that must be integrated with the institutional openAccess repository.

There was also many presentations about case studies of metrics, analytics and visualisation of the research information. In this way, I presented a case study of implementation of a project of analytics: Analyzing a CRIS: From data to insight in university research”. You can access the presentation here.

IMG_20180614_122531IMG_20180614_122931_568

There were some examples of semantics approaches that provides information discovery creating a conceptual model of related entities of the research environment.

Finally, there was talk about openAIRE. OpenAIRE is a repository of openAcces, it’s goal is to make as much European funded research output as possible available to all, via the OpenAIRE portal. It has been published a guide to incorporate the information of CRIS providers in the Portal and aimed to all the CRIS providers to upload their CRIS information in the repository.

It was a great opportunity to talk with a lot of people about different issues and points of view. But finally, the main topics are almost the same in the scientific environment, so we are working more or less in the same way.

Seeing this, I think that collaboration is necessary to advance more in this scenario that is changing rapidly. Can we go together?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship between #evaluation and creation of new knowledge in #research process

Posted on Actualizado enn

  “Science outside of society doesn’t exist” (Dr. Paul Wouters)

I have seen this really interesting presentation from Paul Wouters, Director of the Center for Science and Technology studies WTS from Leyden University in the Netherlands, the tittle of the presentation is “New generation metrics“.

This presentation was part of the New research evaluation methods conference, that took place in the Biblioteconomy and Documentation Faculty of Barcelona University.

Dr. Wouters asses that evaluation is not a measurement of what you have done but it’s an inquiry about the possibilities that you have given, the state of affairs in your group or in your university at the moment: where you want to invest, what kind of people do you need. The evaluative process is never rigid, it’s never uniform for all fields and it’s contend-oriented. Mixed-methods approach are needed, not only quantitative and qualitative indicators such impact and indexes or rankings.

Evaluation is about the conditions and infrastructure. It means, for example, the synergies and conditions of the people of the group and so on.

He also assess that the evaluation and assessment must be in the core of the knowledge creation.

He tells that the impact doesn’t exist in society, the quality doesn’t exist also, both are assessments. So it’s not possible to measure the research only thought indicators.

He talks about open science and how this new scenario must change the evaluation and assessment methods of the scientific research. The ambitions of open science are:

  • More comprehensive measurement of traditional scientific publication (eg Mendeley)
  • Recognizing and capturing the diversity of scientific output including new forms (eg. software and blogs)
  • Opening up the whole scientific publication system (Open Access) and more interactive communication
  • Opening up the very core of knowledge creation and it’s role in higher education and innovation (participatory science)

And this last point is, in opinion of Dr. Wouters, the most important, and the game-changer in the research evaluation.

He shows 3 key assessment points of the individual researcher:

  • Expertise
  • output
  • influence

So, for him, it’s clear that a new way to evaluate the research is coming but now there is a lack of creativity in research assessment and he is working with others in this issue.

In short, he assess:  The evaluation and assessment must be part of the research process and not be and administrative work that the researcher must do, apart from their core work.

I found the presentation really interesting. Now researchers are basically measured by their outputs, but what about their expertise and influence? What about their “other works” like blogs, tweets, software, and so on? How can we measure this? How can we measure the researcher reputation with quality and in an objective form?