OpenScience

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?

 

Anuncios

EuroCRIS Strategic Membership Meeting and the #OpenScience #SMMBratislava

Posted on Actualizado enn

Last week I attend the euroCRIS Strategic Membership Meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, in cooperation with the Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information (CVTI SR). 

The theme of the Meeting was: Research Information and Open Science.

There, I presented SIGMA Research, the solution for the whole Research lifecycle.

There was a lot of information and presentations about OpenData and OpenAccess. It’s clear that there are a lot of things to do already, but the OpenScience movement is evolving rapidly and there a lot of initiatives, tools, services and so on, related. The vision is having a CRIS (Current Research Information System), that integrates with the institutional repository of scientific publications and with the Data Repository, in this way, the CRIS must be able to manage links to the digital publications and the dataSets (import/export). DSpace is a good tool to do so, but there are more: CKAN, and other initiatives.

There was also talk about advances in ORCID implantation, I think that, this unique identifier for authors, it’s key for the advance of the OpenScience, as also should be the unique identifier of research projects.

It was debated about the reasons why the OpenScience (especially OpenData) is not already fully implemented:

  • Journal editors are not always fully aware of the OpenAccess Standards
  • Researchers are willing to deposit papers but lacks the infrastructure to do so
  • Researcher have misperceptions about the principles of OpenAccess

Relevant issues:

Really interesting sessions in the beautiful city of Bratislava, where we could see a lot of examples and initiatives related to the OpenScience, focused especially in OpenData, the current trend.

Repensar la investigación

Posted on Actualizado enn

La investigación científica no es exclusiva de nuestro siglo, porque se remonta a los tiGalileo_Galilei,_1636empos de Galileo,  relacionado estrechamente con la revolución científica, que utilizó lo que se ha llamado desde entonces “Método científico”, allá por el siglo XVI.

Desde entonces, se sentaron las bases para un procedimiento que utilizan los científicos para comprobar hipótesis, solucionar problemas, formular teorías, etc.

Una primera fase de la revolución científica, enfocada a la recuperación del conocimiento de los antiguos, puede describirse como el Renacimiento Científico y se considera que culminó en 1632 con la publicación del ensayo de Galileo Diálogos sobre los dos máximos sistemas del mundo. La finalización de la revolución científica se atribuye a la “gran síntesis” de 1687 de Principia de Isaac Newton, que formuló las leyes de movimiento y de la gravitación universal y completó la síntesis de una nueva cosmología.

El concepto de revolución científica que tuvo lugar durante un período prolongado surgió en el siglo XVIII con la obra de Jean Sylvain Bailly, que vio un proceso en dos etapas de quitar lo viejo y establecer lo nuevo.

A finales del siglo XVIII, la revolución científica había dado paso a la “Era de la Reflexión”.

En el siglo XX, Alexandre Koyré introdujo el término «Revolución Científica», centrando su análisis en Galileo, y el término fue popularizado por Butterfield en su obra Origins of Modern Science (Orígenes de la ciencia moderna). El trabajo de Thomas Kuhn de 1962 La estructura de las revoluciones científicas enfatizó que no pueden compararse directamente diferentes marcos teóricos —como la teoría de la relatividad de Einstein y la teoría de la gravedad de Newton, que la reemplazó—.

Desde mediados del siglo XX, pocos cambios o pocas revoluciones se han producido, pero actualmente, estamos inmersos en una nueva revolución, a la que podríamos llamar la “Ciencia abierta”. Hasta hace relativamente poco, la ciencia era solamente accesible para las personas pertenecientes a la comunidad científica, atesorada por las principales editoriales científicas y centralizada en las universidades. La reputación de los investigadores se basaba principalmente en unos pocos indicadores (impacto y citaciones de sus publicaciones en las revistas de prestigio). Así ha sido durante mucho tiempo.

Con la globalización y la revolución digital en la que estamos inmersos, la ciencia no ha quedado al margen, y se están replanteando los cimientos mismos de toda actividad relativa a la ciencia que se realiza, ya sea de la forma de publicación, de la revisión por pares, del uso de los datos de los experimentos científicos, etc… Así, se apuesta porque la información y los resultados de la ciencia no sean solamente accesibles por unos pocos, sino que cualquiera, sea del ámbito que sea, pueda tener acceso a esta información, es lo que se llama el acceso abierto, o OpenAccess. Y eso afecta a todo, a cualquiera de las actividades que realiza un investigador. Es bien cierto que publicar en una revista de prestigio sigue siendo uno de los objetivos clave de cualquier investigador, pero ya no debería ser el único. Los investigadores, cada vez más, publican paralelamente  en acceso abierto, lo que hace que sus investigaciones sean accesibles, a la vez que le permite a él poder acceder de la misma forma a otras publicaciones o informaciones. Ello tiene que llevar inevitablemente a simplificar un procedimiento que, actualmente, sigue siendo costoso.

Para mí, esto es claramente una revolución. Muchas cosas están cambiando y cambiarán con la era digital y, todo ello, con el objetivo claro de facilitar la vida al investigador y hacer accesible la investigación.

La sociedad, de esta forma, también debe ser capaz de entender el trabajo tan importante que realizan nuestros investigadores, y, ¿porque no?, en algunos casos incluso colaborar de alguna forma con ellos.

Leer más: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos97/desarrollo-historico-investigacion/desarrollo-historico-investigacion.shtml#ixzz4xennBaNU 

y, por supuesto, en la Wikipedia.

euroCRIS membership meeting in Dublin talking about #OpenScience

Posted on Actualizado enn

As a member of euroCRIS organisation, I attended the Spring 2017 EuroCRIS Membership Meeting in Dublin taking place from the 29th and until de 31st of May. During the meeting I presented one of our leading projects in scientific management; the implementation of a SIGMA CRIS CERIF for Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF).

sigma-lidera-la-implementacion-de-cerif-en-eurocris_4745062DBJjtr-WAAAVn0q

My presentation was the story of how a CRIS system implementation was able to boost scientific information both internally and externally for an institution leading in research. There, I presented through some real examples, how to use and reuse the scientific information with a goal:

“collect data once, reuse it many times”

I talked about the data quality, avoiding redundancy, the using of standards and the relationship with openAccess among others.

Later, I presented the 100% cloud SIGMA Research tools that gives support to the whole research lifecycle.

I have also the opportunity to attend all the presentations, were participants, showed various examples of CRISs in different European countries, focusing on the openScience (mainly openAccess, openData), and how to improve the use of the scientific information, highlighting the role of the libraries.

We also took the chance to establish the general tends of the state-of-the-art of the CRIS implementations as well as future needs. We are agree of the importance of CRIS for the future of research recognising there is still a lot to be done.

In terms of the future needs, we all emphasised the fact that researchers should improve their data management skills in order to make the information more useful and shareable. Another area to improve is the visibility of CRIS amongst institutions to prevent parallel and unilateral projects to resolve what CRIS already resolves. Finally, constant communication to guarantee the information is updated in the institutional repositories and accountability of the information were also highlighted as important milestones to move forward.

In short, very interesting presentations, in the beautiful city of Dublin!