The University of Groningen Library (UB) and the Open Science Community Groningen launch the 2nd annual Open Research Award. The award celebrates the many ways in which academics make their research more accessible, transparent or reproducible.
What? 600 words on your success or failure to use ‘open’ research practices.
We welcome the submission of no more than 600 words in length that discuss the use of one or more open practices in the conduct of research and/or communication of outputs to achieve specific research aims or solve particular problems.
The case studies ideally explore the challenges of making open choices as well as those that celebrate positive experiences and successful open science practices. Staff members and students can submit case studies. All submissions will be screened for eligibility by a jury. All eligible cases receive an Open Research Award certificate. In addition, three eligible cases will be randomly drawn by the jury; each of which will receive 500 euros to be used for research material, travel costs etc. For more information check the webpage https://www.rug.nl/library/open-research-award/ or contact us via firstname.lastname@example.org
We will be tackling the question of how to use reflexivity in our research process, and how reflexivity could aid open science practices.
“Reflexivity is the process by which the researcher continually and explicitly engages in self-awareness and analysis of personal influences on the research process. Reflexivity on the part of the researcher allows them to question and adapt their interpretations, based on issues that arise during the study” (p.5 Field & Derksen, 2020). Practicing reflexivity throughout the research process, could help to produce an honest and critical account of the research process and potentially increase the quality of your interpretations and conclusions.
Do you agree? And if yes, how to get started practicing reflexivity? How could it help in your personal journey towards more open science? Let’s discuss next week.
Does Open Science make you leave academia?, While open science practices can have many benefits, there are also downsides. Besides time investments and limited resources, learning about why open science is important can make you unsure of current research practices and (overly) sceptical of existing literature. Ultimately, promising researchers can become disheartened by the status quo, and decide to leave academia altogether. In our session we’ll discuss these issues and how to deal with them. We’ll add a personal touch, so come join us and share your thoughts! As intro/background reading please have a look at Reflections on my PhD and building sustainable science | by Chris Hartgerink | Medium
We hope that you all had a good start of the new year! Below are three announcements from your favorite Tea brewers:
To begin with, the next ReproducibiliTea meeting is on January 14, 2021 (yes, that’s in 3 days already!). We ‘d like to have a discussion about how to improve Open Science. If you had money (say, 50.000 euros), what would you do with it to enhance (Open) Science in general? The topic is inspired by the recent launch of a new NWO funding instrument (https://www.nwo.nl/en/news/new-funding-instrument-stimulate-open-science). We’ll have a brainstorm on big ideas (what would you do with 50.000 euros?) and while we’re at it, address smaller goals as well. What are your Open Science goals for 2021? Keep on reading!
To facilitate match-making between people who have Open Science-related questions and OSCG members willing to share their Open Science expertise, we want to publish your Name, Photo and ‘Research and/or Open Science expertise’ on our website.
Why is transparency important for the research process? What are the advantages and challenges of opening up research? How are researchers at the University of Groningen doing this in practical terms? Can a modified lottery be a just method to assign research funding or prizes?
Recently, the Open Science Community Groningen (OSCG) and the University of Groningen Library (UB) collaboratively set up a yearly returning Open Research Award, with the first awards being awarded October 2020. The goal of the Open Research Award is to (1) raise awareness and promote Open Research  practices, for example, pre-registration or Open Access publishing; (2) and incentivize incorporating Open Research in research by acknowledging and rewarding it. In this blog, we will play devil’s advocate so that we can cover pros and cons of introducing an Open Research Award and its uptake of a modified lottery.
When scientists and non-scientists are confronted with similar problems, you may expect those smart scientists to handle the problems more sensibly than non-scientists. However, in this blog, I show that the opposite may be true and that scientists all too often go for solutions that are silly… and unethical. Continue reading “[Blog] Silly… and unethical scientists”