Happy New Year! Here is to a successful 2023 :)

As the new year begins, some of us may have created a list of resolutions to achieve in the coming year. Setting goals is a nice way to ease back into the working life (or in my case, lose the weight that I gained during the break!).
We hope that some of the resolutions include engaging in more Open Science practices this year (and participation in OSCG absolutely counts as one).

Below are some upcoming events which I hope to see you all at. As some are still waiting to be confirmed, more will be on the horizon, rest assured!

Next week Thursday (19th of January), OSCG will kick off the year with its first event of the year. As it has been some time since the last meeting, it will be a get-together to mingle and share latest developments in OS within the RUG.

Location: Lust Groningen
Address: Oudekijk in t’ Jatstraat 58, 9712 EL
Time: 16:00 – 18:00

Drinks and small bites will be provided so bring your friends and colleagues to chat about Open Science practices in Groningen!

For all PhD members of the OSCG, we will be at the PhD Day on the 3rd of February with a booth. So don’t hesitate to drop by and say hi.

More details can be found here.

As the theme of the event is on sustainability, one may wonder how both are intertwinned? We are not the only ones

That’s all for now but keep on the look out. Rome was not built in a day and we have some ambitious plans outlined for this upcoming year 🙂

Until next time.

ReproducibiliTea 23 May 2-3 pm CET: Scientific Red Teams  

Leo Tiokhin, from Eindhoven University of Technology will discuss with us the concept of Red Teams and how they can be used in research. 

Scientific Red Teams

Red teams are groups of individuals who play the role of an adversary – attacking a system and revealing its weaknesses, with the ultimate goal of improving system functioning. In the last two years, our group has attempted to incorporate the concept of red teaming into scientific practice. We have conducted a range of projects in which diverse teams of independent scientists have received financial compensation to criticize scientific research. In this session, I will summarize our experiences implementing red teams in science and outline directions for future development. My goal is to stimulate a discussion about the costs and benefits of red teams, and the potential role of red teams in the future of scientific practice.

Like two weeks ago, we will offer a hybrid session again. If you want to meet in person, please stop by the Bouman building (Room B.128). Others are welcome to join via Google Meet (link below).

What: Scientific Red Teams  Guest speaker Leo Tiokhin

When: Monday May 23, 2 – 3 PM (CET)

Where: In person: H.0431 (Heymans Building) or Online: DM or email for URL

Hope to see you next week!

Best wishes,

Lisette, Michiel, Ineke & Andrea

Open call for the Open Research Award 2022

We invite you to submit your case study now! 

The University of Groningen Library (UB) and the Open Science Community Groningen launch the 3rd 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.

How?
Via this submission form
(https://www.rug.nl/library/open-research-award/submission)

When?
Now, up until September 30!

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. For more information check the webpage https://www.rug.nl/library/open-research-award/ or contact us via openresearchaward@rug.nl

ReproducibiliTea, March 28, 2 pm: Federico Pianzola on “Open Science for the Humanities”

We are very happy to announce next week’s session with guest speaker Federico Pianzola. Based on his 10+ years experience as managing editor of an Open Access journal about literary studies and on his work with computational methods for cultural heritage data, Federico will present some reflections on strategies for promoting Open Science among humanities researchers.

It will be a hybrid session. If you want to meet in person, please stop by the Bouman building (Room B.128). Others are welcome to join via Google Meet (email us for the url).

What:  Open Science for the humanities 
Guest speaker Federico Pianzola
When: Monday March 28, 2 – 3 PM (CET)
Where: In person: B.128 (Bouman Building) or Online: email for URL.
Suggested reading:  Schöch, C., van Dalen-Oskam, K., Antoniak, M., Jannidis, F., & Mimno, D. (2020, June 14). Replication and Computational Literary Studies. Digital Humanities Conference 2020 (DH2020), Ottawa, Canada. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3893428

ReproducibiliTea – Questionable Research Practices in the Netherlands: the Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity

When: Monday Feb 28, 2 – 3 pm CET. DM for the link!
Where: contact groningentea@rug.nl or send a DM on Twitter to @GroningenTea for the link

ReproducibiliTea –  Timothy Errington on the challenges in the Reproducibility project: Cancer Biology

In 2013 a group of researchers started the Reproducibility Project: Cancer biology, with the ambition to replicate a total of 193 experiments from 53 high-impact papers. After seven years, because of a multitude of obstacles they encountered, they were only able to repeat 50 experiments from 23 papers. In our next session one of these researchers will be our guest. Timothy Errington will discuss with us the (un)foreseen challenges in this major project and we are honored to have him. We will be talking about things that are at the core of reproducibility, so don’t miss out!

Suggested reading: Reproducibility in Cancer Biology: Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology | eLife (elifesciences.org)

When: Monday February 14, 2 – 3 PM (CET)
Where: online

2022 01 31 ReproducibiliTea – the University of Groningen Open Science Program

Dear all,

You are warmly invited to next week’s ReproducibiliTea meeting. We are happy to welcome Vera Heininga as our guest speaker!

Vera  is program leader of the UG-wide Open Science Program, which kicked off in September 2021.The aim of this two-year program is to stimulate and integrate Open Science into the research and education culture of the University of Groningen. The program has five pillars: Open Access, FAIR Data and Software, Open Education and Public Engagement and Communication. Vera will introduce the program, and as always in our ReproTea meetings, there will be ample time for questions and discussion.

What: Vera Heijninga on the University of Groningen Open Science Program
When: Monday January 31, 2 – 3 PM (CET)
Where:  Online, contact groningentea@rug.nl or @GroningenTea for the link

Suggested reading / background: https://www.rug.nl/news/2021/06/from-closed-science-to-open-science?lang=en

Hope to see you on the 31rst!
best wishes, Michiel & Ineke 

OSCG-Groningen Reprohack 11 November 13.00-17.00

Attention for Reproduction and Reproducibility of research is becoming increasingly important in scientific research. Therefore we invite you to join us in the OSCG-Groningen Reprohack on 11 November from 13.00-17.00 CET.

What is a Reprohack?
In a Reprohack (Reproducibility-Hackathon), participants try to reproduce the research output of other researchers, who may be other participants of the Reprohack or other researchers whoe made their data and code publicly available. During this workshop, participants will go through a research article in groups and try to reproduce the results as listed in the article using the code and data belonging to the article. This will give insight into whether the research is sufficiently transparent, clear, and reproducible. At the end of the workshop, we share our experiences and give feedback to authors to improve the reproducibility of their research.

There are two ways to participate:
1) As an author: You can test if your own research can be reproduced by others during the Reprohack. You will get feedback at the end of the event. You may decide to only provide your research or to participate in reproducing the work of others as well.
2) As an Reproducer: You can propose research to be reproduced that includes code and data to be used during the Reprohack. Or you can help in trying to reproduce the research of others attending the Reprohack. In this way, you can improve your skills and learn from each other to create reproducible research.

If you would like to participate, please fill in this form.

Recognizing and rewarding open research practices

A short summary of the discussion about letting go of the Journal Impact Factor

Several Dutch articles about Recognition & Recognition were published last summer, including:

  • ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

In response to the news that impact factors of scientific journals are no longer included in the evaluation of scientists at the University Utrecht, 171 scientists (including 141 professors) warned that the new recognition and reward movement will harm Dutch science (Poot et al., 2021).

Utrecht announced, among other things, that they are abandoning performance figures based on journal-related metrics (including the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and H-index), and will focus on team science and ‘open science’ instead. The opinion piece by Poot et al (2021) argues that the JIF is an imperfect, but good enough parameter for scientific quality. The signatories also believe that one cannot simply change the way researchers are evaluated, especially because the JIF (but also things like h-index) are internationally used and recognized measures for which, according to the signatories, there is no good (quantitative) alternative. They warn that the omission of measurable evaluation criteria will have negative consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of (young) Dutch scientists and make the evaluation process more political and arbitrary.

This opinion piece was criticized not only by established researchers but also by younger researchers. In various responses, more than 400 researchers stated that they did not find the JIF a representative measure to assess (young) scientists because the duties of the modern scientist consist of much more than just writing scientific publications (e.g., Algra et al., 2021). In line with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the academics called for a reassessment of the role of bibliometric indicators in the assessment of research and the abandonment of the JIF as a measure of individual quality.

In addition, also members of Open Science Communities from all over the Netherlands state that to date there is no scientific literature showing that the JIF is correlated with the quality of individual scientists (Fijten et al., 2021). In fact, they cite articles showing that scientific articles in journals with a higher JIF are on average of lower quality (Bhattacharya & Packalenbrembs, 2018; Brembs, 2018). With regard to the possible negative consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of (young) Dutch scientists, the group emphasizes that the new recognition and appreciation, contrary to what is stated by Poot et al. (2021), is in line with a broad international trend. The DORA statement has been signed by more than 20.000 individuals and organizations from 148 different countries, and major national and international research funders (e.g. NWO, ERC, NIH) are saying goodbye to assessment based on journal metrics. The new recognition and reward movement could therefore have positive consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of (young) Dutch scientists.

The discussion shows that not everyone agrees on how scientists should be recognized and rewarded. At the moment, many universities are working to give shape to a vision on how to reshape how to reward and recognize researchers, including the University of Groningen.

Do you want to know more about this topic?

On 28 October 2021 there will be a panel discussion on recognizing and rewarding open research practices during the Celebrating Openness event, with an introduction by Professor Cisca Wijmenga (Rector of the University of Groningen and chair of the recognizing and appreciating Groningen committee).

Panelists:

  • Dr Flávio Eiró (Faculty of Arts)
  • Prof. Marian Joëls (Faculty of Medical Sciences)
  • Dr Marijke Leliveld (Faculty of Economics and Business)
  • Merle-Marie Pittelkow (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)
  • Prof. Mladen Popovic (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies)
  • Chair: Dr Tina Kretschmer (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)

Vera E. Heininga & Maurits Masselink, co-founders of the OSCG

References

Algra at el. (2021) ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

Bhattacharya, J., & Packalen, M. (2020). Stagnation and scientific incentives (No. w26752). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Brembs, B. (2018). Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 12, 37

Fijten et al. (2021) ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

Poot et al. (2021) ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

[Dutch translation]

Erkennen en waarderen van open onderzoekspraktijken:  de discussie rondom het loslaten van de Journal Impact Factor

Afgelopen zomer verschenen er diverse artikelen over Erkenning & Waarderen, waaronder:

  • ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

Als reactie op het nieuws dat de Universiteit Utrecht impact factoren van wetenschappelijke tijdschriften niet meer worden meegenomen in de evaluatie van wetenschappers, waarschuwden 171 wetenschappers (waaronder 141 hoogleraren) dat het nieuwe erkennen en waarderen de Nederlandse wetenschap zal schaden (Poot et al., 2021). 

Utrecht kondigde onder andere aan dat zij prestatiecijfers gebaseerd op journal gerelateerde metrics loslaten (o.a. de Journal Impact Factor (JIF), en H-index), en in plaats daarvan inzetten op team science en ‘open science’. In het opiniestuk van Poot et al (2021) wordt aangedragen dat de JIF een niet-perfecte, maar goed genoege, parameter is voor wetenschappelijke kwaliteit. Ook vinden de ondertekenaars dat men niet zomaar de manier waarop onderzoekers geëvalueerd worden kunnen veranderen, met name omdat de JIF (maar dus ook dingen als h-index) internationaal gebruikte en erkende maten zijn waarvoor, volgens de ondertekenaars, geen goed (kwantitatief) alternatief bestaat. Het achterwege laten van meetbare evaluatiecriteria zal negatieve gevolgen hebben voor de internationale erkenning en waardering van (jonge) Nederlandse wetenschappers en het beoordelingsproces politieker en willekeuriger maken, zo waarschuwen zij.

Op dit opiniestuk kwam veel kritiek, niet alleen van gevestigde onderzoekers, maar ook opvallend veel van  jongere onderzoekers. In verschillende reacties lieten meer dan 400 onderzoekers weten de JIF geen representatieve maat te vinden om (jonge) wetenschapper op te beoordelen omdat het takenpakket van de moderne wetenschapper uit veel meer bestaat dan enkel het schrijven van wetenschappelijke publicaties. In lijn met de San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), pleitten de academici voor een herijking van de rol van bibliometrische indicatoren bij de beoordeling van onderzoek en het loslaten van de JIF als maat voor individuele kwaliteit.

Deze jonge onderzoekers werden bijgestaan door veel leden van Open Science Communities uit heel Nederland. Zij laten weten dat er tot op heden geen wetenschappelijke literatuur is die laat zien dat de JIF gecorreleerd is aan kwaliteit van individuele wetenschappers. Sterker nog, ze citeren artikelen waaruit blijkt dat wetenschappelijke artikelen in tijdschriften met een hogere JIF gemiddeld van lagere kwaliteit zijn (Bhattacharya & Packalenbrembs, 2018; Brembs, 2018). Met betrekking tot de eventuele negatieve gevolgen voor de internationale erkenning en waardering van (jonge) Nederlandse wetenschappers benadrukt de groep dat het nieuwe erkennen en waarderen, in tegenstelling tot wat wordt gesteld door Poot et al. (2021), juist aansluit bij een brede internationale trend. De DORA verklaring is ondertekend door ruim 20.000 individuen en organisaties uit 148 verschillende landen, en grote nationale en  internationale onderzoeksgeldverstrekkers (bijv. NWO, ERC, NIH) nemen afscheid van beoordeling op basis van journal metrics.   Het nieuwe erkennen en waarderen zou dus juist positieve gevolgen kunnen hebben voor de internationale erkenning en waardering van (jonge) Nederlandse wetenschappers.

De discussie laat blijken dat niet iedereen het eens is over hoe wetenschappers erkent en gewaardeerd zouden moeten worden. Op dit moment zijn veel universiteiten bezig om vorm te geven een erkennen en waarderen visie, waaronder ook de Universiteit Groningen. 

Wil je meer weten over dit onderwerp? 

Op 28 oktober 2021 is er een paneldiscussie over het erkennen en waarderen van open onderzoekspraktijken tijdens het ‘Celebrating Openness’ event, met een inleiding door Professor Cisca Wijmenga (Rector of the University of Groningen en voorzitter van de erkennen en waarderen commissie Groningen).

Panelists:

  • Dr Flávio Eiró (Faculty of Arts)
  • Prof. Marian Joëls (Faculty of Medical Sciences)
  • Dr Marijke Leliveld (Faculty of Economics and Business)
  • Merle-Marie Pittelkow (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)
  • Prof. Mladen Popovic (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies)
  • Chair: Dr Tina Kretschmer (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)

Vera E. Heininga & Maurits Masselink, co-founders of the OSCG

References

Algra at el. (2021) ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

Bhattacharya, J., & Packalen, M. (2020). Stagnation and scientific incentives (No. w26752). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Brembs, B. (2018). Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 12, 37

Fijten et al. (2021) ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

Poot et al. (2021) ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

ReproducibiliTEA is back

ReproducibiliTEA will be back on Monday Sep 20th. For this first session of the new academic year, we are inviting all of you to brainstorm with us about the new topics for the upcoming sessions.

First, we are interested in what Open Science is for you. You are our main target population and we would like to gain more insight into your understanding and ideas of Open Science to better target our sessions to your needs. Second, we would like to brainstorm about themes for next sessions. What have you learned so far? What do you want to learn more about? Are there topics you need help with, you want to discuss with colleagues. Aspects you would like to evaluate more critically?

Everyone is welcome to join the discussion, from newcomers to old hands. It is possible to attend on campus (max 15 people). But you can attend online as well. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcr

Upcoming schedule:

DateTimeLocationTopicCheck it out
Sept 2014.00-15.00(CET)Sign up for attendance or meet online. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcrReset ReproTea (brainstorm about new themes for 2021-2022)
October 4th14.00-15.00(CET)Sign up for attendance or meet online. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcrPower calculations
October 18th14.00-15.00(CET)Sign up for attendance or meet online. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcrMisconceptions about pregistration and registered reports