Increasingly, scholarly research is expected to be interdisciplinary in scope, data-driven, and collaborative — frequently across global boundaries. What impact does that have on what may be thought of as the traditional research cycle, in which the scholar develops a question, researches various facets of it, analyzes the findings, draws a conclusion, and shares the final result through publication in some form, when the cycle begins again. How are new policies, new technologies, and emerging expectations changing how research is done in the 21st century?
Confirmed speakers include Björn Brembs, Professor, Neurobiology, Universität Regensburg; Wind Cowles, Director of Data, Research, and Teaching, Princeton University; Anita de Waard, VP, Research Collaborations, Elsevier; and Emma Ganley, Director, Strategic Initiatives, protocols.io.
Bianca Kramer of Sesame Open Science will moderate the discussion.
Participants used the following questions as a basis for their conversation:
1. Anita, you were involved in the original FORCE11 Manifesto, looking at the future of scholarly communication 12 years ago. Looking back, could you reflect on some of the challenges identified at that time, and what has happened since then?
2. How do you view Generative AI/ChatGPT and the role it could play in the scholarly ecosystem?
3. One other aspect that has gained importance over the last few years is data sharing. Wind, in your experience, what have been the main drivers for this, and what is the impact for researchers at your institution?
4. Emma, with protocols.io, you are advocating for sharing other parts of the research cycle. What has been your experience in the uptake of this among researchers and institutions?
5. We’ve talked about changes in research workflows, and different technologies supporting these changes. Bjoern, in your opinion, what is the major major change that you are seeing?
6. What is the role of different actors (researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, technologists) in driving/enabling changes?
7. Are changes primarily driven by policies, technologies and or values?
8. What developments do you see that have an effect on (in)equality? To what extent do changes/development promote inclusivity/equity, or conversely, exclusion? To what extent are changes in the research ecosystem actually benefitting non-privileged groups, rather than putting up new barriers? And to what extent have changes in the research ecosystem been driven by non-privileged groups themselves?
9. What is one change you would like to see accelerated, and what would be needed (in terms of various actors) to make this happen?
Related Information and Shared Resources:
Related NISO Standards, Recommended Practices, and Working Groups:
Peer Review Terminology Standardization - Peer review is the process of evaluating academic, scientific, or professional work. It is ubiquitously used by academic journals to support research integrity by filtering out invalid or poor-quality articles, as well as to ensure that research outcomes are exposed to relevant audiences through their publication in relevant journals.
Taxonomy, Definitions, and Recognition Badging Scheme Standing Committee - Publishers and researchers are placing greater emphasis on the practice of reproducibility as an essential ingredient of the scientific research process.
Content Profile/Linked Document [CP/LD] Working Group - Users demand the delivery of contextualized, targeted content delivered as a natural part of their workflow; publishers aspire to produce machine-actionable FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) materials, but many publishing workflows are complicated in order to enable print and digital outputs.
FORCE11 Manifesto - Improving Future Research Communication and e-Scholarship
Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks - In this work we propose a practical solution to train such models sequentially by protecting the weights important for previous tasks. This approach, inspired by synaptic consolidation in neuroscience, enables state of the art results on multiple reinforcement learning problems experienced sequentially.
Towards a Unified Model of Scholarly Argumentation - Argumentation is prevalent in scientific discourse and critical to scientific progress. Recent efforts have attempted to identify and model argumentative structures in the scientific literature, but from a diversity of perspectives. Contributed by Khalid Al-Khatib (University of Groningen, NL), Anita de Waard (Elsevier - Jericho, US), Iryna Gurevych (TU Darmstadt, DE), Yufang Hou (IBM Research - Dublin, IE)
https://scite.ai/ - scite is an award-winning platform for discovering and evaluating scientific articles via Smart Citations. Smart Citations allow users to see how a publication has been cited by providing the context of the citation and a classification describing whether it provides supporting or contrasting evidence for the cited claim.
Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship (HELIOS) - With the commitment of more than 90 US colleges and universities and emerging from the work of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship, the Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship (HELIOS) represents the largest, most carefully coordinated effort to align higher education practices with open scholarship values.
NISO assumes organizations register as a group. The model assumes that an unlimited number of staff will be watching the live broadcast in a single location, but also includes access to an archived recording of the event for those who may have timing conflicts.
NISO understands that, during the current pandemic, staff at a number of organizations may be practicing safe social distancing or working remotely. To accommodate those workers, we are allowing registrants to share the sign-on instructions with all colleagues so that they may join the broadcast directly.
Registrants receive sign-on instructions via email on the Friday prior to the virtual event. If you have not received your instructions by the day before an event, please contact NISO headquarters for assistance via email (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Registrants for an event may cancel participation and receive a refund (less $35.00) if the notice of cancellation is received at NISO HQ (email@example.com) one full week prior to the event date. If received less than 7 days before, no refund will be provided.
Links to the archived recording of the broadcast are distributed to registrants 24-48 hours following the close of the live event. Access to that recording is intended for internal use of fellow staff at the registrant’s organization or institution. Speaker presentations are posted to the NISO event page.
NISO uses the Zoom platform for purposes of broadcasting our live events. Zoom provides apps for a variety of computing devices (tablets, laptops, etc.) To view the broadcast, you will need a device that supports the Zoom app. Attendees may also choose to listen just to audio on their phones. Sign-on credentials include the necessary dial-in numbers, if that is your preference. Once notified of their availability, recordings may be downloaded from the Zoom platform to your machine for local viewing.