NSF announces plan for comprehensive public access to research results(nsf.gov)
nsf.gov
NSF announces plan for comprehensive public access to research results
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=134478&org=NSF
30 コメント
> Yet people are pleased with a two year delay disseminating the most important research? The heartbeat of progress is the time it takes to disseminate information.
This is a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Researchers, the vast majority of whom are located in corporate R&D labs and universities, already have the subscriptions to big digital libraries so they can download papers as soon as they are published.
The move towards open access mostly affects practising engineers outside this environment, and I think a delay of a year or two is acceptable in this scenario.
This is a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Researchers, the vast majority of whom are located in corporate R&D labs and universities, already have the subscriptions to big digital libraries so they can download papers as soon as they are published.
The move towards open access mostly affects practising engineers outside this environment, and I think a delay of a year or two is acceptable in this scenario.
As opposed to the current state of things, where there is basically no requirement to publish freely whatsoever?
it's not like most research papers are out of date after a year. This is progress, albeit slow.
What is most exciting about this announcement, to me, is that it provides the starting point for researchers to publish data and code.
I frequently hear scientists say that they would like to publish their data sets and source code, but don't know how to do it, or don't have a public place to put it. This NSF announcement streamlines solutions for these items.
I frequently hear scientists say that they would like to publish their data sets and source code, but don't know how to do it, or don't have a public place to put it. This NSF announcement streamlines solutions for these items.
I'm an academic scientist and I must confess I have never heard any other scientist say that they don't know how or where to put their data or code. But in my field, genomics, depositing data and making code available on a web site are expected.
It's definitely a problem for some where such expectations do not yet exist in their fields. They may be willing, but do not have the wherewithal by which to find a place to put them. The IT requirements for what is simple for tech folk like us might be heavy barriers to those in various fields in academics where they can do their research without needing a lot of knowledge of web hosting.
I wonder if this presents an opportunity for someone to set up an app just for this?
Like GitHub but for publishing scientific data and code.
Like GitHub but for publishing scientific data and code.
Figshare[0] has already gotten quite a lot of traction in this space. Full disclosure was started by a friend, but people say very good things.
[0] https://figshare.com
[0] https://figshare.com
Thanks for the heads up!
In astronomy, we have the Astrophysics Source Code Library[1] at least for the code part.
[1] http://ascl.net/
[1] http://ascl.net/
I'm running some astrophysics code from that resource now. This is awesome. B) Thanks for the heads up!
DataCite.org is the DOI Registration Agency for data sets. Lots of people use it to store, make available and make citable data sets and (AFAIK), code.
FigShare.com is a DataCite member that has a nice interface for uploading and giving DOIs to research content.
FigShare.com is a DataCite member that has a nice interface for uploading and giving DOIs to research content.
Awesome resources, thanks!
This is nice gesture, but in my experience, especially for medium/large experiments, it almost definitely won't be applicable to analysis software, private datasets/raw data/metadata, and more specifically middleware. It doesn't really help with reproducible results in the cases which might be most interesting. For medium to big data experiments, most source code is often useless without the (often custom or proprietary) middleware used for processing the data. For very large experiments, there is likely no canonical dataset and all "datasets" are actually generated on-demand (at least those might be covered under this).
For software, and especially middleware, some universities will be very reluctant to give that up, especially because many times the majority of the software/middleware isn't actually funded through the NSF, but maybe through a computing division, foreign institution, or international collaboration, for example. At the very least, they'll likely want to assert a restrictive copyright on the license and likely even attempt to patent some of the methods (a la Google). Researchers themselves may be reluctant to give up code: Some (maybe most?) universities have profit sharing too.
At the very least, however, it is a policy researchers can point to.
For software, and especially middleware, some universities will be very reluctant to give that up, especially because many times the majority of the software/middleware isn't actually funded through the NSF, but maybe through a computing division, foreign institution, or international collaboration, for example. At the very least, they'll likely want to assert a restrictive copyright on the license and likely even attempt to patent some of the methods (a la Google). Researchers themselves may be reluctant to give up code: Some (maybe most?) universities have profit sharing too.
At the very least, however, it is a policy researchers can point to.
I always wondered when reading papers how anybody could reproduce the conclusions (p-values, that sort) from the data.
One simple solution would be every time you have some data analysis, you set up a VM or Docker type thing with your dataset and your code. That way other people can download it and run it, see your results, and tinker.
One simple solution would be every time you have some data analysis, you set up a VM or Docker type thing with your dataset and your code. That way other people can download it and run it, see your results, and tinker.
If someone has read the actual report, what is the plan for data? Neither the linked press release nor the homepage of the plan[1] say that data will be shared; they only mention papers.
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access/
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access/
By "research results," I take it that they are referring to the resulting paper, not the resulting data.
Is this essentially the NIH policy, now also applied to the NSF? If so this is great news!
(Actually, I didn't realize the NSF wasn't on board with this already)
(Actually, I didn't realize the NSF wasn't on board with this already)
That's good news. I'm hearing more and more good things for open access to journals and research. Now a country's governmental organisation is opening it's doors. Let the information flow!
As founder of openrev.org, a platform to share and discuss research papers openly (or privately), I am very pleased with this announcement. It is more than just baby steps towards an open, scientific communication system.
In physics we do already have that with the arxiv.org (though there are no public discussions) but it works darn well in my sub-field and others. We cannot wait for most other disciplines to have an epiphany. So grant agencies forcing publishers AND authors to open access their material will bring us a huge step forward towards solving the most challenging problems of our time.
In physics we do already have that with the arxiv.org (though there are no public discussions) but it works darn well in my sub-field and others. We cannot wait for most other disciplines to have an epiphany. So grant agencies forcing publishers AND authors to open access their material will bring us a huge step forward towards solving the most challenging problems of our time.
problem solved: arxiv.org
Problem not solved. This is primarily policy problem, not a technical one. See also: http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analy...
[deleted]
I just saw this announced at work and it was just too good not to share. It's my first submission.
Keep them coming!
Thanks. I was pleasantly surprised that I was the first to note it. I figured it was appropriate for our community, but I got nervous when there was little uptake at first. Thankfully, after a few hours, it was on the front page, which restored my confidence. I'll keep an eye out for more useful stuff.
Incidentally, I realized that my GP statement might make people think I work at the NSF, and I don't. I work at Ohio Supercomputer Center and this was announced to us via an internal mailing list.
Incidentally, I realized that my GP statement might make people think I work at the NSF, and I don't. I work at Ohio Supercomputer Center and this was announced to us via an internal mailing list.
This plan is for articles to be widely available like two years after being written. One year after publication [1], which can be a year after the article is written [2].
Imagine a blogging platform that took two years between pressing "publish" and the article appearing online. It sounds like a Kafkaesque nightmare, but here it is, hailed as a breakthrough. The scientific community is as much to blame as the publishers.
[1] "NSF will require that articles ... be available for download ... within one year of publication." (linked article)
[2] http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-duration-of-peer-reviews-fo...
EDIT: The tepid reaction surprises me. We are on the verge of big advances in artificial intelligence, anti-aging, space travel, and we direly need new energy sources. Yet people are pleased with a two year delay disseminating the most important research? The heartbeat of progress is the time it takes to disseminate information. The status quo is absurd and we should be angry about it.