Center stage

Creating a focal point for open science @ Penn State

Rick O. Gilmore

Preliminaries

People

  • Ana Enriquez
  • Rick Gilmore
  • Frank Hillary
  • Nicole Lazar
  • Alaina Pearce
  • Briana Wham

Roadmap

  • Homework
  • Activity report
  • Wherefore a Center?

Homework

Quick questions

  • What do you wish that “past you” knew about making your work more open, transparent, and reproducible?
  • What practices have you changed (how has your workflow changed)?
  • If you’ve engaged in open science practices, which ones?
  • What have you learned by engaging in these practices?

‘Vignette’ project questions

Activity report

Survey

What is your primary department/unit?

What is your position at Penn State?

What are the primary types of digital data that are used in your research?

Do you collect data that have legal or ethical restrictions governing who may access it or how it may be used?

Where do you store data for active projects where data collection and analysis is still ongoing?

How important to you is sharing data from completed projects with the broader research community (i.e., not direct collaborators)?

Which of the following obstacles make sharing data with the research community harder for you?

If you have shared data with the research community, where have you shared it?

How well-equipped do you feel you, your colleagues, and trainees are to meet data management and sharing requirements of sponsors/funders or journals?

How often do you openly share other materials related to your research (protocols, reagents, samples, apparatus, designs, etc.) with other researchers?

What is your experience with/knowledge of open science practices?

Describe your awareness of the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles pertaining to research data.

Is there a reproducibility crisis in your area of research?

How much benefit would you derive from a center at Penn State focused on supporting the adoption of best practices in data management and sharing, code sharing, open science, and reproducible research?

Lessons learned

  • Many respondents are sharing data
    • Ethical concerns may restrict
  • Fewer sharing materials or code
  • Opportunities to enhance knowledge about open science practices
  • (Very hard to distribute surveys widely)

Bootcamp

Planning

https://penn-state-open-science.github.io/bootcamp-2023/interest-survey.html

By the numbers

https://penn-state-open-science.github.io/bootcamp-2023/registration-survey.html#by-position

https://penn-state-open-science.github.io/bootcamp-2023/registration-survey.html#by-department-college

Quarto Qrew

  • Summer - Fall 2023

https://quarto.org

Communications

  • Listserv (l-open-science@lists.psu.edu)
  • Draft sites.psu.edu

Data management workshop

  • Supported by the National Science Foundation under IGE 1955049]
  • Wednesday, March 27, 2024

08:30 am Coffee
09:00 am Welcome (Nicole Lazar & Rick Gilmore)
09:15 am Good enough practices for data management (Alaina Pearce)
10:15 am Break
10:30 am Policies (Briana Wham & Ana Enriquez)
11:00 am Interactive workshop
12:00 pm Lunch
12:45 pm Next steps
01:30 pm End of workshop

Register

Data Management Workshop Registration

https://penn-state-open-science.github.io/data-mgmt-2024/

https://penn-state-open-science.github.io/data-mgmt-2024/

Wherefore a Center

Principles

https://teacherhead.com/2017/02/27/reinventing-the-wheel-again/

  • Be nimble, flexible, enabling, & efficient
  • Be open, transparent, robust, & reproducible
  • Highlight & enhance existing initiatives

Components

  • Scholarship
  • Teaching
  • Service
  • Outreach

Scholarship

  • Impacts of open science practices
  • Development of open source software tools

https://databrary.github.io/databraryr/

Teaching

  • How-to workshops
  • Bootcamps
  • Courses (undergraduate and graduate)

Service

  • Data management plans
    • Preparation
    • Policies (& storage)
  • Data management consulting
    • Implementing plans
  • Data curation services

Outreach

https://www.psu.edu/news/academics/story/penn-state-announces-schedule-events-international-love-data-week-2024/

https://btaa.org/research/love-data-week/compete

“Vignettes” project

  • What do you wish that “past you” knew about making your work more open, transparent, and reproducible?
  • What practices have you changed (how has your workflow changed)?
  • If you’ve engaged in open science practices, which ones?
  • What have you learned by engaging in these practices?
  • Possible book project

Past you –> Present you

[1] "Plan from the very beginning."                                                                                                               
[2] "Meta data importance, documentation and dissemination of protocols"                                                                          
[3] "Understanding what, if any, standard management procedures are.  it seems we have to reconfigure our data every time to meet requirements.\n"

Changed practices

[1] "I plan to share everything or close to it; extensive use of GitHub; continuous integration."                                            
[2] "We are now publishing in open access our protocols"                                                                                     
[3] "My students, I don't take credit, are much better documenting steps from day one, and documenting pipelines and active decision making."

Lessons learned

[1] "It's fun; I feel that my work is more robust."                                                                                                                                              
[2] "Importance of transparency and clarity in method"                                                                                                                                           
[3] "Many of the early solutions were not meant to incorporate the type of work developmental psychologists do.  The requirements were tailored to social/cognitive studies in form and content."

What does an AI think?

“open science”

“Should Penn State create a center for open science?”

As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions. However, I can provide you with some information to help you make your own decision.

Creating a center for open science at Penn State can have several potential benefits. Open science promotes the principles of transparency, collaboration, and accessibility to scientific research and data. Here are some arguments in favor of establishing such a center:

(1). Transparency and reproducibility: Open science encourages researchers to openly share their data, methods, and findings. This allows for increased transparency and fosters reproducibility, which is crucial in ensuring the quality and integrity of scientific research.

(2). Collaboration and knowledge sharing: An open science center can facilitate collaboration between researchers, institutions, and communities. By sharing data and resources openly, scientists can collectively work to address complex research questions and accelerate scientific advancements.

(3). Accessibility and public engagement: Open science promotes making research accessible to all, including the public, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Creating a center dedicated to open science can lead to increased public engagement with research and improved knowledge dissemination beyond academic circles.

(4). Innovation and interdisciplinary research: Open science can encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation. By openly sharing research outputs, data, and methodologies, researchers from different disciplines can build upon each other’s work and generate new insights and ideas.

On the other hand, establishing a center for open science may have some challenges and considerations:

(1). Resources and funding: Creating and maintaining a center dedicated to open science requires financial resources. Securing funding and long-term sustainability may be a challenge.

(2). Cultural change: Embracing an open science culture might require a shift in mindset and practices within the academic community. Encouraging researchers to openly share their work and collaborate could face resistance from some individuals or disciplines.

(3). Intellectual property concerns: Open science raises questions about intellectual property rights and commercialization. Balancing the openness of research with the potential need to protect commercially valuable findings can be complex.

In the end, whether Penn State should create a center for open science depends on the institution’s specific goals, priorities, available resources, and the level of support within its academic community. Engaging in discussions with relevant stakeholders, including researchers, faculty, and administrators, will help in making an informed decision.

Thank you!

Ana Enriquez
aee32@psu.edu

Rick Gilmore
rog1@psu.edu

Frank Hillary
fgh3@psu.edu

Nicole Lazar
nfl5182@psu.edu

Alaina Pearce
azp271@psu.edu

Briana Wham
bde125@psu.edu

Resources

Code

Creating a focal point for open science @ Penn State