This document discusses moving from an open access model to an open science model for research. It presents increasingly complex models of the research workflow, showing how it is nonlinear and iterative. It identifies goals for open science around transparency, reproducibility and quality. It also discusses tools and platforms for open scholarly communication and survey results about researcher profiles and altmetrics. The key message is that research must transition from the current publisher-centered system to a more decentralized, open and publicly-funded model of self-regulation to better support open science.

1. (except logo’s)
Small steps, big opportunities
Changing research workflows and the need to move from Open Access to Open Science
Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman
Open Acces Week 2015 meeting, Brussels, October 21, 2015
@MsPhelps
@jeroenbosman

2. Support of Open Access / Open Science
Do you support the goal of Open Access ?
89 %
5 %
5 %
90 %
7 %
3 %
Do you support the goal of Open Science ?

3. analysis
outreach
assessmentpublication
writingdiscovery

4. Simple cyclic model of the research workflow
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery

5. Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

6. Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow, with
loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

7. A multi-cyclic, multi-ordered
model of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

8. A multi-cyclic, multi-ordered
model of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

9. Three goals for science & scholarship (G-E-O)
• declaring competing interests
• replication & reproducibility
• meaningful assessment
• effective quality checks
• credit where it is due
• no fraud, plagiarism
• connected tools & platforms
• no publ. size restrictions
• null result publishing
• speed of publication
• (web)standards, IDs
• semantic discovery
• re-useability
• versioning
open peer review •
open (lab)notes •
plain language •
open drafting •
open access •
CC-0/BY •
good
efficient open
technical
changes &
standards
research
governance
changes
economic
& copyright
changes
researcher
funder
publisher
public
government library

11. 20 minutes of high speed group action!
• groups of 8-10 people,
find your corner of the room or walk out of the room
• put you two cents on the 1 development you think is the
most important for science, on your own paper sheet
• now tick the same one on the group sheet
• discuss your choices, also try to relate this to what you see
happing in your own field/position and what you like to
see happening

13. 2005
2010
Analysis
Outreach

14. Example research workflows 1:
traditional and innovative
Innovative

15. Example research workflows 2:
Elsevier
?Elsevier

16. Example research workflows 3:
Open Science
Open Science

17. Survey: scholarly communication tools

18. Survey results: Researcher profiles
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
others
MyScienceWork
ResearcherID
Academia.edu
Profile page at own institution
ORCID
Google Scholar Citations
ResearchGate
PhD student / Postdoc / Faculty (n=3481)

19. Survey results: Altmetrics’ share

20. Compare yourself to your peer group

22. “ The move away from centralized, expensive,
and bad-for-science publishers to a more open,
institution/government-funded self-regulating
peer review system ”

23. “ good ”

24. Thank you !
101innovations.wordpress.com