This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the shutdown announcement for details.

• Hall C.3

• 2nd day - December 28th, 2015, 14:00 - 17:00

• https://events.ccc.de/congress/2015/wiki/Session:Open_Science_Workshop
• http://32c3-wiki.top/congress/2015/wiki/Session%3AOpen_Science_Workshop

• Introduction
• Getting to know each other
• What is open science? The different parts of the scientific workflow and how to open them up
• Open Access / Open Culture / OER / Open Data / ...
• also: fears/roadblocks, e.g. fear of getting scooped, privacy/security, recognition
• Open Access
• still not the norm in many disciplines
• double dipping with publishers, new business models raises the cost of knowledge to society (publicly funded research double dipped)
• online visibility as incentive to  share for researchers
• cultural factors: open peer review etc (e.g. arxiv.org )
• Why does there have to be a (for-profit) business model at all?
• understanding if public administration should be run as a business or a service
• reputation most important to reaearchers
• alternative impact factors
• 28.12., 00:15 Methodisch inkorrekt, Saal 2
• What to do? 
• publish your data
• blogging
• publish preprints
• pirate/share own pdf
• 30minute-lobbying for Open access:  checklist http://www.ag-openscience.de/open-access-checkliste/
• Use peer review process to push open science: ask for data pubished, to make it reproduceable (zenodo, figshare etc)
• institutional change
• just dumping data won't help, there needs to be documentation as well
• C Titus Brown: On gaining tenure as an open scientist http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2014-open-and-tenured.html
• sharing data - even and expecially the hackiest dirtiest code - helps noticing errors; helps to reproduce results (!)
• published something cool in the open? contact us a t info@ag-openscience.de to showcase it on the website
• how to get rid of the impact factor: drum up new audiences for OA publications with press release, videos, blogging.. later include references to videos, blog posts, ... in grant applications
• how to fix impact factor: include open/other platforms (altmetrics, stackoverflow, ...)
• negative results vs. outreach: 
• negative results *are* science (unless you came up with a stupid idea);
• negative results could add too much noise to the sea of publications
• Addition after workshop: If negative results are not published, a so called publication bias occurs. This is valid not only in medicine and psychology, but more or less in all kinds of science. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias, http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe
• another metric: networking (e.g., conferences); goal: get scientists out of their ghettos; idea: setup a regular open science coffee meetup, science hackathons
• github for papers? several solutions being developed. discussions attached to papers: https://paperhive.org (structured + quick way of attaching comments, new results, ...)
• building platforms for science should be a big part of open science; platforms can add more metrics
• focusing visibility by reputation of peer reviewer: e.g. https://publons.com/
• Group discussion rounds
• Open Data in Clinical research! Consequences for Scientist and "Patients". Not a Concrete trial but a general discussion. BR (nur Idee!) 
• maybe also discuss possibilities of open and centralized data collection across disciplines with the privacy of patients in mind (specific project ideas from migraine and EEG research are present)
• impact and visibility: showcasing openscience best practices with statements/interviews (eg. scientists, high-profile multiplicators)
• science communication: possibilities for improved + open communication among researchers
• Group discussion on "github for open science" solution and how to get the community to use it:
• why
• get rid of the paper driven thinking for publishing scientific work
• enable reproducibility and incremental improvements by other researchers in the field
• ideas how to get there
• educate scientists to break out of the vicious (publishing) circle
• start by using open access as a second channel for publishing papers
• create a labor union (Gewerkschaft) of open access scientists to increase the pressure on funding agencies and journals
• depict and "ideal" open science world and outline all the benefits, how can the scientific community, the public, the funding agencies ... benefit from open science
• build (and use) free software to support all steps in the open science life circle (for your specific research area) and educate others to use it
• Wrap up

• http://science.okfn.org/ - OK Open Science page
• http://ag-openscience.de/ - German speaking Open Science group
• https://openscience.uni-bielefeld.de/ Open Science Q&A Plattform
• http://sciencehack.asia
• https://paperhive.org collaborate on papers

• Konrad Förstner @konradfoerstner (local extension: 5115)
• Bernd Rupp BR
• Markus Neuschäfer @mneuschaefer mn
• André Lampe @andereLampe 
• Andreas Teuber
• Simon Dückert
• Felix Lohmeier @felixlohmeier
• André Gaul @andrenarchy / @paperhive
• Matthias Redies @steinhagelvoll
• Paul Saary
• Hong Phuc @hpdang (will come a few minutes late as i have an angel shift) 
• Magnus Frühling @skorpy 
• Tomaž Šolc @avian2
• 
  
• PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME