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

• Introduction

• Mat - University of Sydney
• Cameron - At PLOS, has been a member for a while but first working group call for some time!
• Sarita - Member of the Brazilian Open Science Group, researcher at IBICT
• Joseph - 
• Nagarjuna - Are you here GN?  Sorry went offline due to my early morning flight to catch.  I am disappointed. 
• Brian - Open Science Federation (oh no - we missed you! sorry I'm here :) and in the Skype)
• 
  
• Open science working group achievements 2014:
• 
  
• "Building up Open Access, Open Education and Open Data for Open Science" conference in Nottingham in Sep 2014 -  http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/osgis/home.aspx
• co-hosting second annual publishing conference in Edinburgh
• Open Science talk at Dundee University
• Events in Brazil, Berlin, Austria
• In Brazil, with IBICT (Brazilian Institute for Information in Science and Technology) and Unirio (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State), see  International Seminar "Open Science, Open Issues" on  http://www.cienciaaberta.net/encontro2014-en/
• Austria getting requests from universities for open science talks
• Publication costs queries - Austria, Hong Kong, Finland, UK, Germany, France
• working group monthly calls 

• Open science working group plans for 2015:
• 
  
• Focusing on the asia-pacific time zone for the monthly calls
• Introduce open access ambassadors
• Include more people globally
• Introduce microgrants
• 
  

• Focus points (particular communities, disciplines, projects etc)

• Mat: Teaching Open Science at undergraduate level - please share useful resources here, or point to existing lists. > In Brazil, contact Henrique Parra <opensocialsciences@gmail.com>, coordinator of https://pimentalab.milharal.org/ , and  Rafael Pezzi <rafael.pezzi@ufrgs.br> , coordinator of Center of Academic Technology  http://cta.if.ufrgs.br/ 
• (any particular reason we are focusing only at the undergrad level here? teaching open science at the grad level may be just as, if not more, useful. I particularly want to bring to attention Sophie Kay's OSTI project)
• KT: we've been brainstorming with a number of groups and pulling together resources around this, as well. Happy to share. 
• MHT: Been doing a little on this (http://intermolecular.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/crowdsourcing-drug-discovery/) and it brings up an interesting issue about how you grade work that's open so as to take into account the possibility of plagiarism (which is uniquely bad in open projects). We might have resources to tackle this head-on early next year - my postdoc Alice Williamson may be involved in designing a lab class 
• BG: we've supported use of open notebooks at the undergrad level, see http://onsnetwork.org/eimd/ for a nicely contained example in a summer course. I can introduce anyone to the professor, Steven Roberts https://twitter.com/sr320 who also notebooks openly and has students doing so at the grad level, too.
• Fabiana Kubke looking at undergrad curriculum in open science.

• Cameron: With a lot of movement in the policy arena 2015 will be all about implementation issues. Lots of very bad implementation work being done in a number of places. Also examples of good practice but these are not being effectively shared. How can we collectively get out ahead of these kinds of issues in a collective way.
• OA has been badly implemented in UK in some insititutions. Policy not implemented and followed through or monitored and that is a problem. What model policies are being used to start? SPARC or kin can certainly provide model policies and points regarding why each part is in them, on licenses, embargoes, etc. It's not about the policies themselves but how they're being put into practice. Is compliance monitored? Can it easily be determined? Is the information available? Does anyone know what the total corpus is? etc etc. Lots of missing information due to poor systems.
• What are the right targets for monitoring? How do you hold people to account?
• Is there a role for the working group to play in tools/support? If model policies are not already on hand, this working group could endorse one or another and have a page dedicated to this issue for others to refer to?

• Sarita: Many laws and policies being discussed nationally in Brazil around OA but necessary to have right institutional environment for uptake of open science policies and practices.
• Could working group share best practice here? Where their institutes have a positive environment for open science?

• Brian: Local groups really important. Student societies as local groups?
• http://www.righttoresearch.org/ could be a model, start with societies that already exist.
• Kit for open science intros/advocacy (R2RC definitely have this type of thing)
• Mat: open group in Sydney worked but need more funding and getting people together was a barrier. Definitely need pizza and beer!

• Mat - Open science in undergrad projects ^^ see notes above. Working group could add advice and thoughts after drafting. How to assess? Not unique to open science but particularly bad problem here.
• Cameron - Polcy implementation as above
• Sarita - > In Brazil, contact Henrique Parra <opensocialsciences@gmail.com>, coordinator of https://pimentalab.milharal.org/ , and  Rafael Pezzi <rafael.pezzi@ufrgs.br> , coordinator of Center of Academic Technology  http://cta.if.ufrgs.br/ to know more about undergraduate experiments in OS
• Joseph -
• Nagarjuna - Are you here GN?  Sorry  for adding this after the meeting was held.   Couldn't join the meeting in time.  Starting 6th janurary  2015 gnowledge.org lab of HBCSE, TIFR in Mumbai (where I work) will be  starting a citizen science project on mapping trees in Mumbai.   Initially we are starting with mapping only the Rain Trees, a common  avenue tree in Mumbai city.  During the last four years 400 of them  died.  Therefore the investigation that we will do during the entire  month of Jan starting 6th, will be to investigate the cause of the death  of the trees.  As soon as the website is ready,  I will inform in the  mailing list and tweet on our channels. 
• Brian - There was a lot of group work in this openly notebooked course http://onsnetwork.org/eimd/ but with each student notebooking daily, entries were unique so I think marking less of an issue than you might expect. Critical to it working in this case, I'm sure was that actual research was being conducted Mat: Thanks, will take a look.
• 
  
• 
  

• Collaborations (where we can provide support for other activities)
• Mechanism to help local groups and advocates communicate with each other better.
• Open Knowledge are working on a directory, calendar, 'Planet Open Science' aggregator and more
• Person directory e.g. http://directory.open-steps.org/
• Open science twitter feed, Google+ and others, if we make a database etc should ping out to these accounts Mat: Kudos to Brian for leading the awesome Twitter account.+1 I always say we have been saved a massive job - no point the working group focusing on social media because the job is being done so amazingly well already! :) the Google Plus Open Science community Mat mentioned is at https://plus.google.com/communities/113901282230153759827 and has around 11k subscribed. <--Mat I'm finding it odd that this community is not more engaged or responsive. Lots of people, few "likes" and "forwards". I think that's just Google+ - lots of people, little engagement. I've got some stupid number of followers (much more than on twitter) but get next to no engagement from any of them. Zombies? I suspect so.
• Cameron: Problem is that this takes people coordination is difficult.
• Jenny: trying actively not to duplicate work and better coordinate efforts e.g. US/EU timezones -> point people to Mozilla OS call and focus OKFN efforts on Asia-Pacific where nothing already exists.

• Mat -
• Cameron - 
• Sarita - 
• Joseph - 
• Nagarjuna - 
• Brian -

• Micro-grants project (probably going to be called Open Science Community Grants)

• Aiming for £5000 a year - initially funded out of the core OKF funds

• Mat - Matching funding possibility useful. Like the idea of a blog post rather than a formal or offline support. I agree that we shouldn't require the applicants to find matched funding. I was thinking more that Open Knowledge could attract the matched funds for the scheme."Encourage" rather than "require". Better :)
• Cameron - Mat: I think we could focus the money on student events, for example, in response to Cameron's point about who might be eligible. I should say I particularly liked the idea that you would invite in potential sponsors who might like to fund projects that didn't get program funding. That would be a nice demonstration of the ideas Daniel Mietchen and others have been pushing for a long time.
• Sarita - 
• Joseph - 
• Nagarjuna - 
• Brian - If we are doing the review especially, I suspect many orgs and others would like to match a small grant if named as sponsors. Google, anyone? +1 Yes, although some of them you might not want associated with the program. But lots of 'good' orgs out there that can sub in a few thousand $US
• 
  
• Is it too much to name grantees 'Open Science Fellows' where a fellowship implies something given or produced in return, like that blog post on how it went. If we're not necessarily looking at individuals then ignore this :) 'community grants' is fine.
• Problem is differentiating from the Panton Fellows, also CC want to fund 'Open Science Fellows'! good to know! had missed that on cc. Want to, but haven't yet. It's a Puneet scheme, I don't think he's got it funded yet...

• Sources of funding
• Space to think about would be the special skills and expertise that the working group brings and then approach people based on that, but bear in mind the problem of project coordination with volunteers.
• Sarita: Brazil has funding to promote research collaboration between countries so might be possible to collaborate on open science projects and apply to Brazil fund e.g. for travel, meetings. Need to be senior academic.
• Joseph: Are new entities funding open science work?
• Brian: Like idea of broadening potential funding - Google and Amazon might be interested if we are providing a goo report and clearly advertising sponsorship. Need to be mindful of potential sponsorship conflicts/controversy. 

• Mat - Leslie Chan's OCSDNet network http://ocsdnet.org/ - could ask about coordination funding. Mat: A point about resources: The in-kind resources we all bring to things like this is quite significant, day-to-day. I guess if we want to talk about cash funding we ought to be aiming quite large.
• Cameron - Sorry for landing you in that. My main point: I think it depends what we want money for. What about a year-long thing involving sponsorship of some kind of student journal club that focuses on new open access papers that exemplify good open data practices. So a paper is chosen that is seen as being a good example of open science, and someone presents it on the web as a broadcast, and the community can be part of the broadcast and discuss the paper as a journal club. Case studies in open science papers. PLoS could back something of that kind, I guess? Talking out loud here. So a small scale thing that could work would be a regular "openness review" done by a community - my question to that would be how does the money help? The question I (or someone you're asking for money) will always ask is what is the incremental benefit you get from the money? Agreed. But the PLoS label will raise the profile. If the logo is there and people (e.g. you) back something, that can raise the profile a lot even without money. But we'd need to talk about something specific here I guess.
• Sarita - 
• Joseph - 
• Nagarjuna -
• Brian -