Themes and problems of getting theme research questions answered by blogposts. Finding solutions. This means being inventive in bringing on board new editorial formats for blogposts / content: interviews, making questions clearer in theme announces; asking people to cover events or releases that target a question; collaborative infographics. Other suggestions for formats or ideas welcome.
How to react to fast moving news stories, for examples: predatory publishing; Open Science Monitor Elsevier tender; and on the horizon the OA H2020 EU platform as building block of Open Science Cloud.
The approach could be:
To go slow and analytical
Collaborative and crown sourced writing
Supporting activist groups
Deciding its out-of-scope
?
Improving UX / UI and platform consolidation
Create a graphic library and ways of employing it for narratives and design enhancement of stories / content
Suggestions of trends, ideas, observations on Open Science that you think we should be following
On a conceptual level what could be improved with GenR
Proposal for the model of an ‘Editorial Board’ from Simon.
The issue was raised at the start of the planning work by Janneke Adema that a model close to a journal editorial board of handing out titles and roles is a very good way to gain support from members of a community.
GenR needs support from a variety of fields and interests in Open Science, as well as input take part in occasional special work, like contributing to collaborative writing on topics or scoping out of an area.
The proposed model is one of 8 / 12 people who get the title of ‘Contributing editor and they sit on an editorial board.
The board can have monthly meetings online and members attend as they are available.
The board members can post onto the ‘Notebook’ area, and a couple of blog posts a year.
Give guidance on themes if a them covers their fields.
The board members are picked to have a cross section of Open Science areas covered.
Editorial duties would include: to give their expert opinion on questions, to take part as writers or reviewers when important issues need input.
Post-hack debrief (in short)
Security hardening
Restore and up-time during a recovery
Stats
See PDF
FYI - Editorial Modules
These items are in addition to the Advisory Board Agenda, but I just wanted people to be aware of them and we can follow up in another way later.
These are components being worked on, or under consideration for development.
Note
The Open Science Taxonomy and Zotero Libraries are connected modules. With the taxonomy coming first and then being used for the library. These will then be building blocks for mapping Open Science, first in the Research Alliance and then in Europe. In March ’19 a #barcamp session will be held and then ‘Mapping Open Science in Europe’ can be taken on a stage further as a multi-stakeholder editorial project. This is also being done in the context of the Open Science Monitor for Europe.
Open Science MOOC is a partner project and serves as a location to contribute outcomes of GenR work.
History of Open Science OS MOOC module – Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (MPIWG) in Berlin (a suggestion under consideration) – No date confirmed, Spring 2019 as teaching starts then.
---
Meeting Report (SW 29.10.18)
Advisory Board Meeting #2 24.10.18
Notes and report – Simon Worthington
Attending:
Simon Worthington SW
Lambert Heller LH
Guido Scherp GS
Ulrike Wuttke UW
Andrea Hacker AH
André Vatter AV
Jon Tennant JT
New members
Not able to make the meeting
Have been in contact with Luca and Benedikt
Will consult new members on agenda and specific topics
Re ‚Themes‘: Benedikt expressed support for ‚infrastructures‘ theme and widening it to make relevant to a wide number of stakeholders, i.e., governance, models of ownership, service design, participation, FOSS methodologies, etc.
Editorial report – evaluating and improving editorial
Stats
UW asked about own use being measured in Web stats. SW: TIB IP addresses filtered out. GS: Matomo supports opt out with ‚do not follow‘. GS: makes recommendation that we don’t exclude board members as they are valid readers.
GS/AV: Further information requested on stats. Blogposts – date published, theme. Referrer stats.
AH: Too early to make evaluation on editorial direction based on evaluation of stats.
AV: Asked about trends, where traffic coming from. SW: Instructional material gets high hits; posts with a network behind them do as well.
Reacting to fast moving ‘news stories’
SW: reported on this type of story posing challenges for GenR. In that we need to show some reaction to these high profile stories, and support activists and campaigners who are voicing ‘Open Science’ concerns.
Further consideration needed for how to deal with these types of stories is needed. The expanded new ‘editorial board’ could play a role. UW: mentioned using fast and slow channels, like Twitter.
SW will write up a ‘one page’ ideas and approaches recommendation for the development of an editorial strategy for ‘fast moving news stories’.
GenR theme and survey
The theme survey results of approximately 35 respondents did not show any clear indication of one theme standing out from the others. They did show that all of themes selected had support.
The approach to using the survey to choose a theme is to use the survey as one tool or indicator among many, and that decisions need to be made strategically and based on other factors such as correspondence to conferences going on, or how others have treated topics.
AH: had earlier expresses support for Open Science in HE because of the need to spread Open Science practices.
Benedikt Fecher: In an earlier meeting had suggested expanding ‘infrastructures’ question to be made relevant to a wider community.
UW: Raise the point that it is about making issues relevant to readers, scholars, in relating ideas to something that is of immediate use to the reader.
SW is to come back with recommendations on the theme question.
Proposal new ‚editorial board‘
No clear and unanimously agree formula was not arrived at for the creation of an editorial board, although there is support for the idea of an editorial board.
GS: suggested we start with a sample group of members from the Research Alliance.
Questions about incentives and motivation were raised.
SW to work out more detail on the functions and working of a board and come back with written outline.
Things not covered
Post-hack
SW will provide a ‘procedure’ document for improved security on GenR, ongoing monitoring of procedure implementation, and for hack recovery.
Editorial modules
Open Science Taxonomy – internal consultation will be released early Nov.
Mapping Open Science – Zotero based prototype will be release after Taxonomy released on late November. Plan is to have Taxonomy and Open Science Mapping ready as prototype for consultation in March Open Science Barcamp.
Action points
SW: Set next three dates for Advisory Board Meetings
SW: Ensure TIB IPs filtered from Matomo Web stats
SW: Simon to make theme recommendation for next four themes (later being provisional) Nov ‚18-April ‚19.
SW: Add to stats:-Blogpost Web stats - date Published, theme; Referrer stats
SW: Write up ‘one pager’ for editorial ideas and strategy on dealing with ‘fast moving news stories’ to then be reviewed
SW is to come back with recommendations on the theme question.
SW to work out more detail on the functions and working of a board, write up
GS, Team GenR: to look at who from the Research Alliance could be potential Editorial Board members.
SW: provide procedure document for security and hack recovery response.