Tag Archives: open access

Data sharing: Contribute to the community

Posted on by
Reply

Data sharing can make a significant contribution to the scientific community, but it comes with challenges, says Caroline Weight.

Guest contributor Caroline Weight

We have all heard of it. We are all worried about it. We hear whispers of it in the corridors. We are advised to be careful what we say to ‘others’. We constantly check the literature. It matters to us. After all, it is our careers on the line.

‘Scooped’.

The process of publication is vigorous, competitive and tricky. It’s not uncommon for five years to pass between writing the grant application and publishing the work. Big labs with state-of-the-art facilities stand a better chance of getting their work out there first, given the extra manpower and often more-established protocols. This race for ownership of the data makes it difficult to share information and present new findings at meetings or conferences. Even at manuscript submission, there is often a chance to actively inhibit particular referees in case of conflicts of interest or personal competitors, to retain the novel concepts and data until they have been made public. Not until the publication has been accepted and is in print can you heave a sigh of relief and move on to the next project. Yet, sharing of data is essential to the progression of science in the modern world. Continue reading →

A New Science of Learning, Accessible to All

Posted on by
Reply

web_pankajGuest post by Professor Pankaj Sah, Director, Queensland Brain Institute and Editor-in-Chief, npj Science of Learning

In partnership with Nature Publishing Group, the Queensland Brain Institute is launching an open access journal dedicated to the science of learning – npj Science of Learning. We want to create a forum through which neuroscientists, psychologists and educators interact to produce a deeper understanding of how we learn. Just as important as this interdisciplinary approach is the open access model we are adopting. Education affects us all, and we want the findings, discussions and debates within the journal to be accessible to everybody, academic or not.

Education and the neuroscience of learning may seem like they dovetail perfectly. After all, learning takes place in the brain and is the foundation of education. As we understand more about how the brain learns, surely this knowledge can inform educational practice? In theory yes, but there is a large conceptual gap between knowing the neural processes that underlie learning and using this to benefit classroom practices. This is where cognitive psychology comes in, as an essential stepping stone between the neuroscience of learning and practical implementation. Ultimately, we think that it is this collaborative approach from researchers in different disciplines—neuroscience, cognitive psychology and education—that will improve educational practice and long-term educational outcomes.

We also think that open access is the right move for academic publishing in general, and even more so for npj Science of Learning. Although the prohibitively high costs of academic journal subscriptions have prevented even the most exclusive, well-funded research institutions from maintaining comprehensively stocked libraries, the impact on middle-tier or lower-tier institutions—particularly from developing countries—is much greater. This unbalanced impact on socioeconomically underdeveloped countries is especially relevant in the field of education.

Education is associated with enhanced health and wellbeing and a more productive economy, and it is exactly these factors that are high priorities for disadvantaged countries. Yet if a paywall prevents people from poorer countries from having access to the cutting edge discourse on learning and education, they cannot learn from or contribute to the debate. It just doesn’t make sense for the most impacted people to be sidelined from the discussion, and we’re happy that by making our content open access, everybody can contribute and everybody can benefit.

Another reason we think that the open access format is ideal for a journal on the science of learning is that the interested parties are not just academics. Teachers and policymakers are two notable examples. Their ideas and opinions currently drive education practice and assessment, and we feel that this thinking should be shaped by the research – it is no use finding ways to improve classroom learning if those practices cannot or will not be implemented. Traditionally, however, these groups have not had direct and easy access to academic research. Open access overcomes this issue and should allow informed debate of the issues at hand by all parties. Parents are another group who are heavily invested in education, yet they too are currently removed from the policies and research that will shape the futures of their children and grandchildren.

This wide array of interested parties does pose a problem of sorts, as does the interdisciplinary nature of the journal: how can we ensure that everybody can understand the specialised research findings that are at the heart of the journal? To address this concern, npj Science of Learning will further break down the barriers to collaborative advance by providing jargon-free summaries of all the research we publish. We want all parties to be able to contribute to the discussion on learning and education, and that requires making the research accessible not just financially, but also intellectually.

We are looking forward immensely to seeing how the collaborative framework enabled by our journal will influence education through a new science of learning. By ensuring that research, discussion and policy perspectives are accessible to all, we think that open access is the ideal platform for our journal dedicated to improving learning and education.

Professor Pankaj Sah is renowned for his work in understanding the physiology of excitatory synapses and synaptic plasticity in the amygdala, an area of the brain involved in emotional processing. He is currently Deputy Director (Research) and Director of the Science of Learning Research Centre at The Queensland Brain Institute (QBI). Previously he was group leader at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University and moved to The University of Queensland as a founding member of QBI in 2003.

His laboratory continues to study the amygdala using a combination of molecular tools, electrophysiology, anatomical reconstruction and calcium imaging. More recently his laboratory has begun research work on humans doing electrophysiological recordings in patients undergoing electrode implantation for deep brain stimulation for the treatment of movement disorders in Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor and Tourette’s syndrome. He has published over 90 papers in international peer reviewed journals.

 

Open research: Open up to open access

Posted on by
Reply

Six myths about open access were addressed in an open research workshop at the 2015 Naturejobs Career Expo in London.

Guest contributor Gaia Donati

OpenResearch-NJCE15-workshop-naturejobs-blog2

{credit}Image credit: Gaia Donati{/credit}

How open-minded do you feel about open access publishing?

The Open Research workshop at the 2015 London Naturejobs Career Expo, led by Mithu Lucraft (head of Open Research Marketing at NPG) and Ros Pyne (Research and Development manager of the Open Research Group at Springer Nature, who manage the Open Research portal), explored several myths about open access publishing, now a well-established alternative route to disseminating scientific results.

Myth 1: Open access benefits readers, but not authors

Open access is great for readers, but the advantage for researchers may seem less obvious at first. A study of open access and subscription-only PNAS articles found that earlier, more frequent citations characterize the former category when compared with the latter. A more recent study of the citations for papers published in Nature Communications (before it became fully open access) seems to confirm these findings and extends the observations to downloads and social-media interest, with open access articles experiencing higher downloads. Interestingly, these also appear to be sustained over a longer period of time – “attention lasts longer,” said Lucraft. In this way, open access – together with similar initiatives such as open data – may well be a primary route to accelerate and facilitate science while ensuring reproducibility. Continue reading →

Connecting Minds from Across the Globe

Posted on by
Reply

Guest post by Myra Biblowit, President & CEO of the Breast Cancer Research Foundation

Myra-Biblowit_Headshot_2015As the most common cancer in women worldwide and the second most common cancer overall, breast cancer remains a fact of life.

The latest data released in 2012 showed that nearly 1.7 million women around the globe were diagnosed and incidence rates are on the rise. It is the leading cause of cancer death in the world’s poorest countries.  If we do not put a stop to this epidemic, 13 million people will lose their lives to breast cancer in the next 25 years.

That prognosis, however, does not have to become our reality.  At the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, we know how to bring an end to cancer. The answer: Research.

Why Research

It is because of research that we have learned more about breast cancer in the past two decades than in the last 500 years.  Thanks to the tireless efforts of physicians and scientists, we have learned that breast cancer is not just one but many diseases, we have advanced our understanding of the inherited risk of breast cancer and developed precision medicine and individualized therapies to put an end to one-size-fits-all treatment.

When BCRF was founded just over 20 years ago, a breast cancer diagnosis inspired fear and little hope. Scientific understanding of the nature of the disease and how it moved through the body was still nascent. Investigations on prevention strategies were fledgling, screening methods were limited and treatment options were few.

Since 1993, BCRF has raised $575 million in critical funding for cancer research worldwide to fuel advances in tumor biology, genetics, prevention, treatment, metastasis and survivorship. This year, BCRF is the largest private funder of breast cancer research in the world. Every hour of research we fund improves outcomes and saves lives.

We have made research our mission because investing in research produces real results.  BCRF funded researchers have been deeply involved with every major breakthrough in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship.  Deaths from breast cancer have dropped 30 percent over the last 20 years.  If diagnosed early, a breast cancer diagnosis has a 90 percent survival rate vs. the 65 percent survival rates in the 1970s. That is real progress.

Research is revolutionizing our understanding of cancer, answering questions critically important to patients and transforming lives every days as women and men get the help they need. The breakthroughs that have been achieved from breast cancer research are also helping to inform other cancers including ovarian, cervical, and melanoma. Today, with science and technology working hand in hand, we are closer to prevention and cure than ever before.

A world free of cancer is possible. Research is the key to making that hope a reality. Partnering with the Nature Publishing Group is a critical step towards further elevating BCRF’s scientific leadership in cancer research.

Collaboration is Key

At the Foundation, we have underscored the critical tenet of collaboration in research for over two decades—across institutions and disciplines. We support 240 scientists on five continents working around the clock on solving one of the world’s greatest health problems. The launch of our open access journal, npj Breast Cancer, in partnership with Nature Publishing Group in June 2015 is a great step towards fostering and further expanding this model of knowledge sharing. The research published in this journal is free to access immediately upon publication, and can be easily shared, meaning that it is accessible to clinicians and patients as well as researchers.

This October, BCRF will host two key research symposia connecting scientists from around the world. The Symposia, in New York and Boston, will highlight progress made in breast cancer research while addressing topics that are top of mind in the field.

On October 29, more than 180 researchers will gather 1,000 guests at the New York Symposium and Awards Luncheon at the Waldorf Astoria titled “Progress in Killing Drug-Resistant Cancer Cells.” Panelist Dr. Joan Brugge of Harvard Medical School will be honored with the Jill Rose Award for her distinguished work to advance understanding of the molecular and cellular biology of breast cancer. Dr. Suzanne Fuqua of Baylor College of Medicine and Dr. Vered Stearns of Johns Hopkins will also serve on the panel moderated by BCRF Scientific Director Dr. Larry Norton and BCRF Scientific Advisory Chairman Dr. Clifford Hudis—both of whom also serve at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and as the Editors-in-Chief of npj Breast Cancer.

On October 23, the Boston Research Symposium and Luncheon held in memory of noted breast surgeon Dr. Carolyn Kaelin, will gather more than 300 guests. The discussion, titled “Understanding Women’s Risk for Breast Cancer and Other Cancers,” will feature panelists Dr. Judy Garber of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Nadine Tung of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, moderated by Chairman of BCRF’s Scientific Advisory Board Dr. Clifford Hudis.

Before our scientists take the stage for these public events, they will take part in a scientific meeting, a tradition that’s been in place since 2003. Conceived by Scientific Director Dr. Larry Norton, the conference presents the opportunity to explore important topics in breast cancer research, with a program carefully chosen by BCRF’s Scientific Advisory Board. This year’s meeting, held at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, will feature a series of presentations and lively discussion from BCRF-supported experts on the prevailing challenges of drug resistance and strategies to improve outcomes through novel combination therapies and precision medicine. These scientific meetings have historically inspired new collaborations and scientific discourse that accelerate discovery, and we are confident that the outcomes of this year’s meeting will be no different in taking us to our ultimate goal of better prevention and treatment of breast cancer.

Join us. Help fuel the research of today needed to save lives tomorrow. Visit bcrfcure.org.

Visit the npj Breast Cancer website to find out more.

The Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF) is committed to being the end of breast cancer by advancing the world’s most promising research. Founded by Evelyn H. Lauder in 1993, BCRF-funded investigators have been deeply involved in every major breakthrough in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship. In 2015, BCRF will award $48.5 million to support 240 researchers at leading medical institutions internationally, making it one of the largest non-governmental funders of breast cancer research in the world. By investing 91 cents of every dollar directly in its mission, BCRF remains one of the nation’s most fiscally responsible nonprofits. BCRF is the only breast cancer organization with an “A+” from CharityWatch, together with Charity Navigator’s highest rating of four stars 13 times since 2002. Visit www.bcrfcure.org to learn more.

 

 

 

Big data: The impact of the Human Genome Project

Posted on by
Reply

The Human Genome Project led to a paradigm shift in the way science is conducted and data is shared, says Rehma Chandaria.

Guest contributor Rehma Chandaria

164480115_genome_istock_thinkstock

{credit}istockphoto/thinkstock{/credit}

In 1996, an international group of scientists came together in Bermuda to discuss how sequence data from the Human Genome Project (HGP) should be released. The meeting concluded in the formation of the ‘Bermuda Principles’, a set of rules ensuring the data would be immediately shared on publicly accessible databases as it was generated. This ground-breaking accord contravened the conventional practice of releasing data only after publication in scientific journals. It changed the way we see data sharing, and ultimately, changed the way science research was conducted.

Its success demonstrated how a global community of scientists could collectively produce and use data far more efficiently than an individual could. This greatly benefited scientific progress and led to many important new insights and discoveries. For example, information of 30 genes associated with disease was published prior to publication of the draft sequence in 2001.

Recognising its ability to accelerate progress, there is an enormous push for all scientists to make raw data publicly available for others to analyse and use. As a prerequisite for publication or receiving grants, it is becoming increasingly common for journals and funding bodies to insist that data is shared openly. Continue reading →

Data sharing: Why it’s all ‘mine’

Posted on by
Reply

Data sharing makes scientific sense, but the career-conscious nature of scientists may stand in the way.

Guest contributor Rachel Yoho

As with many aspects of society, human nature shapes interactions in science research. When we consider “data sharing,” the likely response is probably a shrug. We’ve all been there. Group work and competition at its finest. The increasingly competitive environment for grant funding, and the ‘publish or perish’ attitude promotes the “mine, mine, mine” attitude among scientists. To focus on the issue of overcoming career-protecting objections to data sharing however, we can focus on several trends.

Data ownership
With many factors, including budget cuts, sequestration and economic downturns, the current scarcity of grant funding creates financial stress in labs. ”Big grants” like the NIH R01, had lower success rates for new grants in 2014 as compared to the last four of five years. In turn, data ownership becomes possessive to the PI and lab, even beyond that of the funding agency or institution. Simply, it’s our grant money, it’s our data. By working for and finally achieving a grant, often after many attempts, a sense of accomplishment and pride in ownership develops. Continue reading →

Data sharing: Why it doesn’t happen

Posted on by
Reply

The advent of big data has caused scientists to rethink data sharing, but several problems are preventing it from happening, says Nina Divorty.

Guest contributor Nina Divorty

Data-sharing-naturejobs-blog“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”  – Isaac Newton.

This classic quote sums up the nature of scientific collaboration: only by building on the work of our predecessors can we make scientific advancements, and only by sharing our own discoveries can they be built upon by others. Most researchers understand this, but only since the recent surge in technologies that generate very large datasets have we begun to recognise the value of sharing raw data, in addition to publishing results in their processed and polished form. The advantages are clear: raw data offers complete transparency so that other scientists can compare their own results and analyses when attempting to replicate findings, and also allows others to ask novel questions of existing datasets. Despite this, the majority of researchers across a variety scientific disciplines report that lack of access to data detracts from the progress of research in their field, yet 64% admit to not making their data easily accessible. So what’s stopping them? Continue reading →

npj Parkinson’s Disease: Opening Up Access to Scientists and Patients Alike

Posted on by
Reply

Guest post by James Beck and Paul Zimmet, Parkinson’s Disease Foundation.

Many scientists, as evidenced by recent discussions, appreciate the value of an open access journal – the convenience of being able to immediately and freely access the latest articles, for example, and the value in a freer exchange of scientific ideas. But what may be less obvious is why this matters to the community served by the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation (PDF) – the patients whose lives are directly impacted by the advances and disappointments in Parkinson’s disease research.

Just two months ago, when the PDF announced its partnership with Nature Publishing Group (NPG) in launching npj Parkinson’s Disease, both communities were on our minds. Our primary goal of working with NPG is to create a home where the best science about Parkinson’s disease can be gathered in one place for all to read and freely shared. But equally important to PDF is the goal of empowering the Parkinson’s community to be a part of the research that will ultimately solve their disease.

People with Parkinson’s disease, or any chronic condition, need to be well-informed about their own disease in order to fight it effectively. But how can you do that when most people do not have direct access to the latest research on the disease?

PDF believes that open access can help to change that. In this way, open access is the right thing to do for the patient community. But even more compelling, we would argue that it is the effective thing to do … because it can accelerate Parkinson’s research.

This has been our experience working with our network of more than 200 PDF Research Advocates. They (including one of the authors of this blog) can directly attest to the effectiveness of this patient engagement approach.

PDF Research Advocates "in action"- educating the Parkinson's community about the importance of participating in PD clinical research studies. (Image: PFD)

PDF Research Advocates “in action”- educating the Parkinson’s community about the importance of participating in PD clinical research studies. (Image: PDF)

Continue reading →

A recap of a successful year in open access, and introducing CC BY as default

Posted on by
Reply

Guest post by Carrie Calder, the Director of Strategy for Open Research, Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan

We’re pleased to start 2015 with an announcement that we’re now using Creative Commons Attribution license CC BY 4.0 as default. This will apply to all of the 18 fully open access journals Nature Publishing Group owns, and will also apply to any future titles we launch. Two society- owned titles have introduced CC BY as default today and we expect to expand this in the coming months.  

This follows a transformative 2014 for open access and open research at Nature Publishing Group. We’ve always been supporters of new technologies and open research (for example, we’ve had a liberal self-archiving policy in place for ten years now. In 2013 we had 65 journals with an open access option) but in 2014 we:

  • Built a dedicated team of over 100 people working on Open Research across journals, books, data and author services
  • Conducted research on whether there is an open access citation benefit, and researched authors’ views on OA
  • Introduced the Nature Partner Journal series of high-quality open access journals and announced our first ten NPJs
  • Launched Scientific Data, our first open access publication for Data Descriptors
  • And last but not least switched Nature Communications to open access, creating the first Nature-branded fully open access journal

Continue reading →

India unveils new open access policy

Posted on by
Reply

OAPre-Christmas, India’s department of science and technology (DST) and department of biotechnology (DBT) played Santa to the Indian scientific community when they unveiled the country’s new open access policy this month.

The new policy will help researchers working on  funding from either of these two departments under the ministry of science and technology to publish in journals of their choice. The departments hope that researchers will publish in “high quality, peer-reviewed” journals. The authors of such papers will have to deposit copies of the final papers and supporting data in institutional repositories where the information can be accessed by the public.

In essence, it is a big leap for the open access environment in the country. The policy intends to “enhance public exposure of research.” By maximising the distribution of these publications through free online access, the Indian government also wants to ensure percolation of cutting edge research at a rapid pace into higher education curricula, “thereby raising the standard of technical and scientific education in the country”.

The policy notes that “since all funds disbursed by the DBT and DST are public funds, it is important that the information and knowledge generated through the use of these funds are made publicly available as soon as possible, subject to Indian law and IP policies of respective funding agencies and institutions where the research is performed.”

From the funding year 2012-23, authors writing with DST or DBT grants will have to deposit their papers to the institutional repositories within two weeks of acceptance by a journal. They will also have to submit manuscripts of their earlier publications even if they are unrelated to current projects funded by DBT or DST. Journal embargoes will be honoured by these repositories to make the papers openly accessible.

In order to reach the policy to researchers across the country, institutes under DBT and DST will celebrate “Open Access Day” during the International Open Access Week  with sensitising programmes.