Last Friday I participated in a round table discussing Open Science practices and their relevance for addressing the crisis of replicability in Psychology.
This past weekend I had the pleasant experience of migrating my software KARDIA form its old home at the SourceForge repository to GitHub. Although the clearest benefit from this migration is the possibility to easier collaborate with other programers for the future development of the software, there are several other sweet candies that came along…
Muchos académicos todavía confunden Open Science con “Open Access” o, lo que es peor, creen que acceso abierto es sinónimo de publicar en revistas de acceso abierto. Este es el primero de una serie de posts en los que intentaré aclarar el significado y la relevancia del concepto de Open Science y explicar qué acciones sencillas podemos realizar los científicos para contribuir a generar una ciencia más abierta, transparente, eficiente y colaborativa. Empezaré ofreciendo mi visión personal sobre qué es la Ciencia, cuál debería ser su objetivo y cuál debería ser nuestra actitud para ayudar a que cumpla su función y contribuya a la sociedad de una forma más eficiente.
As promised, I publish here a recent correspondence between Angel Correa, a colleague at the Brain, Mind & Behaviour Research Center of the University of Granada, and the editor of an Elsevier journal. I do not wish to express my opinion here —although the title and image of this post may be giving a hint— nor to reveal the identity of the editor. I prefer to listen to what my fellow colleagues think about which are the obligations and responsibilities of authors and journal editors in the emerging landscape of open scholarly communication.
Our recent research, revealing significant differences in how the brains of physically trained and sedentary young adults process information from the heart, is now available for commentary and formal peer review in two preprint repositories: SJS (@social_sjs) and bioRxiv (@biorxivpreprint). Each of these repositories comes with advantages and disadvantages. BioRxiv is already backed by a …
Last week I was in Oslo, invited by the organising committee of Eurodoc2017, to give an introductory talk on Open Science . One thing that became apparent during this two-day event was that, although irresistibly trendy, Open Science remains an elusive concept. Many continue to confuse Open Science with Open Access, not to mention that almost everyone still thinks Open Access is equivalent to publishing in open access journals. In this series of posts, I will discuss a few issues that will hopefully help clarify the meaning of Open Science, why is it important, and how individual scientists can make a difference.
Last week I attended the COAR (@COAR_eV) 2016 annual meeting hosted by the University of Vienna. I was invited by COAR’s executive director Kathleen Shearer to give a talk on peer review on top of repository networks and to participate in a working group that will discuss and provide recommendations for “Next Generation Repositories”.
In reforming the culture of peer review and moving towards a system that embraces the use and recognition of pre-print servers, we are cognizant of the need to avoid re-inventing the wheel, by identifying and using existing infrastructure and initiatives that can assist in furthering this goal.
In this post I share a recent experience as an example on how to negotiate with a publisher your right to make your research freely available without having to pay any money. Hope it proves useful to more researchers in a similar position.
En esta carta se busca revisar las pruebas que demuestren que la definición actual del asma como una inflamación crónica de las vías respiratorias no está corroborada científicamente. Lo más problemático es que esta definición está alejando al mundo científico de intervenciones terapéuticas cuyos resultados positivos han sido corroborados en numerosos ensayos clínicos.