Conference Committee Submissions


TOPICS

Submitted By: Samir Hachani - sam_hac1@yahoo.fr

open science
digital divide
open peer review

Submission Reference ID (SID): 342


Submitted By: Daniel Katz - d.katz@ieee.org

Tagline suggestions:

Disseminating Tomorrow’s Scholarly Products
The Oregon Trail: to Tomorrow’s Scholarly Products

Submission Reference ID (SID): 343


Submitted By: Tim Clark - tim_clark@harvard.edu

Another tagline: Opening the Research Ecosystem: Beyond Open Data
Or perhaps to be a little more specific - “Maximizing Research Transparency”
Beyond Open Access: Maximizing Research Transparency


NV: coping in his emails:
I’d also like to suggest that based on the article I shared we ask Bruce Alberts to be a keynote speaker. Bruce Alberts et al. Self-correction in science at work. Science 26 June 2015: 348 (6242), 1420-1422. [DOI:10.1126/science.aab3847]

Submission Reference ID (SID): 344


Submitted By: Laurel Haak - l.haak@orcid.org

Riffing off of Tim's suggestion:
Research Ecosystems Interoperability: Beyond Open Data
Or on the interop/ecosystem theme,maybe something harkening to the Water Cycle...

Submission Reference ID (SID): 346


Submitted By: Mercè Crosas - mcrosas@iq.harvard.edu

How about simply: "Beyond Open Data" or "Beyond Open Access"

Submission Reference ID (SID): 347


Submitted By: Bryan Vickery - bryan.vickery@cogentoa.com

Hi,

As an OA publisher and someone working in or around this space for 15 years, can I suggest

Maximising Openness

As I go to conferences and exhibitions I'm taken by the absolute passion in those attending in person and on Twitter to open up research and make it collaborative. But I don't necessarily see that from the majority of academics I talk to.

What can we achieve by focusing on maximising the openness of research? What arguments do we need to make and at what level?

Many thanks, Bryan

Bryan Vickery, Director
Cogent OA

www.CogentOA.com

Submission Reference ID (SID): 348


Submitted By: Daniel Katz - d.katz@ieee.org

Transparency seems much more limited to me than openness. Openness implies sharing, which transparency doesn’t, at least to me.

I would be happy with Maximizing Research Openness or something like that.

Dan

Submission Reference ID (SID): 349


Submitted By: Mercè Crosas - mcrosas@iq.harvard.edu

But Transparency implies not only Openness, but also "clear" - that is, research that can is only be easily accessible but also understandable and thus reusable.

In any case, happy with many of the suggestions here!

Merce

Submission Reference ID (SID): 350


Submitted By: Juliane Schneider - j6schneider@ucsd.edu

Yes, and I think openness can also be applied to all of the tools being developed in open (and open-ish?) communities like Hydra and Fedora, not only the openness of the data itself. After going to both IASSIST and Open Repositories last month, I was impressed with the amount of data management/sharing/description tools currently being developed to be used on multiple platforms.
Juliane.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 351


Submitted By: Violeta Ilik - violeta.ilik@northwestern.edu

I like this one - Beyond Open Access: Maximizing Research Transparency
Violeta

Submission Reference ID (SID): 352


Submitted By: Tim Clark - tim_clark@harvard.edu

Hi Dan,
What I was trying to get to with the word “transparency” was supporting the the whole notion of reproducibility, extensibility and re-use *on a spectrum* as in the Albers article. Then you open the door to a nuanced conversation and make it very hard for people not to at least take the first step.
Tim

Submission Reference ID (SID): 353


Submitted By: Daniel Katz - d.katz@ieee.org

I think we all agree that the concept is good. For me, this is just an issue of wording. Maybe just different opinions based on coming from different places...
Dan

Submission Reference ID (SID): 354


Submitted By: Simon CODATA - simon@codata.org

I tend to support the views of Tim and Mercè here. I recognise that there are plural opens, but I think transparency is important for the reasons Mercè advances. And I agree that putting this 'on a spectrum' allows the debate to happen.
S.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 355


Submitted By: Tim Clark - tim_clark@harvard.edu

Proposed tag line for conference

"Beyond Open Access: Maximizing Research Transparency"

Submission Reference ID (SID): 356


Submitted By: Bruno Paschoal - b.paschoal@gmail.com

Topics:
1) How to open up your research or What does open research actually means?
2) Communicating research for non-scholars: what does it take?

Submission Reference ID (SID): 357


Submitted By: Bruno Paschoal - b.paschoal@gmail.com

Tagline suggestion: Towards Open Research

I feel that we're already beyond the PDF and open-data, but we still don't know where we all want to go. Using "towards" and giving a direction would be really nice to create a common characteristic for the group. We could even discuss what "open research" would mean and what parts should/could be open or not.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 358


Submitted By: Tom Crick - tomcrick@gmail.com

Tagline: "Building an Open Research Culture" or "Towards an Open Research Culture"

(building on previous submissions)

Submission Reference ID (SID): 359


Submitted By: robert mcdonald - rhmcdona@indiana.edu

Citation Methods for Open Source Software
Citation Methods for Virtual Machine Re-use in experimental computing
UnCamp type of Sessioning - encourage folks to sign up at the event for a five minute talk on a most current subject - set aside time for 5-6 people to give this type of talk (45 min session) 30 mins of talks and 15 for questions.
Tagline: Towards Research EcoSystem Interoperability
Tagline: Developing the Next Generation of Scholarly Products

Submission Reference ID (SID): 361


Submitted By: Merce Crosas - merce.crosas@gmail.com

One of the topics of the conference could be on the language to communicate research. That is, open access is not useful if you can get all the papers, data and methods, but only those in your sub-field (or in your lab) can understand it. How do we disseminate science in a clearer and legible way?

Submission Reference ID (SID): 366


Submitted By: Anita de Waard - a.dewaard@elsevier.com

Divini! We (Michael Kurtz, Paul Groth, Anita de Waard) want to hold a coding/hackathon session where we provide a space, guidance, snacks etc to allow people to create Divini Working Papers: an interactive, living collection of Jupyter Notebook entries that highlight, exemplify and contain new forms of scholarly communication. At the session we will briefly introduce the Divini idea, and then hand over to the audience to show the types of notebooks they want to highlight and create. The remainder of the session will be spent creating and curating Jupyter notebook entries for Divini, to jumpstart this new Force11 platform.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 367


Submitted By: Jon Tennant - jon.tennant.2@gmail.com

Incentivising openness.

Much of the resistance to being more open and transparent about research and its outputs is due to mis-alignment of this with career advancement structures. How do we create a system and a culture that aligns maximum openness, transparency, and exploration of all possible impact pathways, with reward systems (i.e., through career progression). This is part of the larger paradigm of public and equal access to knowledge, and research institutes as a public body.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 368


Submitted By: Danny Kingsley - dak45@cam.ac.uk

Hi - I am currently very interested in the unexpected outcomes of policies. I spoke about this at the recent LIBER conference in London http://www.liber2015.org.uk/programme/ and was a bit apologetic at the beginning because I thought I was talking about things everyone knew but the comments afterwards were overwhelming and people were saying 'Gee we really need to think about this'. My talk was called 'Be careful what you wish for unexpected policy consequences'. Happy for this title and topic to be reused and explored further. Perhaps some sort of debate where people have to argue a particular position (regardless of what they themselves believe) on a given set of statements relating to policies that are chosen by spinning a chocolate wheel?

Submission Reference ID (SID): 369


Submitted By: Alexander Garcia-Castro - alexgarciac@gmail.com

I would like to have a publication innovation challenge (PIC). This challenge could pick all the ideas that have been discussed (data, transparency, reproducibility, etc) and ask participants to present their prototypes addressing these issues. participants would be asked to present their prototypes in 5 minutes; the event could follow the same structure as that of PechaKucha talks where 20 slides are shown for 20 seconds each (6 minutes and 40 seconds in total). The format, which keeps presentations concise and fast-paced, powers multiple-speaker events called PechaKucha Nights (PKNs). We could get some sponsorship and award by votes over twitter, likes in FB, votes from those in the meeting, and votes from judges.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 370


Submitted By: Rebecca Boyles - boyles@niehs.nih.gov

Begin with the end in mind: How effective data management planning enhances open science?

Tools, approaches, and methods for managing your data at the earliest phase of the research cycle.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 371


Submitted By: Caio Werneck - c.werneck@mpp.hertie-school.org

Mainly: Open Science, Data Visualization.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 372


Submitted By: Maryann Martone - mmartone@ucsd.edu

Are we ready to define the scholarly commons?

This session will present efforts underway in the Commons working group looking to define common practices, principles, standards and technologies that should govern the communication of and access to any scholarly object: narrative, code, data, etc.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 373


Submitted By: Maryann Martone - memartone@hypothes.is

Open, web-based annotation: the missing web

The ability to add annotations to any web page turns any web document into a collaborative workspace. This capability was originally envisioned as part of the web, but is only now becoming a reality. New platforms and tools are now available; the technology has the potential to impact many of the issues facing scholarly communication by providing a connective layer of knowledge on top of research objects. We'd like to organize a session around the issues of web-based, open annotation that includes tools, use cases and challenges for dealing with annotation at scale.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 376


Submitted By: Michaël Bon - michael.bon@cea.fr

"The Self-Journal of Science" (www.sjscience.org & http://www.sjscience.org/article?id=46) : a unique, consistent, principled and practical solution to allow for a realistic transition to achieve maximal quality and open Science in a peaceful and costless way. It is a solution that does acknowledge the fact that today scientists have no choice but to publish in impact-factor journals as the grant review system revolves on it. SJS can propose something to change it. An important point is that it is not "just" a sum of open technical solutions for peer review, evaluation, classification: there is also a brand new open logic, which is the reason why it can create a massive dynamics, even more if it is presented at such an important conference as FORCE2016.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 377


Submitted By: Marguerite Avery - mavery@hypothes.is

** Panel suggestion: annotation practices in collaborative scholarship, and how to engage new models of authorship, authority, and credit. At one time, the footnote provided another layer of discourse to the text, though has been marginalized (no pun intended) due to typesetting challenges and pushed into Endnotes. Annotation as a tool can be employed to (re)introduce additional conversation layers, not only from the author but with additional contributors. This panel would explore the roots of such practices demonstrating that these are not new ideas, and hear from scholars working on such projects.
**Panel suggestion: Beyond the PDF, Beyond the Book-Journal BInary. This session explore the developments in the scholarly practice that have ventured beyond the traditional binary (e.g. University of Minnesota Press projects Forerunners, and Manifold, USC's Annenberg Press recent publications), consider new formats for scholarship, and how these have fared, the challenges therein, how these practices compare across the disciplines, and the challenges to be addressed across the scholarly communications ecosystem (e.g. tenure and promotion committees, library acquisitions, etc.)
**Panel suggestion: Visual practices in scholarship. This session discusses the current state of nontextual scholarship across the disciplines, from JOVE (Journal of Visual Experiments) to the humanities and visual arts. A recent policy recommendation from the College Art Association (scholarly society for history and criticism of art and visual culture) just announced that they now recommend a Fair Use approach for any publication discussing a work of art. The implications for this big, both for traditional print publishing but for the promise of digital publications as copyright and permission issues have kept the majority of this content offline.
**Programming suggestion:
- some type of Beyond the PDF hackathon could yield some interesting results, provided attendees are professionally diverse enough to make this useful. But it would very exciting to actually work at producing some prototype ideas for new formats. A recent event I attended was a hackathon concurrent with ALA (American Library Association) in June. http://codexhackathon.com/ - this event was oriented more towards book readers rather than researchers but you can get the idea. I'm glad to say more about this and provide a more defined concept if it's of interest.

**general programming note:
Has the meeting grown in terms of attendance and diversity of disciplines that it's worthwhile to consider concurrent sessions for portions of the meeting? (I say this with hesitation as I see great value in all participants engaging in the same discussions. However the 2015 had enough moments of talks that felt outside of the focus of the meeting proper despite being of great interest to a good number of the participants. A possible solution would have been concurrent sessions to take advantage of the critical mass of folks who engage with a particular the issue that isn't entirely on topic.) Just something to think about if the goal is to grow this across disciplines.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 378


Submitted By: Jeffrey Beall - jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu

PREDATORY OPEN-ACCESS PUBLISHERS AND THE INCREASING CORRUPTION OF THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING ECOSYSTEM

JOURNAL HIJACKINGS AND THEIR VICTIMIZATION OF RESEARCHERS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

HOW FAKE IMPACT FACTORS SUPPLIED BY FAKE IMPACT FACTOR COMPANIES VICTIMIZE RESEARCHERS IN DEVELOPING NATIONS

THE BREAKDOWN OF RESEARCH CULTURES AND ACADEMIC EVALUATION CAUSED BY THE EASY ACCEPTANCE OF ARTICLES IN PREDATORY JOURNALS AND THE EASY ACCEPTANCE OF PRESENTATIONS AT PREDATORY CONFERENCES

THE VICTIMIZATION OF HONEST RESEARCHERS BY PREDATORY OPEN-ACCESS PUBLISHERS

THE ARROGANCE OF RESEARCHERS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH PRETENDING THAT PREDATORY PUBLISHERS ARE NOT A PROBLEM AND THE EVENTUAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DENIALISM

Submission Reference ID (SID): 379


Submitted By: Bianca Kramer - b.m.r.kramer@uu.nl

[joint suggestion with Jeroen Bosman, j.m.bosman@uu.nl]

As follow-up to our project '101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication', which won best poster award at Force2015 in Oxford, we propose a presentation of the results of our worldwide survey on changing research workflows (see http://101innovations.wordpress.com). With this survey, that currently has almost 2500 responses and will be running until February 2016, we provide empirical underpinning of the changing scholarly communication landscape. The survey also enables us to assess the relative importance of various driving forces (efficiency, openness and transparency/reproducibility) behind changes in scholarly communication for researchers in different disciplines, career stages and countries.

We are open to several formats, including an interactive workshop in which participants can come up with their own hypotheses which will be tested right there and then using the survey data.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 380


Submitted By: Nic Weber - nmweber@uw.edu

1. Coupling different research objects: software, workflows, data, publications
2. Find a balance between conceptual / abstract / community building sessions, and the presentation of projects that have results with implications for moving scholarly communications forward. In the past, Beyond the PDF was much more focused on the latter - lately it feels like the Force 11 has moved too far in the direction of the former.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 381


Submitted By: Bianca Kramer - b.m.r.kramer@uu.nl

I'd love to see if we could come up with an actionable plan to have discussions around scholarly communication, Open Access, Open Science, publication culture etc not only at conferences like Force and OAI9 and the like, but also in tracks/sessions of academic conferences, to get more researchers actively involved. I'm thinking along the lines of identifying what's currently already happening at some of the big conferences (like SfN), what good entrance points/contacts could be, and (inspired in part by the Software/Data Carpentry concept) maybe developing some sort of blueprint for a track/session proposal, with a roster of people in various disciplines who would be willing to participate in such tracks.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 382


Submitted By: Stacy Konkiel - stacy@altmetric.com

- Building a truly open altmetrics infrastructure: How can we build an altmetrics infrastructure that incentivizes the open sharing of altmetrics data as well as the development of innovative (and sometimes commercial) altmetrics services that add value to that open data? What lessons can we learn from the early work of NISO and the CrossRef DOI Event Tracker project? How do we build a COUNTER for altmetrics that exists to serve all stakeholders (publishers, readers, authors, etc) equally, while also enabling the auditability of altmetrics? How do we develop standards for the archiving of historical altmetrics data, ensuring that as web services deprecate, Twitter users deactivate their profiles, and so on, that we are able to retain access to both altmetrics counts and contexts?
- Whither diversity in scholcomm? How can we amplify the voices and needs of scholars of color, women, the differently-abled, and other participants in the scholcomm conversation who are routinely overlooked? What effects will that have on how we envision the future(s) of scholarly communication?
- Building on Nic's idea of interrelated scholarly products, I think there's a need for a discussion of such interrelated products in the digital humanities, in particular.

Submission Reference ID (SID): 383


Submitted By: Scott Edmunds - scott@gigasciencejournal.com

Getting the Force2016 back to its white-heat-of-technology origins would be great to have something on "container publishing" (docker). Mike Barton and the bioboxes community would do a fantastic talk on this (see: http://bioboxes.org/). They presented some of the origins of this at the start of the year, but it has been progressing rapidly since then. See these videos for examples:

https://youtu.be/Au_8wWA0ZQI
https://youtu.be/ZACVcJt0oJA?t=1h39m43s

Submission Reference ID (SID): 384


Submitted By: Ron Margolis - margolisr@mail.nih.gov

Mini-talks followed by panel discussion: What does "findability" really mean and how can you find the vast "invisible" data that might be useful if fully shared?

Submission Reference ID (SID): 419


KEYNOTE SUGGESTIONS

Bruce Alberts, left blank | Recommended By: Tim Clark
Marcia McNutt, Ph.D, Editor-in-Chief, Science magazine | Recommended By: Tim Clark
[I'm not sure], Legal Design Initiative | Recommended By: Bruno Paschoal
Victoria Stodden, University of Illinois - GSLIS | Recommended By: Robert McDonald
C. Titus Brown, University of California, Davis | Recommended By: robert mcdonald
Tony Scott, US Chief Information Officer | Recommended By: Robert McDonald
Erin McKiernan, Donald Green, Elizabeth Iorns , left blank | Recommended By: Kaitlin Thaney
Alyssa Goodman, Harvard University | Recommended By: Merce Crosas
Steven Pinker, Harvard University | Recommended By: Merce Crosas
César Hidalgo, MIT Media Lab | Recommended By: Caio Werneck
Daniel Whaley, Hypothesis | Recommended By: Maryann Martone
Doug Armato, University of Minnesota Press | Recommended By: Marguerite Avery
Jean Claude Guedon, Université de Montreal | Recommended By: Samir Hachani
Michaël Bon, The Self-Journal of Science | Recommended By: Michaël Bon
Carl Boettiger, UC Berkley | Recommended By: Nic Weber
John Ioannidis, Stanford School of Medicine | Recommended By: Scott Edmunds
Kevin Read, NYU | Recommended By: Ron Margolis

Sponsors

Crossref
Digital Science
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
FACETS
Elsevier
OHSU
PeerJ
PLOS (Public Library of Science)
Microsoft Research
Taylor & Francis Group
figshare
Jisc
Squishymedia
River Valley Technologies
International Society for Biocuration
Intel