Detailed Agenda

Filter results by keyword(s)

Sunday 17 April 2016

8:00 AM

to

3:00 PM


9:00 AM

to

5:00 PM

Workshops

Location: OHSU Collaborative Life Science Building, Rooms TBD

NOTE: On Sunday, April 17, there will be a race in Portland that could affect traffic to and from the CLSB. See more information here.

Please sign up for sessions using the schedule below, or at Sched.org or use the mobile site.

Hover over the items below to see descriptions and add sessions to your schedule.  Please help us so we can assign the correct size rooms and the session chairs can correspond with you.

View the FORCE2016 Pre-Conference Meetings schedule & directory.


5:30 PM

to

7:30 PM

Tram reception

Join us for Tram Reception on Sunday evening. Meet at the base of the tram at the tram terminal and enjoy a ride on the tram to the top of the hill. 

The OHSU Library's Historical Collections & Archives will be showcasing materials from their special collection.

Wine, beer, food and other drinks will be served.


Monday 18 April 2016

8:00 AM

to

5:00 PM


8:30 AM

to

8:50 AM

Welcome Session: Introductions and Insights

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Jeanette Mladenovic

Executive Vice President and Provost, Oregon Health & Science University
Bio

Cameron Neylon

http://cameronneylon.net/
@CameronNeylon

Melissa Haendel

Associate Professor, Oregon Health & Science University
Bio
@ontowonka


9:00 AM

to

9:45 AM

Session: Communicate your scholarship effectively: we share, we write, but are we understood?

Co-chairs: Bruno Paschoal and Mercè Crosas

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

The session will explore, from different perspectives, what researchers could do to communicate more effectively to a broader audience:

The Curse of Knowledge: Why We Communicate Badly (In Any Medium)

Steven Pinker

Department of Psychology, Harvard University
stevenpinker.com
@sapinker

Why is so much communication so ineffective? Do people communicate badly on purpose, to bamboozle their readers with highfalutin gobbledygook? Is communication being corrupted by texting and social media? I argue that in fact the chief impediment to clarity is a psychological phenomenon called the Curse of Knowledge—the difficulty we all have in imagining what it’s like not to know something we know.

From Bits to Narratives: The Rapid Evolution of Data Visualization Engines

Cesar A. Hidalgo

Associate Professor, The MIT Media Lab, MIT
chidalgo.com
@cesifoti

No matter whether you are a public sector leader, a private sector executive, or an scholar; your ability to transform data into narratives is probably central to your work. But transforming data into narratives is not easy, not only because crafting an empirically valid story is challenging, but also because the tools available to visualize and analyze data are based on outdated design paradigms that require users to spend vast amounts of time on tasks that can now be automated. In this presentation I will demo a series of data visualization engines that we have created in my group at MIT that help speed up our ability to transform data into narratives.


9:45 AM

to

10:00 AM

Coffee Break (15 min)

Location: Armory lobby


10:00 AM

to

11:00 AM

Invited Talk: Communicating Science: Distilling Your Message

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

This is an interactive experience where we learn to speak more clearly and vividly about our science and why it matters. Through examples and exercises we will find common ground with an audience, find creative ways to build a story, and ultimately learn to focus on the meaning of the message instead of getting lost in complex detail.

Bio

Christie Nicholson is an award-winning science journalist and co-founder of the publishing startup, Publet. She is a contributing editor at Scientific American and CBS. She has been an on-air contributor for the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, and produced/hosted Scientific American's podcast, 60-Second Mind, reaching an audience of 1.5M. For the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, Nicholson has coached more than 3,000 scientists on communicating with colleagues, policy makers and the public. She is an adjunct professor at NYU’s school of journalism. Nicholson is on the board for South by South West Interactive and the Science Media Centre of Canada. She holds degrees from Dalhousie University in Canada and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism where she was awarded the Eibel Fellowship. 

http://www.christienicholson.com/

https://twitter.com/christienic


11:15 AM

to

11:40 AM

Communicating Science Questions and Panel Discussion

Moderated by Mercè Crosas

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Speakers:

Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Cesar Hidalgo, MIT
Christie Nicholson, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science


11:40 AM

to

11:50 AM

Coffee Break (10 min)

Location: Armory Lobby


11:50 AM

to

12:50 PM

Concurrent Session: Altmetrics and my career: real barriers or limitations of our minds?

Co-chairs: Stacy Konkiel and Robin Champieux

Location: Ellen Bye Theater

As an emerging measure of research impact, altmetrics are still viewed with skepticism by some corners of the academy. Can altmetrics really uncover useful and high-quality research? How are scientists and humanists actually using altmetrics for professional advancement? How seriously will grant reviewers, tenure and promotion committees, and your colleagues take altmetrics? In this session, researchers will share their uncensored experiences using altmetrics to advance their careers: what worked, what didn't, and recommendations they have for others interested in using these and other emerging measures of research impact.

Using altmetrics to track open science activities 

Holly Bik

Center for Genomics & Systems Biology at New York University
www.hollybik.com
@hollybik

Open science and open source software are laudable goals, but these activities are not typically rewarded or encouraged in the same manner as traditional scientific metrics (Nature/Science publications, citation counts, and H-indexes). However, engaging with open source products and activities can effectively advance your career and expand your professional network. Here, I will discuss how I have leveraged altmetrics to track the dissemination of software development projects and web-based scientific activities. 

Exploring the meaning of altmetrics

Stefanie Haustein

University of Montreal

The acts on which various altmetrics are based are quite heterogeneous: likes on Facebook, mentions on Twitter, saves on Mendeley, and expert recommendations on F1000 are acts that differ in terms of user community, engagement, motivation and audience. While the act of citing has been an essential part of the scholarly communication process since the beginning of modern science, it is unclear whether the acts leading to online events used for altmetrics are relevant in scholarly communication. While empirical studies have shown that most altmetrics correlate weakly with citations, conceptual discussions about their meaning are rare. For most of these new metrics it thus remains quite unclear what exactly they measure. This presentation aims to discuss the heterogeneity of altmetrics, potential biases and their effects on their use in the scientific evaluation and reward system.

Demonstrating impact as a practitioner-scholar

Heather Coates

IUPUI University Library
@IandPangurBan

Librarians have a unique perspective on the scholarly ecosystem as authors, consumers, and stewards. This perspective, combined with our roles in collecting and curating information, enables librarians to identify changes in policy, practice, and technology that can improve the openness, transparency, and sustainability of the scholarly ecosystem. It also reveals opportunities for aligning institutional and professional incentives with these changes. I will share examples of evidence used in my promotion and tenure dossier to demonstrate how librarian practitioner-scholars can be both advocates and exemplars for the changes we want to see in open access, data, and educational resources.


11:50 AM

to

12:50 PM

Concurrent Session: Libraries United in Opening New Scholarly Platforms

Co-Chairs: Steve Van Tuyl and Robert McDonald

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Libraries have always been at the intersection of research, publishing, career advancement and technical advancement within the academy. As we see from the recent CLIR report The Once and Future Publishing Library, many have turned towards advancing new models and platforms for knowledge dissemination either in conjunction with or in addition to their local university presses. Collaborations with libraries are allowing the university press to survive and thrive in new ways, though these collaborations are often in parallel with, but separate from innovations in publishing initiated from outside of libraries and traditional publishing circles. This session will look at current and emerging platforms for scholarly publishing that are opening new doors for scholars in terms of making their content openly accessible and usable to all. The session will also explore ways that libraries can draw connections between researchers and content producers to facilitate and accelerate the use of  alternate modes of scholarly publishing as part of their everyday workflows.

Daniel Mietchen

Founding Editor RIO Journal

Varsha Kodiyar

Data Curation Editor, Scientific Data , Nature Publishing Group

Chris Keene

Head of library and scholarly futures, Jisc

Maria Bonn

Editor Journal of Electronic Publishing, Sr Lecturer University of Illinois


1:00 PM

to

1:45 PM


1:45 PM

to

2:45 PM

Keynote Talk: Digital Disease Detection and the Future of Participatory Research

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

John Brownstein, Chief Innovation Officer, Boston Children's Hospital, Professor at Harvard Medical School, Co-Creator, HealthMap

See bio here.
Twitter: @johnbrownstein

Abstract

Over the past fifteen years, Internet technology has significantly changed the landscape of public health surveillance and epidemic intelligence gathering. Disease and outbreak data is disseminated not only through formal online announcements by government agencies, but also through informal channels such as social networking sites, blogs, chat rooms, Web searches, local news media and crowdsourcing platforms. These data streams have been credited with decreasing the time between an outbreak and formal recognition of an outbreak, allowing for an expedited response to the public health threat. Collectively, these online sources create an image of global public health that is fundamentally different from the one produced by traditional public health surveillance infrastructure. Dr. Brownstein will discuss the current capabilities and future directions in the use of the non- traditional data sources for the purposes of public health surveillance and rapid detection of emerging infectious diseases.


3:00 PM

to

4:00 PM

Session: Data by the people, for the people

Co-chairs: Catherine Brownstein and Rose Relevo

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Human subjects research is a gold standard for science, however the reporting and sharing of human subjects data is mired in ethical issues. How do we ensure that the data is usable downstream?  How can we be unbiased and yet promote an active culture of data reuse? How can we integrate knowledge systematically to support a sum that is greater than the parts? What peer review needs to or could happen further upstream of the publishing process? How can scholarly communication be made actionable and available outside of traditional publication venues? This session will discuss these issues, which are rising in importance as we strive to make data public and accessible- everything from drug trials to how the public feels about GMOs in their food.

Crowdsourced Human Genetics: What if we put people first? 

Bastian Greshake

openSNP
https://opensnp.org

In the past, research participants were "human subjects", having a passive role in research, with very little influence. Often they didn't get access to their own data. This has changed a lot over the last couple of years: over two million people already have access to a glimpse into their genome, thanks to Direct-To-Consumer genetic testing. This development could be enabled to shift the traditional paradigm of how human genetic research can be done.

Research can now be driven by the crowd, which actively participates in the design of studies, donates data and is highly interested in the outcomes. While this opens huge opportunities to accelerate and facilitate research it also leads to unique challenges. How to collect this kind of data? How to make it available in a way that's useful for citizen scientists and academic scientists alike? And how can the vast amount of literature based on this kind of data be made available to the general public? 

With openSNP we are trying to create such a data resource, which is aimed at sharing research findings as well as raw data. People can share their personal genomes, along with their trait data, with the public by dedicating it into the public domain. At the same time we apply text- & data-mining to summarize the vast quantity of primary publications. In this talk we will see what personal genomics is, how it can be used and linked to the published scientific record and how this can help scientists and the general public alike. 

Phenopackets: Making phenotype profiles FAIR++ for disease diagnosis and discovery

Melissa Haendel

Oregon Health & Science University
https://github.com/monarch-initiative/phenopacket-format/wiki

It is estimated 350 million people worldwide are afflicted with a rare disease. Because each disease is different, there are significant challenges in obtaining enough information relevant to the patient’s condition to help inform diagnosis and treatment. While great strides have been made in exchange formats for sequence data, complementary standards for phenotypes and environment are urgently needed. Patient phenotypic abnormalities are currently described in diverse places in diverse formats: publications, public databases, electronic health records, clinical testing labs, disease registries, and social media. Here we propose a new standard for exchange of patient phenotype data that is optimized for integration from these distributed contexts. The PXF standard will allow phenotypic data to be captured at the point of publication, to be transmitted in the context of diagnostic testing, to be used for exchange of data in clinical studies, and as a backbone for patient-contributed data registries and social media. Increasing the volume of computable phenotype data across a diversity of systems will support large-scale computational disease analysis using combined genotype and phenotype data - something that patients themselves will now be able to participate in.

Peer review After Results are Known: Are we “PARKing” the Cart Before the Horse?

Erick Turner

Oregon Health & Science University

The peer review will be prone to bias as long as it occurs after study results are known. This allows one to “torture the data until it confesses” to a statistically significant result. When studies refuse to “confess” and remain negative, authors and/or journals generally regard them as “not interesting” or “not publishable”. Such reporting biases become apparent when we use an “inception cohort” of trials from FDA Drug Approval Packages and compare those results to corresponding journal articles—this approach will be demonstrated with psychotropic drugs. The FDA’s immunity to these biases lies largely in the fact that is it aware of each trial’s existence—and prespecified methods—before study inception. Why not conduct results-free review of manuscripts and make (at least preliminary) publication decisions based on the importance of the scientific question and the methodological rigor? Two such peer-review models—one of them already underway in the UK—will be presented.  

Overcoming obstacles to sharing data about human subjects

Robin Rice

University of Edinburgh
http://datalib.edina.ac.uk/mantra

Confidentiality requirements are often pitted against data sharing requirements in social and medical research. Does the need for disclosure control about human subjects necessarily mean that your research data cannot be shared and re-used? This presentation will touch on topics such as informed consent, anonymisation and pseudonomisation techniques, and what it means to be ethical with regard to data sharing about human subjects, including rich, qualitative data and research into social media content. New forms of governance and delivery, such as safe data havens will be discussed, and what is lost and what is gained for the public interest when data are shared under conditions other than open access. Robin Rice has over twenty years’ experience as a data librarian in the US and the UK; her team operates the open access Edinburgh DataShare repository and developed the popular Research Data Management Training (MANTRA) open online training course for researchers, as well as leading data-related training at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

THE POWER OF THE COMMUNITY: LETTING PATIENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Dr. Erik Jones

Inspire
http://www.inspire.com

With over 750,000 members organized around 215 communities and thousands of topics, Inspire is the leading social network for health that holds one of the largest sources for patient-created content on the Internet. Through their discussions we have a wealth of user-generated content about their patient experience, including everything from adverse events and medication adherence to the initial diagnosis. Using natural language processing of anonymized data, we are able to uncover a wealth of information to supplement traditional research methods. We can also reach out to large groups of members with common interests and experiences, inviting them to participate in studies and sharing their findings with other members of the community. In addition, we can use what we know about our member populations to engage with the members at critical junctures in their medical journey, leading to better patient outcomes. This talk will demonstrate the power of user-generated content for research purposes.


4:00 PM

to

4:25 PM

QUESTIONS AND PANEL DISCUSSION

Moderated by: Catherine Brownstein

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage


4:25 PM

to

4:55 PM


4:55 PM

to

5:55 PM

Concurrent Session: Starting off on the right foot with data management

Co-chairs: Rebecca Boyles and Danny Kingsley

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

What happens when you have several seasoned open advocates, willing audience members and random statements about open scholarship that they need to argue for and against? We don't know either, but this session promises to find out.

We called for willing participants to argue positions on sharing data and other areas of open scholarship. Four brave souls have put up their hands (see below).

There will be ample opportunity for the audience to participate. We will be calling for volunteers to put their names in a hat during the first day of the conference and we will pull out four names in the beginning of the session to join us on stage. The participants will be split into two teams: the ‘For’ and the ‘Against’. How would YOU argue the 'for' position on the statement: 'Sharing data openly is a waste of time' in two minutes?

Participants will randomly choose the statements each group has to argue for or against. The groups have 30 seconds to quickly decide who will speak from their team. Each team has 2 minutes to make their case.

If you are not inclined to leap on stage in front of a group of people you can still take part. We will be asking the audience to use the Twitter hashtag to suggest questions for the debaters and the audience will be by voting on whether they support the ‘for’ or ‘against' argument for each statement. We will have a list of statements about research data management that the group ‘agrees' on by the end of the session. Note: Rumours of balloons and chocolate may well be substantiated.

Emma Ganley - Emma is the Chief Editor of PLOS Biology. She has an editorial background with PLOS and the Journal of Cell Biology. She has also worked at the University of Dundee as Project Manager for the Open Microscopy Environment (OME) team. 

Mark Hahnel - Mark is the founder and CEO of figshare. A former academic having completed his PhD in stem cell biology at Imperial College London. He is passionate about open science and the potential it has to revolutionise the research community. 

Eric Stephan - Eric leads the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Data Services team that supports applied scientific data management solutions for energy, physical sciences and high performance computing.

Eric Miller - Eric started Squishymedia in 2001 working in interactive media.


4:55 PM

to

5:55 PM

Concurrent Session: No see, no touch traps: still struggling to escape or free at last?

Chairs: Marguerite Avery

Location: Ellen Bye Theater

Open Access let the world first see (access), and then use (license) research content. But access doesn’t stop at the point of reading, or even using text. How can we make research content, both text and data, truly useable. Could it even be welcoming? To other researchers? To interested publics, or to students or professionals? And how does all of this change as we move beyond the online article, to data, video, and other rich media? Copyright and permissions issues treat this kind of content differently. Do we risk losing the accessibility and usefulness of research content, just as it becomes richer and more welcoming?

Towards a vocabulary for reporting experimental methods in Food Chemistry

Dena Tahvildari

VU Amsterdam

Descriptions of experimental methods in scientific publications are often incomplete or inadequate. In those cases the experimental work cannot be reproduced or verified due to lack of information. To facilitate the documentation of lab methods, in some domains, the minimum information guidelines have been developed. If followed, these guidelines ensure that the information about the method can be easily verified, analyzed and clearly interpreted by the wider scientific community. However, there is an evident lack of automated documentation
tools to create and edit laboratory reports that follow these guidelines and at the same time do not impose a too rigid framework on the scientist. Our ultimate goal is to develop a semantically rich but free-text editor for creating descriptions about experimental methods. The editor should give knowledgebased guidance and semi-automatically add metadata. The first step in developing such editor is to construct supporting vocabularies. Our initial application domain is Food Chemistry. MIAPE-CC is a minimum information guideline for reporting the column chromatography-based experiments. Starting from this guideline we have constructed a vocabulary for this domain. Independently, we selected 62 material and method۝ sections form scientific journal in the domain of food chemistry. Our objective was to find out to what extent the concepts derived from the MIAPE guideline actually occur in these published methods and to check if we can use the MIAPE-CC module as a source for developing vocabulary.
https://www.sharelatex.com/project/566ac16280f161602e7b5286/output/output.pdf

Make it machine readable, or the public (doesn't) get it

Neil Chue Hong

Software Sustainability Institute - University of Edinburgh

Open Access has made research available to everyone by freeing the licensing restrictions on it. But in many cases it is still impenetrable and unusable from people outside the field it is published in. If we really want to open our research, we must make it available for reuse and reproduction by others: which can only be done effectively if it can be made machine understandable. In particular for data, this allows rich new tools and interfaces to be developed, enabling others to explore and understand the underlying information. This relies on researchers having a basic understanding of computational literacy to help make the connections - the modern equivalent of being able to understand how to cite and reference works properly.
http://www.software.ac.uk/

Costs and Benefits of Open Data in Biomedical Research

Irene Pasquetto

UCLA

We present preliminary findings of a qualitative study comparing how costs and benefits of biomedical data sharing are perceived in technology-oriented and in scientific-oriented settings within a NIH-funded consortium for data sharing in craniofacial research. The biomedical field has a long and contentious history of data sharing. Today, large-scale genetic databases, such as GenBank, are freely accessible. Among the promised outcomes of sharing biomedical data are to increase the pace of drug discovery, reduce the duplication of clinical trials, enroll fewer research subjects, reduce costs overall, while providing various benefits to patients and clinicians. However, while science stakeholders, from NIH to publishers, encourage data sharing practices, only a small percentage of biomedical data are available via open access. Among the reasons for lack of sharing are lack of credit, lack of incentives, and lack of resources and skills for curating data. Benefits of open data and open collaboration tend to be assumed, rather than studied as hypotheses. Most research on biomedical data sharing has focused on incentives and rewards, whereas our research addresses costs and benefits of data openness, both technical and social. Our investigation focuses on the array of costs and benefits that database creators۝ (software engineers) and data creators۝ (experimentalists; bionformaticians) encounter as participants in the consortium. Points of contention are emerging from our observations. Data sharing is negotiated between technical and scientific actors around dimensions such as the status of the data (raw/clean), the scope of the data (active use/dark archive), the scale of the distribution (self/collective), the labor involved (analysis/maintenance), and the stages at which data are made open (raw, published, unpublished). Our work aims to reveal the tangled web of benefits and costs that characterizes a consortium for data sharing. Stakeholders in open data in biomedicine include researchers, clinicians, patients, funders, librarians, and publishers.
https://knowledgeinfrastructures.gseis.ucla.edu/

The reaggregation of primary research outputs: a general framework and a case study from bioinformatics

Todd Vision

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The primary output of research, such as an article or dataset, may only realize its full potential as raw material for the future production of knowledge when the information within it is curated into a structured form. Curation disaggregates the originally published artifact into independently discoverable and reusable observations, which in turn makes it possible to reaggregate those observations into collections that are suited to new research questions. A large number of resources have been launched in recent years that curate primary scholarly outputs in order to enable such dynamic reaggregation of published observations.  Here, I discuss some of the social, legal, technical, and scientific issues that are common to these efforts.  In particular, I will focus on whether and how such derived resources can be developed and made available using collaborative, open information systems even when the primary sources are not themselves fully open.  As a case study, I describe the Phenoscape project, which is concerned with enabling computation over phenotype information from species across the tree of life culled from the published literature.
http://phenoscape.org/ 

Looking Beyond Gold: Open Access to Research Itself

Chris Chapman

Pentandra

Open access to research papers is like having access to the shortened, condensed versions of a million different novels. While this is enormously beneficial and appears to be a time-saver on the surface, important details and assumptions are often left out of the story, leaving readers to wonder and struggle to reproduce or even understand the premises or conclusions. What if we were able to share the entire journey of the researcher? What if we were able to share the research itself every question, connection, dead end, data point, and analytical thoughtin context, as it happened? What would be the motivations to do this? How would this affect our perception of what research is? Potential benefits as well as current obstacles to sharing more of the story of the research will be explored.


6:00 PM

to

9:00 PM

Poster and Demo Reception

Location: Armory Lobby and Mezzanine


Tuesday 19 April 2016

8:30 AM

to

9:30 AM

Keynote Talk: Structural disruptions in the reward system of science

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Cassidy Sugimoto, Associate Professor, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Bloomington

See bio here.

Abstract

Revolutions in scholarly communication have been heralded for decades. Big Science demanded new team structures and resources. The rise of digital infrastructures modified the nature of dissemination. Social media brought a new, more public face, to science communication. These turns in scholarly communication demand a reconsideration of the structural dimensions of the corresponding reward system. In this talk, I will present empirical studies on several dimensions of the reward system of science, with a focus on team composition and contribution of labor, sociodemographic characteristics of the scientific workforce, and the broadening scope of impact measurements. The discussion will examine the ways in which the infrastructure of the scholarly communication system allows or prevents barriers to collecting and analyzing these data. The presentation will conclude with a discussion of potential futures for the reward system and how these might be best achieved.


9:30 AM

to

10:00 AM

Coffee break (30 min)

Location: Armory Lobby


10:00 AM

to

11:00 AM

Session: Working beyond borders: supporting global creation of and engagement with knowledge

Chair: Dominique Babini (CLACSO)

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

What are the stories of success in research and knowledge communication from outside Europe and North America? What do those stories tell us about how to improve research communication globally?

Should Research Communications be Shared?: Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge, Climate Change, and Research Contracts in South Africa

Laura Foster

Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, USA.

In South Africa, difficult questions are emerging around how to promote sharing and access to scholarly research communications and findings. In 2014, a group of researchers initiated a project to examine how indigenous peoples articulate the effects of climate change and their strategies for adaptation. The multi-institutional group consists of researchers from a non-profit organization called Natural Justice (SA), University of Cape Town (SA), Indiana University (USA), and members of the Indigenous Griqua peoples (SA). In conducting their study, researchers were forced to confront the competing needs to both share and not share their research findings openly.  On the one hand, outside funders required researchers to report their findings through open access publications and creative commons licenses. Given histories of settler colonialism and the taking of indigenous peoples’ knowledge, Indigenous Griqua peoples asked researchers to not share all their findings and wanted to give input on publication decisions. In response, researchers developed a series of research contracts signed by all parties to protect the interests of indigenous peoples, while finding ways to promote the open sharing of scholarly findings.  This presentation challenges the automatic assumption that scholarly information should be openly shared and accessed.

The Impact of Brazil's Virtual Herbarium in e-Science

Dora Ann Lange Canhos

Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, Campinas, Brazil

Maintaining an e-infrastructure to make scientific information on biodiversity openly available on-line to all interested, still represents a challenge after 14 years of continuous development of thespeciesLink network in Brazil. For the last 7 years, Brazil’s Virtual Herbarium has been under development as part of the speciesLink network. It has been built as a well-structured and collaborative e-infrastructure, enabling free access to otherwise unavailable data, opening a myriad of applications and uses of information and knowledge, leading to new opportunities and forms of collaboration, which in turn, contribute to the production of new knowledge.  The presentation will address issues related to the impact of Brazil’s Virtual Herbarium, together with strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats encountered. Policy frameworks to secure long-term funding, new governance models and adequate evaluation systems are still lacking and represent important challenges that must be addressed.

Research is also for non-scholar audiences: Lessons from Latin America

Juan Pablo Alperin

Canadian Institute for Studies in Publishing and Public Knowledge Project, Simon Fraser University

In Latin America, nearly one quarter of all downloads to peer-reviewed journals come from individuals not affiliated with a university. This non-university audience is facilitated by the extensive adoption of open access models of publishing, which provide free access to nearly all the peer-reviewed literature from the region. The prominence of open access, combined with the high presence of a non-academic audience points to a relationship (not necessarily causal) between access and public engagement that warrants further investigation.  To start this investigation, this presentation offers the results of a series of micro-surveys conducted directly on Latin America's two largest scholarly journal portals, scielo.org and redalyc.org, which collectively publish over 1,300 journals from Latin America. By analyzing the demographics and motivations of the audiences that access these portals, we gain a deeper understanding of the role that research plays in a global context. 


11:00 AM

to

11:30 AM

Propelled by FORCE: FORCE11 Working Groups

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

5 Minute Presentations

 

Annotating All Knowledge Working Group - Dan Whaley

This group supports the Annotating All Knowledge project, a coalition of some of the world’s key scholarly publishers, platforms, libraries, and technology organizations to create an open, interoperable annotation layer over content.

Attribution Working Group - Melissa Haendel, Karen Gutzman, Stacy Konkiel

This group focuses on provisioning attribution methods for people and organizations for any scholarly products, including publications, datasets, data standards, software, research resources, etc. The goal is to coordinate community efforts and pilot test implementations.

Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) - Tim Clark

Funded by the NIH BD2K bioCADDIE project, this group’s primary goal is to conduct a pilot project with publishers, repositories and identifier/metadata services, those who are early adopters of data citation according to the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (JDDCP).

FORCE11-RDA BioSharing - Susanna Sansone

This group will map the landscape of the community-developed standards and work on principles for linking information about databases, content standards and journal and funder policies in the life sciences.

Resource Identification Initiative - Anita Bandrowski

The initiative is a project designed to help researchers cite the key resources used to produce scientific findings reported in the biomedical literature using an RRID. To date over 100 publications are participating. 

Resource Identification Technical Specifications - Julie McMurray, John Deck

This group is a follow-on group to the Resource Identification Initiative. The goals are to develop a technical specification for expanding and enabling a robust, community-wide implementation of an identifier strategy for research resources.

Software Citation - Arfon Smith, Dan Katz, Kyle Niemeyer

The software citation working group will review existing initiatives working on software citation and will produce a set of principles, illustrated with working examples, and a plan for dissemination and distribution.


11:30 AM

to

1:15 PM

Lunch- poster session

Location: Armory Lobby and Mezzanine


1:15 PM

to

2:15 PM

Session: Pitch it: innovation challenge

Co-chairs: Robert McDonald and Damian Pattinson

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Think…. how could you make a real difference to research communications? Are you looking for like-minded people, and would a seed fund of $1,500 help kick-start your project? As part of its commitment to collaboration, transparency and innovation, the FORCE2016 conference is updating its $1K Challenge session (more funding - $1,500) and encourages all delegates (both actual and virtual) to participate.

This is how....You can start gathering your thoughts and teams any time between now and April 18 using the Jisc Elevator Pitch software (https://elevator.jisc.ac.uk/e/force2016).

Need help?....We now have a tutorial video available on YouTube to demonstrate how to enter your ideas (www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f-0JV93dC4) using YouTube and the Jisc Elevator Software. The entry video can be utilized as the live pitch of the idea at the Pitch-It Innovation Challenge Session on April 19 if the video will fit into the 3-5 minute pitch timeframe. Entries can also prepare a live pitch session as well as the video.

When will this happen?....Voting will take place in real time by meeting delegates at FORCE2016 during the PITCH IT: INNOVATION CHALLENGESession on April 19 at 1:15pm (www.force11.org/meetings/force2016/program/agenda-details), with winners announced before the end of the FORCE2016 Conference.

What could you win?....Thanks to our generous sponsor Jisc, winning ideas will receive $1,500 and will be invited to present at FORCE17 and will receive funding (up to $2000) to support their travel for that attendance. As additional support, winning entries will also have the option of a monthly telecon hosted by a member of the FORCE11 Pitch-It Innovation Challenge Expert Panel.

And, Ethical Guideline....We request that all entrants keep in mind the ethos of FORCE11, and that they endeavour to uphold it so that we can keep the rules and restrictions to a minimum. Rules: An individual can only be associated with a single entry per year. Any evidence of vote-rigging will result in the disqualification of affected entries.


2:20 PM

to

2:50 PM

Propelled by FORCE: Views of Innovation - The Scholarly Commons

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Results of the worldwide survey on scholarly communication tool usage and research workflows

Bianca Kramer
Jeroen Bosman

This will be a fast-paced graphical presentation of the main results of our worldwide survey on scholarly communication tool usage, held between May 2015 and February 2016, in 6 languages. The survey is expected to have over 10,000 responses from more than 100 countries, in collaboration with over 75 institutions and organizations.

The survey will yield detailed information on tool usage and workflow patterns, of which we will give some surprising examples. We will also show how the survey makes it possible to assess the relative importance of various driving forces (efficiency, openness and transparency / reproducibility) shaping research workflows in different disciplines, career stages and countries.  With the survey results, we also provide empirical underpinning of the changing scholarly communication landscape, by looking at the type of tools used (from traditional or more innovative) and at workflow  patterns of senior versus early career researchers.

This is a follow-up to our project '101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication' [link naar WP About?], which won best poster award at Force2015 in Oxford.

We expect the results to be relevant to all stakeholders in scholarly communication: researchers, funders, libraries, publishers, tool providers etc. All data will be publicly available as a raw dataset for anyone to check and analyze - and hopefully share those analyses with the community. We will also present an interactive dashboard that allows anyone to explore the survey results in an intuitive way.

ARE WE READY TO DEFINE THE SCHOLARLY COMMONS:  SCHOLARLY COMMONS WORKING GROUP

Maryann Martone

The digital age is seeing an informal convergence within the scholarly communication space: the Natural and Health Sciences, the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, applied and professional fields are all discovering that they have more in common when it comes to the future of research communication than differences. What is needed now is a program that will help us realize the potential of this merger: the development of a “Scholarly Commons.”

This program is designed to define and incubate this Commons. We will conduct a series of workshops and exercises to examine the best thinking around the world about what is required for a scholarly communications ecosystem designed for 21st century scholarship. We call this ecosystem the Scholarly Commons. It is not a single platform or tool, but rather the principles, best practices, interfaces and standards that should govern the multidirectional flow of scholarly objects through all phases of the research process from conception to dissemination.


2:55 PM

to

3:30 PM

Community Forum and Awards

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage


3:30 PM

to

4:00 PM

Summary of the conference, where we are going

Location: U.S. Bank Main Stage

Phil Bourne, Associate Director for Data Science, National Institutes of Health

See bio here.


CSV

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