During the Open Science Retreat I organized a short session where we looking into typing citation intentions using a new nanopublication template. First, let’s describe nanopublications (originally used in doi:10.3233/ISU-2010-0613) a bit. Scholia gives a nice overview of (macro?)publications on the topic.
Last week I attended the Open Science Retreat (#osr24nl) in a quite and relaxing region in North-Holland. The meeting was how I like all meetings to be (and I count myself lucky many of my meetings are like this): open, welcoming, constructive, diverse, and intellectually challenging. Not all scientific meetings are like this and it is easy to end up going to obligatory meetings where the discussions are of a different level.
To launch our new section ‘AI in Research’ Sascha Schönig spoke to Theresa Züger, head of the Public Interest AI research group, about the influence of AI on her personal day-to-day work in research, as well as on the science system as a whole. She gave some exciting insights about the risks and opportunities AI bears for research work and talked about tools her team is developing at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society.
The expectation to communicate In 2019, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research called for a cultural shift toward communicating science (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2019). The former Federal Minister of Education and Research, Anja Karliczek, urged scientists to communicate their research continuously and classified communication as a central task for universities and research organizations (Karliczek, 2020).
What actually happens to science when it opens up? From your perspective as a science researcher, can you describe why this perspective is important? I believe that science takes place in a social environment and certain images of science emerge or have emerged, which are questioned in many respects in a digital and now increasingly open context or are subject to tensions.
Science communication is often considered equal with public relations or media coverage. However, the phenomenon is significantly more complex, and its most important aspects are not given enough attention. For instance, science includes how science can not only communicate but also interact with societal groups, and the potential impacts this can have on the perception of research in the public eye.
To what extent are research findings and theories transferable and generalizable beyond the contexts they were designed from and for? This is a main question that we, researchers, constantly think about and find it hard to answer.
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly contributing to scientific breakthroughs in many fields. It is also clear that openness and cross-disciplinary collaboration are becoming key features of the process of modern science. Yet, we know little about the intersection of these two developments – whether and how AI may shape openness and collaboration in research.
In 2019 researchers at Simon Fraser University set out to catalogue the world’s scholarly publishing platforms. They restricted themselves to open source projects, and yet still identified over 50 projects to produce and host scholarly journals and books. The platforms range from established (like Open Journal Systems) to fledgling (like Rebus Ink), and everything in between.
Instagram, TikTok, Clubhouse: Today, researchers who want to share their work with non-academic audiences can choose between a vast array of digital platforms. Some of them vanish as quickly as they appear. Others attract an audience that is looking for something other than scientific content.