“In the News” this month focuses primarily on topics related to the February’s theme: Data and Reproducibility. Items related to these topics get a bit more attention at the beginning of this list but other newsworthy items are listed at the end, more as snippets of information!
数据
开放数据如何帮助世界更好地管理珊瑚礁。
提交人认为，因为气候变化是全世界珊瑚礁健康的主要压力源，那么需要一个全球解决方案。这种冲突与在世界各地的野外科学家们常离，往往是孤立的方式。这些科学家们，具有燃烧的紧迫性平台，使他们的整个珊瑚礁栖息地和西部太平洋地区的鱼类在线提供。这是根据美国开放数据策略完成的。
https://theconversation.com/how-open-data-can-help-the-world-better-manage-coral-reefs-88805
By comparing the likelihood that authors publishing in two different journals publishing articles about biostatistics would share their data and their code, the authors studied whether the receipt of a badge to go on an online journal denoting data and code sharing would be associated with higher rates of this behavior. One journal used badges and the other did not. The rate of data sharing, but not code sharing, was higher in the journal that awarded badges. While the results were only modest, the authors suggest that this is a reasonable, low cost way of incentivizing code and data sharing.
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-90/v1
This exposé of Devumi, a company which they describe as selling bots is a bit frightening. While its’ topic is primarily around social media influencing, it’s an easy leap to see how this sort of technology may be used in publishing—to increase altmetric (article-level metrics), create fake citations, and to influence careers of people. They describe three types of twitter bots: a scheduled bot which tweets based on the time, a watcher bot which monitors twitter and other social media for certain topics or changes and then retweets or like those, and amplification bots. This last follow, like, and retweet posts by people who have purchased their services through companies like Devumi. The article is worth reading just from a social interest but imaging the impact in peer review publication is even more frightening!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html
在Twitter上，#ResearchData帖子从与会者在2018年1月的研究数据联盟欧盟欧盟数据创新论坛在布鲁塞尔涵盖了许多主题。其中一个推文，DⓐnielMietchen@Evomri，通过Pkdoorn邀请，编辑“用于国际对准的数据管理要求的理由”草稿https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pyn_hr5_dgymf7ncyfwjsnjcjtpdnw8gyseqxvmf9co/edit.......截至2018年2月7日，这仍然活跃。大量基于“开放研究数据的协商”，2016年7月28日RCUK，http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/concordatonopenresearchdata-pdf/用于调整研究数据管理要求的原则草案包括：
1. Open access to research data is an enabler of high quality research, a facilitator of innovation and safeguards good research practice.
2.有声明研究数据的开放性可能需要受到限制的原因，但任何限制必须是合理和合理的。
3. Open access to research data carries a significant cost, which should be respected by all parties.
4. The right of the creators of research data to reasonable first use is recognised.
5. Use of others’ data should always conform to legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks including appropriate acknowledgement.
6. Good data management is fundamental to all stages of the research process and should be established at the outset.
7. Data curation is vital to make data useful for others and for long-term preservation of data
8.应通过出版日期访问数据支持出版物，并应采用可接受的形式。
9.支持发展适当的数据技能被认为是对所有利益攸关方的责任。
10.应进行常规审查进入对研究数据的进入的进展。
再现性
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science released a statement on January 15, 2018 that stated that “the systematic replication of other researchers’ work should be a normal part of science." The academy called for funding agencies, researchers, and research institutions to work together to facilitate replication studies. With this statement, the Netherlands joins other international efforts, including in the US and Great Britain, calling for ways to improve reproducibility.
https://knaw.nl/en/news/news/make-replications-studies-a-normal-part-of-cience.
The editors of PLOS Biology have formalized a policy that emphasizes the importance of “complementary research”—or that work which confirms or extends a recently published study. The journal will consider such papers, submitted within 6 months of publication of the original work, for publication. They endorse the importance of having two separate research groups finding the same or similar results, to be complementary to each other, and to have the effect of increasing the confidence one would have in the results.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005203
Other news.....
2018年1月16日，美国FDA宣布推出新药临床研究报告的新项目在整个研究之前申请批准的临床研究报告。这将是与FDA对药物安全性和疗效的评估最重要的CSR的数据相关的数据。
https：//www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannoundsunnounds/cucm592566.htm
About 200 universities in Germany locked horns in 2017 with Elsevier as the universities tried to negotiate for a country-wide price for Elsevier journals. Failing that, until further negotiations proceed, Elsevier has agreed to allow access to paywalled journals until a contract is agreed upon.
https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-018-00093-7/d41586-018-00093-7.pdf.
Richard Smith，BMJ的前编辑写了一个Op-ED，解释了Elsevier正在退出出版业务并进入大数据业务。该计划是为科学家们成为消费者和elestvier的产品。
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/01/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/3G-BROTOR-FUTURE-FOR-SCIENCE-Publishing/
在其中一个日记帐中，同行评审员在与其兴趣匹配的提交准备审查时通知。它们是在第一个来的，首先分配的基础上分配，然后通过标准化表格获得关于编辑编辑的详细反馈。每个人似乎都很开心！
同行评审中的创新：介绍“Volunpeers”。
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/innovation-in-peer-review-introduting-volunpeers.
开放访问，发布的邮寄方式与F1000RESEARCH类似于F1000RESEARCH将于2018年第一季度推出，以确保在支持可重复性和AA的开放访问政策的方式中，可以在没有障碍的情况下发布任何由AAS附属和资助计划资助的任何研究。
https://aasopenresearch.org/
NCBI（国家生物技术信息中心），美国国家医学图书馆的一分，将停止百峰公区。引用的原因是“低水平的参与水平”，没有“逮捕持续投资项目”。无论在签入后面的原因，它标志着一般认为这是一个有用的信息和辩论来源，促进开放沟通。
https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-discontinued/