Open Science
Dotaz
Zobrazit nápovědu
Tento článek má za cíl posloužit jednak jako seznámení se základními principy moderní podoby hnutí Open Science a rovněž jako úvaha k nejvýraznějším silným a slabým stránkám jeho vybraných složek. V hlavní části textu autor rozebírá tři klíčové aspekty Open Science. Jedná se o otevřený přístup k výzkumným článkům, datům a informacím o metodologických a analytických procedurách. Všechny tyto aspekty s sebou přinášejí nové praktické postupy s možnými výhodami a nevýhodami, z nichž ty nejvýznamnější jsou v textu popisovány a diskutovány. Článek navíc stručně popisuje propojení Open Science s replikační krizi v psychologii a možné techniky pro zlepšení replikovatelnosti výzkumu. Příspěvek končí krátkým shrnutím a zvážením vhodnosti přejímání vybraných principů Open Science do tuzemské výzkumné praxe.
The aim of this article is to introduce the basic principles of the modern Open Science movement and to deliberate the most important advantages and disadvantages of its selected components. In the main part of the article, the author analyzes three key aspects of Open Science. They are, as follows: open access to research articles, open access to data, and open access to the information regarding methodical and analytical procedures. Each one of these components brings forth new practical procedures with their own pros and cons. The author describes and discusses the most important ones of them. In addition, the Open Science movement and its connection to the replication crisis in psychology and possible techniques for enhancing research replicability is discussed. The article ends with a brief recapitulation and a consideration on the suitability of adapting the selected Open Science principles into the local research practices.
Studie zjišťovala dodržování kritérií transparentnosti a dobré praxe ve vědeckém publikování definovaných COPE, DOAJ, OASPAt a WAME v biomedicínských Open Access časopisech indexovaných v Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Z JCR bylo excerpováno 259 Open Access časopisů a na jejich webech ručně ověřeno plnění 14 kritérií transparentnosti a dobré praxe ve vědeckém publikování. Časopisy obdržely penalizační body za každé nedodržení kritéria definovaného COPE, DOAJ, OASPA a WAME. Průměrný počet přidělených penalizačních bodů byl 6, přičemž 149 (57,5 %) časopisů získalo ≤ 6 bodů a 110 (42,5 %) časopisů získalo ≥ 7 bodů. Pouze 4 periodika splnila všechna kritéria a nezískala žádný penalizační bod. Nejvíce časopisů nedodrželo kritéria deklarace Creative Commons (164 časopisů), afiliace členů redakční rady (116), jednoznačnosti autorských poplatků (115), antiplagiátorské politiky (113) a počtu členů redakční rady z rozvojových zemí (99). Výzkum ukazuje, že JCR nelze používat jako whitelist časopisů dodržujících kritéria transparentnosti a dobré praxe ve vědeckém publikování.
This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received ≤ 6 points and 110 (42.5%) journals ≥ 7 points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.
- Klíčová slova
- predátorské časopisy, Web of Science,
- MeSH
- periodika jako téma etika MeSH
- publikování v režimu Open Access * etika MeSH
elektronický časopis
elektronický časopis
Pracovní pohoda na pracovišti je nezbytnou podmínkou pro co nejvyšší výkon zaměstnanců. V současné době si praxe všímá většího počtu pracovišť typu open space, které jsou často v moderních budovách s proskleným obvodovým pláštěm. Napříč diskutovanými výhodami tohoto uspořádání pracovišť, jako je lepší týmová práce a lepší vzájemná komunikace mezi zaměstnanci, jsou v těchto administrativních budovách ve velké míře zaznamenané problémy a stížnosti na kvalitu vnitřního prostředí pracovišť. Z fyzikálních faktorů pracovního prostředí jde hlavně o nevyhovující mikroklima, špatné osvětlení, vzájemné rušení se hlukem a špatnou kvalitu vzduchu. Negativní působení faktorů prostředí na člověka zde může být ovlivněno i psychickým faktorem, vyvolaným ztrátou soukromí, nemožností si "vyvětrat podle potřeby", nesnášenlivostí klimatizace apod. Ve výsledku je dosaženo pravého opaku - ne týmová práce s maximální produktivitou, ale nižší pracovní výkon i zhoršené vztahy na pracovišti.
Well-being in the workplace is a prerequisite for the maximum performance of workers. Currently, the practice notes a higher number of open space type workplaces which are often in modern buildings with a glass envelope. In spite of the discussed benefits of this workplace arrangement, such as better teamwork and better communication between employees, problems and complaints are reported about the quality of the indoor environment from such administrative buildings. Of the physical factors of the working environment, microclimate, poor lighting, interference with noise and poor quality of air are the main factors which can cause deterioration of the working environment. Negative effects of environmental factors on humans can be influenced also by a psychological factor, due to the loss of privacy, the inability to "ventilate as needed", the inconvenience of air conditioning etc. As a result, the opposite is achieved - not teamwork with maximum productivity, but lower work performance and poorer relationships at the workplace.
- Klíčová slova
- open space,
- MeSH
- environmentální zdraví * MeSH
- hluk na pracovišti MeSH
- hygiena práce * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- pracoviště * MeSH
- větrání metody MeSH
- znečištění vzduchu ve vnitřním prostředí MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- přehledy MeSH
1 online zdroj
- MeSH
- močové ústrojí MeSH
- urologické nemoci * MeSH
- urologie MeSH
- Publikační typ
- periodika MeSH
- Konspekt
- Patologie. Klinická medicína
- NLK Obory
- urologie
Background: Predatory publishers and so-called hijacked or fraudulent journals, are threats to the quality of published articles and waste valuable research and manuscripts when scholars and authors submit and publish their works in these journals. Objective: The aim of the paper is to point out the problem, causes and consequences of predatory publishing, characteristics and features of predatory publishers and fraudulent or fake journals and how to prevent and avoid publishing in such journals. Methods: Exploring the web blog of Jeffrey Beall and debate about Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and review of the relevant published literature, as well as personal experience and observations of the author. Results: Jeffrey Beall, an American librarian and library scientist from Denver, University of Colorado, has drawn attention to “predatory open access publishing” and created widely known Beall’s lists of potentially predatory publishers and open-access predatory journals publishing submitted manuscripts promptly without the reviewing process and with a high rate of publication fee. The debate initiated by Jeffrey Beall is continuing in the scientific community with increased number of authors and published articles on this still unresolved issue in the last about 10 years. The features of fraudulent or fake journals, threats and consequences are discussed as well. Conclusion: Increasing awareness in the scientific community is essential how to differentiate trustworthy-reliable journals and predatory ones and to avoid predatory journals. Continuous education of authors about predatory publishers and journals, both the existing and the newly-emerging wave of scholars, must be the purpose and the imperative of the academic community. In order to protect the peer review process, the academic and scientific community must set the criteria for scientific advancement by not recognizing and valuing the articles published in the predatory journals.
There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.
- MeSH
- internacionalita * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky MeSH
- výzkumní pracovníci psychologie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- MeSH
- biologické vědy * MeSH
- biologie buňky MeSH
- molekulární biologie MeSH
- Publikační typ
- periodika MeSH
- Konspekt
- Biologické vědy
- NLK Obory
- biologie
PURPOSE: Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ has often been proposed as a quantitative imaging biomarker for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response assessment for various tumors. None of the many software tools for Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ quantification are standardized. The ISMRM Open Science Initiative for Perfusion Imaging-Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (OSIPI-DCE) challenge was designed to benchmark methods to better help the efforts to standardize Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ measurement. METHODS: A framework was created to evaluate Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ values produced by DCE-MRI analysis pipelines to enable benchmarking. The perfusion MRI community was invited to apply their pipelines for Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ quantification in glioblastoma from clinical and synthetic patients. Submissions were required to include the entrants' Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ values, the applied software, and a standard operating procedure. These were evaluated using the proposed OSIPIgold$$ \mathrm{OSIP}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{gold}} $$ score defined with accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility components. RESULTS: Across the 10 received submissions, the OSIPIgold$$ \mathrm{OSIP}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{gold}} $$ score ranged from 28% to 78% with a 59% median. The accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility scores ranged from 0.54 to 0.92, 0.64 to 0.86, and 0.65 to 1.00, respectively (0-1 = lowest-highest). Manual arterial input function selection markedly affected the reproducibility and showed greater variability in Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ analysis than automated methods. Furthermore, provision of a detailed standard operating procedure was critical for higher reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports results from the OSIPI-DCE challenge and highlights the high inter-software variability within Ktrans$$ {K}^{\mathrm{trans}} $$ estimation, providing a framework for ongoing benchmarking against the scores presented. Through this challenge, the participating teams were ranked based on the performance of their software tools in the particular setting of this challenge. In a real-world clinical setting, many of these tools may perform differently with different benchmarking methodology.
- MeSH
- algoritmy MeSH
- kontrastní látky * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- magnetická rezonanční tomografie * metody MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- software MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH