Implementing the co-immune open innovation program to address vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccines : retrospective study

Background: The rise of major complex public health problems, such as vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccination, requires innovative, open, and transdisciplinary approaches. Yet, institutional silos and lack of participation on the part of nonacademic citizens in the design of solutions hamper efforts to meet these challenges. Against this background, new solutions have been explored, with participatory research, citizen science, hackathons, and challenge-based approaches being applied in the context of public health. Objective: Our aim was to develop a program for creating citizen science and open innovation projects that address the contemporary challenges of vaccination in France and around the globe. Methods: We designed and implemented Co-Immune, a program created to tackle the question of vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccination through an online and offline challenge-based open innovation approach. The program was run on the open science platform Just One Giant Lab. Results: Over a 6-month period, the Co-Immune program gathered 234 participants of diverse backgrounds and 13 partners from the public and private sectors. The program comprised 10 events to facilitate the creation of 20 new projects, as well as the continuation of two existing projects, to address the issues of vaccination hesitancy and access, ranging from app development and data mining to analysis and game design. In an open framework, the projects made their data, code, and solutions publicly available. Conclusions: Co-Immune highlights how open innovation approaches and online platforms can help to gather and coordinate noninstitutional communities in a rapid, distributed, and global way toward solving public health issues. Such initiatives can lead to the production and transfer of knowledge, creating novel solutions in the public health sector. The example of Co-Immune contributes to paving the way for organizations and individuals to collaboratively tackle future global challenges

Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities

Resource allocation is essential to the selection and implementation of innovative projects in science and technology. With large stakes involved in concentrating large fundings over a few promising projects, current “winner-take-all” models for grant applications are time-intensive endeavours that mobilise significant researcher time in writing extensive project proposals, and rely on the availability of a few time-saturated volunteer experts. Such processes usually carry over several months, resulting in high effective costs compared to expected benefits. Faced with the need for a rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we devised an agile “community review” system, similar to distributed peer review (DPR) systems, to allocate micro-grants for the fast prototyping of innovative solutions. Here we describe and evaluate the implementation of this community review across 147 projects from the “Just One Giant Lab’s OpenCOVID19 initiative” and “Helpful Engineering” open research communities. The community review process uses granular review forms and requires the participation of grant applicants in the review process. We show that this system is fast, with a median duration of 10 days, scalable, with a median of 4 reviewers per project independent of the total number of projects, and fair, with project rankings highly preserved after the synthetic removal of reviewers. We investigate potential bias introduced by involving applicants in the process, and find that review scores from both applicants and non-applicants have a similar correlation of r=0.28 with other reviews within a project, matching previous observations using traditional approaches. Finally, we find that the ability of projects to apply to several rounds allows to both foster the further implementation of successful early prototypes, as well as provide a pathway to constructively improve an initially failing proposal in an agile manner. This study quantitatively highlights the benefits of a frugal community review system for agile resource allocation

ECSA's Characteristics of Citizen Science: Explanation Notes

This explanation document provides an interpretation of and explanation for the characteristics document, which was kept short to make it useful to different stakeholders. In this document, the characteristics document is represented, with the original text in blue and an explanation in black

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

Contours of Citizen Science: A Vignette Study

Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature - for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes - short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from ‘not citizen science’ (0%) to ‘citizen science’ (100%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which 5 were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, 5 as widely accepted citizen science activities, and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5,100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field

The draft genome of the lichen-forming fungus Lasallia hispanica (Frey) Sancho & A. Crespo

Lasallia hispanica (Frey) Sancho & A. Crespo is one of three Lasallia species occurring in central-western Europe. It is an orophytic, photophilous Mediterranean endemic which is sympatric with the closely related, widely distributed, highly clonal sister taxon L. pustulata in the supra- and oro-Mediterranean belts. We sequenced the genome of L. hispanica from a multispore isolate. The total genome length is 41.2Mb, including 8488 gene models. We present the annotation of a variety of genes that are involved in protein secretion, mating processes and secondary metabolism, and we report transposable elements. Additionally, we compared the genome of L. hispanica to the closely related, yet ecologically distant, L. pustulata and found high synteny in gene content and order. The newly assembled and annotated L. hispanica genome represents a useful resource for future investigations into niche differentiation, speciation and microevolution in L. hispanica and other members of the genus

The transdisciplinary potential of citizen science

This expansive Handbook guides readers through a multi-layered landscape of the interpretations and uses of transdisciplinary thinking and practices worldwide

Emerging Health Data Platforms: From Individual Control to Collective Data Governance

Health data have enormous potential to transform healthcare, health service design, research, and individual health management. However, health data collected by institutions tend to remain siloed within those institutions limiting access by other services, individuals or researchers. Further, health data generated outside health services (e.g., from wearable devices) may not be easily accessible or useable by individuals or connected to other parts of the health system. There are ongoing tensions between data protection and the use of data for the public good (e.g., research). Concurrently, there are a number of data platforms that provide ways to disrupt these traditional health data siloes, giving greater control to individuals and communities. Through four case studies, this paper explores platforms providing new ways for health data to be used for personal data sharing, self-health management, research, and clinical care. The case-studies include data platforms: PatientsLikeMe, Open Humans, Health Record Banks, and unforgettable.me. These are explored with regard to what they mean for data access, data control, and data governance. The case studies provide insight into a shift from institutional to individual data stewardship. Looking at emerging data governance models, such as data trusts and data commons, points to collective control over health data as an emerging approach to issues of data control. These shifts pose challenges as to how “traditional” health services make use of data collected on these platforms. Further, it raises broader policy questions regarding how to decide what public good data should be put towards

Contours of citizen science: A vignette study

Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature—for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes—short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from ‘not citizen science’ (0%) to ‘citizen science’ (100%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which five were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, five as widely accepted citizen science activities and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field