Electronic Publishing in Higher Education: How to design OAI interfaces - Recommendations -

The Open Archives Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) allows sharing metadata serving to describe arbitrary objects with others. In addition to a short overview of the protocol the paper on hand contains recommendations for the application of Sets by German data providers and for the proper usage of the metadata elements of Dublin Core (DC). Thereby the target is pursued to ensure an efficient metadata exchange between the different users of the OAI protocol

Visioning change:Co-producing a model of involvement and engagement in research

The involvement of people living with dementia in research has traditionally been located in the realms of 'subject' or 'participant'. However, there has been an increase in demand for greater transparency by academic bidding teams (particularly within the UK) in demonstrating how people with a lived experience have been and will be involved in the research process. Located within the Economic and Social Research Council/National Institute for Health Research (ESRC/NIHR)-funded Neighbourhoods and Dementia Study (2014-2019), led by The University of Manchester (UK), this paper outlines the development of the CO-researcher INvolvement and Engagement in Dementia (COINED) Model, which was co-produced alongside three independent groups of people living with dementia: Open Doors, the Scottish Dementia Working Group and EDUCATE

LSHTM Open Research Survey Report 2022

Report outlining key findings of an Open Research survey conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine between June – September 2022. The survey was performed to determine current awareness and application of open research practices among LSHTM researchers and support needs that should be addressed to enable greater adoption in the future. This covered ten open research practices – preregistration, registered reports, research co-production, research verification, preprint sharing, open peer review, sharing of public engagement literature, code sharing, Computer Assisted Design sharing, and sharing of physical materials. Topics covered include current familiarity with and application of open research practices, motivations for applying open practices, intent to apply practices in future research, barriers and concerns, and training needs

Applying Contextual integrity to Open Data Publishing

Open data publishing by both corporate and public bodies has increased significantly in recent years and this type of data could soon be developing into a real commodity. However, not all organisations pay sufficient heed to privacy as part of the decision-making process around open data publication, leaving both the organisation and the users whose data they handle vulnerable to privacy breaches. We present a case study in which we applied contextual integrity in practice, working with a UK local authority using real data. This illustrated how privacy can be incorporated into the decision-making process prior to publication taking place. Our results illustrate the application of Nissenbaum's Contextual Integrity Framework (CI) to the open data domain, and shows that CI is usable in practice

The post-2015 debate and the place of education in development thinking

As the end date for the Millennium Development Goals approaches so the focus on goals, visions and policies for development after 2015 becomes ever heightened. However, there has been relatively little engagement by educational research community in these debates. What then is being written about education in the key post-2015 documents? How is education's role in development conceptualised by those most central to shaping new accounts? I explore these issues through an analysis of a key text on post-2015, the High Level Panel Report of May 2013 (UN-HLP 2013), and an exploration of a year's worth of posts on 30 prominent blogs and websites discussing post-2015 matters. This leads me to two further, interlinked questions: what are the implications of potential marginalisation and irrelevance from these debates for the field of international education and development research? What are the potential dangers for the field of closer engagement in these debates and their growing use of social media? The academic international education and development community may be more comfortable in keeping these policy debates at a distance, but this may play against the strong educational research drive to engage in social science that makes a difference. If there is to be engagement with post-2015 then alternative ways of developing practices of research, action and dialogue need further strengthened. This may include interdisciplinary dialogues around such issues as early childhood development, the role of professions in development or environmental sustainability. Engagement with the post-2015 debate would also require a careful analysis of how best to engage with the instrumentalised accounts of education that are dominant in the policy-advocacy arena. This would entail more strategic positions on the uses and dangers of social media. At the same time, engagement with development studies as well as the development policy community requires a reappraisal of epistemological and methodological stances

Improving early childhood care and development, HIV testing, treatment and support, and nutrition in Mokhotlong, Lesotho: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background Since 1990, the lives of 48 million children under the age of 5 have been saved because of increased investments in reducing child mortality. However, despite these unprecedented gains, more than 200 million children in low and middle income countries (LMIC) cannot meet their developmental potential due to poverty, poor health and nutrition, and lack of necessary stimulation and care. Lesotho has high levels of poverty, HIV and malnutrition, all of which affect child development outcomes. There is a unique opportunity to address these complex issues through the widespread network of informal preschools in rural villages in the country, which provide a setting for inclusive, integrated Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD), HIV and nutrition interventions. Methods We are conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial in Mokhotlong district, Lesotho, to evaluate a newly developed community-based intervention programme to integrate HIV testing and treatment services, ECCD, and nutrition education for caregivers with children aged 1-5 years living in rural villages. Caregivers and their children are randomly assigned by village to intervention or control condition. We select, train, and supervise community health workers recruited to implement the intervention, which consists of nine group-based sessions with caregivers and children over 12 weeks (eight weekly sessions, and a ninth top up session one month later), followed by a locally hosted community health outreach day event. Group-based sessions focus on using early dialogic booksharing to promote cognitive development and caregiver-child interaction, health-related messages, including motivation for HIV-testing and treatment uptake for young children, and locally appropriate nutrition education. All children aged 1-5 years and their primary caregivers living in study villages are eligible for participation. Caregivers and their children will be interviewed and assessed at baseline, immediately after completion of the intervention, and 12 months post intervention. Discussion This study provides a unique opportunity to assess the potential of an integrated early childhood development intervention to prevent or mitigate developmental delays in children living in a context of extreme poverty and high HIV rates in rural Lesotho. This paper presents the intervention content and research protocol for the study

Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing

The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summarizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conversation during November and December 2014 and January 2015. The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversation, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented. Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder. Why journals? Scholarly journals are the backbone of science communication and discovery, and have been for centuries. However, for the past 20 years or so—roughly coinciding with the growth of the Internet— the scholarly publishing system has been under a tremendous and increasing amount of stress due to rapidly increasing subscription prices, rapid proliferation in the number of journals being published, distorted publishing incentives in academia, lax editorial oversight, massive escalation in the global rate of knowledge production, changing communication patterns and expectations in our society, the emergence of open access as a compelling model of free and open information access, and a wide array of other important factors. This stress is particularly affecting access to medical research information today, and particularly in the developing world. The National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) hosted a conference in late 2013 to explore the broad outlines of this issue. The proceedings of this conference are available online at bit.ly/1zkx6PJ. In early September of 2014, nSCI recruited and organized over 100 thought-leaders from around the world into a three month long online conversation— named the Open Science Initiative (OSI) working group—to begin looking into viable ways to reform the scholarly publishing system. The transcripts of this conversation have been preserved and are summarized herein. What are the problems with the current system of scholarly publishing? What are the different perspectives on these problems? What are some possible solutions? What should our goals and our guiding objectives be regarding improving access to research information? Should we even bother worrying about this issue (is the current state of affairs adequate)? What would a future with more open science look like? What might a future without more open science look like? How do we get from where we are now to where we need to be, considering there are so many competing interests and entrenched positions? Why might it be important to act now? The OSI working group discussed these issues and many others at length. The group also made these three important recommendations (the first two being majority viewpoints): 1. Convene an annual series of high-level conferences between all key stakeholders over the next 10 years to discuss, implement, adjust, and track major reforms to the scholarly publishing system. The first conference is currently being planned for early 2016. The delegate list will be an invited group of 200 decision-makers representing every major stakeholder group in scholarly publishing, participating with the understanding that they will try to reach an agreement on the future of scholarly publishing and will then work to help implement this agreement. The United Nations will be backing these conferences (through UNESCO) and will help mobilize broad and ongoing international support, participation, and funding. Very broad participation from US stakeholders—publishers, authors, federal agencies, companies who use research, institutions that produce research, and more—is critical to getting this effort up and running. While scientific research is certainly a global interest and enterprise, the US is the largest single producer and consumer of this research information, so without strong US participation, global adoption will be difficult to achieve. 2. Find answers to key questions related to reform, as detailed in the summary document. What do we really mean by “publishing” today? Are selfarchiving mandates practical? Are impact factors accurate? Do embargoes serve the public interest? Are there better ways to conduct peer review? Why isn’t open access growing faster? These and many other questions have been identified in this report as starting points for discussion. 3. Investigate the possibility of constructing the world’s first all-scholarship repository (ASR). Our initial discussion regarding this repository is included in Annex 4. Conversations are currently ongoing on this matter. The Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) will explore building the prototype ASR (LANL also created arXiv). We are currently preparing a briefing paper for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy so they can align upcoming federal compliance efforts with this repository. A number of OSI working group members feel that creating the world’s first all-scholarship repository will need to be a precursor to truly comprehensive journal reform, and creating it the right way may end up having a greater impact on science discovery than anything ever attempted to date. As we push forward with this initiative, the OSI group will need the following kinds of help: Broad buy-in and participation from research agencies, companies and institutions; more input and perspective from publishers, research institutions, government agencies, the public, and other stakeholders; subject matter expertise (such as programming, database construction, user interface design, customer experience, and so on), hardware/hosting support, data integration support, conference support (facility support, logistics, etc.); outreach/PR expertise; and finally, backing by policymakers and major funders. Building this support base will be the only way to achieve effective and long-term sustainable reform. The budget for the first conference will range between $150k and$500k depending on how many of the costs we can cover for participants (more coverage is better—we don’t want people declining our invite on account of budget reasons). The repository effort can begin modestly but will eventually require millions of dollars annually, although much of the eventual operating cost can be recouped through sponsor support, advertising, and value-added services. A start-up budget of $10 million would help get a critical mass of experts working full-time on this project right away. This initiative already has a broad range of stakeholder support, but as we move forward we want to make sure that everyone has a seat at the table and also make it clear that we’re not just spinning our wheels to produce another white paper for discussion. OSI, nSCI, UNESCO, LANL, and others have committed to undertake an effort to actually shape the future of how we as a society value, share and use science. Care to join us