National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Accelerating Progress to Open Science by Design
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25116.
×
Page 188

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

References 23 Things. 2018. “23 Things: Libraries for Research Data”, Research Data Alliance Li- braries for Research Data Interest Group. Online. Available at https://rd-alliance.org/ system/files/documents/23Things_Libraries_For_Data_Management.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2018. 985 Scientists. 2018. Don’t Restrict EPA’s Ability to Rely on Science. Letter to EPA Admin- istrator Scott Pruitt. April 23. Online. Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-doc uments/science-and-democracy/secret-science-letter-4-23-2018.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2018. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 2018. Historical Trends in Federal R&D. Online. Available at https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends- federal-rd#Char. Accessed April 16, 2018. AARNet (Australia’s Academic and Research Network). 2017. Homepage. Online. Avail- able at https://www.aarnet.edu.au. Accessed October 12, 2017. AAS (African Academy of Sciences). 2018. AAS Open Research. Online. Available at https://aasopenresearch.org. Accessed May 31, 2018. AAU (Association of American Universities) and APLU (Association of Public and Land- grant Universities). 2017. AAU-APLU Public Access Working Group: Report and Recommendations. Online. Available at https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AA U-Files/Key-Issues/Intellectual-Property/Public-Open-Access/AAU-APLU-Public- Access-Working-Group-Report.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2018. Abbott, A., D. Cyranoski, N. Jones, B. Maher, Q. Schiermeier, and R. Van Noorden. 2010. Metrics: Do metrics matter? Nature 465(7300):860-862. doi: 10.1038/465860a. Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016. Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical Review Letters 116(6):061102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 061102. Académie des Sciences, Leopoldina, and The Royal Society. 2016. Statement on Scientific Publications by Three National Academies. Online. Available at https://royalsoc iety.org/~/media/news/2016/Statement%20on%20scientific%20publications.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018. Académie des Sciences, Leopoldina, and Royal Society. 2017. Statement by Three Na- tional Academies on Good Practice in the Evaluation of Researchers and Research Programmes. Online. Available at https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publica- tions/2017/08-12-2017-royal-society-leopoldina-and-academie-des-sciences-call-for- more-support-for-research-evaluators.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018. Adams, C. 2018. SPARC Innovator: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Online. Avail- able at https://sparcopen.org/our-work/innovator/gates-foundation. Accessed May 25, 2018. Aghion, P., M. Dewatripont, J. Kolev, F. Murray, and S. Stern. 2010. The public and pri- vate sectors in the process of innovation: Theory and evidence from the mouse ge- netics revolution. American Economic Review 100(2):153-158. 161

162 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Aghion, P., A. Bergeaud, T. Boppart, P. Klenow, and H. Li. 2016. Missing growth from creative destruction. Mimeo, London School of Economics. AGU (American Geophysical Union). 2012. AGU partnership with Wiley-Blackwell on journals and book publishing. News release. July 20. Online. Available at https:// about.agu.org/president/presidents-message-archive/agu-partnership-with-wiley- blackwell. Accessed June 22, 2018. AGU. 2013. Update on AGU Publishing: A Focus on Open Access. Online. Available at https://publications.agu.org/announcement/update-on-agu-publishing-a-focus-on-op en-access. Accessed January 5, 2018. AGU. 2016. Promoting Discovery in Earth and Space Science for the Benefit of Humanity. Online. Available at https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2016/12/016_3871_Data- Geosciences-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2018. AGU. 2017a. Open Access. Online. Available at https://publications.agu.org/open-access. Accessed January 5, 2018. AGU. 2017b. Where Will Your Samples Go? Online. Available at https://agu.confex. com/agu/fm17/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/208976. Accessed March 29, 2018. Albert, K. M. 2006. Open access: Implications for scholarly publishing and medical librar- ies. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94(3):253-262. Alberts, B., M. W. Kirschner, S. Tilghman, and H. Varmus. 2014. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(16):5773-5777. Altman, M., and M. Crosas. 2013. The evolution of data citation: From principles to im- plementation. IASSIST Quarterly:62-70. Anderson, I. 2017. Getting to Open: Challenges, Drivers, and Opportunities for Transform- ing The Global Publication System. Presentation to the National Academies of Sci- ences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Toward an Open Science Enter- prise, Public Symposium. September 18, 2017. Anderson, K. 2016. Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED—96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition). Online. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/02/01/ guest-post-kent-anderson-updated-96-things-publishers-do-2016-edition. Accessed June 6, 2018. Anderson, K. 2018. The Race to the Bottom—Short-term Bargains versus Long-term Vi- tality. Online. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/23/the-race- to-the-bottom-short-term-bargains-versus-long-term-vitality. Accessed June 6, 2018. ANDS (Australian National Data Service). 2017. Online. Available at http://www.ands. org.au. Accessed October 12, 2017. Arza, V., and M. Fressoli. 2017. Systematizing benefits of open science practices. Infor- mation Services & Use 37:463–474. DOI:10.3233/ISU-170861. Association of Research Libraries. 2018. The Copyright Permissions Culture in Software Preservation and Its Implications for the Cultural Record. Online. Available at http://www.arl.org/publications-resources/4468-the-copyright-permissions-culture- in-software-preservation-and-its-implications-for-the-cultural-record#.WwhPYdM zWUn. Accessed May 25, 2018. Aufderheide, P., B. Butler, K. Cox, and P. Jaszi. 2018. The Copyright Permissions Culture in Software Preservation and Its Implications for the Cultural Record. Online. Avail- able at http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/2018.02.09_CopyrightPermissionsCult ure.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2018. Azoulay, P., W. Ding, and T. Stuart. 2009. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. The Journal of Industrial Econom- ics 57(4):637-676.

References 163 Baker, M. 2016. Why scientists must share their research code. Nature doi:10.1038/ nature.2016.20504. Barbaro, M., and T. Zeller. 2006. A face is exposed for AOL searcher No. 4417749. The New York Times, August 9, 2006. Barbera, R., S. J. E. Taylor, T. M. Banda, B. Becker, A. Cornea, J. Eriksen, L. L. Gustafsson, A. Nungu, O. Oaiya, B. Pehrson, R. Ricceri, and M. Torrisi. 2015. Energising Scien- tific Endeavour through Science Gateways and e-Infrastructures in Africa: The Sci- GaIA project. Online. Available at http://oar.sci-gaia.eu/record/108/files/PUBLICA TIONSSCIGAIA-2015-015.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2018. Barnes, N., D. Jones, P. Norvig, C. Neylon, R. Pollock, J. Jackson, V. Stodden, and P. Suber. 2016. Science Code Manifesto. Online. Available at http://sciencecodeman- ifesto.org. Accessed March 22, 2018. Bastian, H. 2017. Bias in Open Science Advocacy: The Case of Article Badges for Data Sharing. Online. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/08/29/bi as-in-open-science-advocacy-the-case-of-article-badges-for-data-sharing. Accessed March 23, 2018. Bastian, H. 2018. A Reality Check on Author Access to Open Access Publishing. Online. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on- author-access-to-open-access-publishing. Accessed June 4, 2018. Beall, J. 2016. Essential information about predatory publishers and journals. International Higher Education 86:2-3. Online. Available at https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index. php/ihe/article/viewFile/9358/8368. Accessed December 4, 2017. Beall, J. 2017. Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Online. Available at https://beallslist.weebly.com. Accessed December 1, 2017. Beel, J., B. Gipp, S. Langer, and M. Genzmehr. 2011. Docear: An academic literature suite for searching, organizing and creating academic literature. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries 11:465-466. Begley, G., and L. M. Ellis. 2012. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical can- cer research. Nature 483:531-533. doi:10.1038/483531a. Berg, J. M., N. Bhalla, P. E. Bourne, M. Chalfie, D. G. Drubin, J. S. Fraser, C. W. Greider, M. Hendricks, C. Jones, R. Kiley, S. King, M. W. Kirschner, H. M. Krumholz, R. Lehmann, M. Leptin, B. Pulverer, B. Rosenzweig, J. E. Spiro, M. Stebbins, C. Strasser, S. Swaminathan, P. Turner, R. D. Vale, K. VijayRaghavan, and C. Wol- berger. 2016. Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352(6288):899-901. Berghmans, S., H. Cousijn, G. Deakin, I. Meijer, A. Mulligan, A. Plume, S. de Rijcke, A. Rushforth, C. Tatum, T. van Leeuwen, and L. Waltman. 2017. Open Data: The Re- searcher Perspective. Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Stud- ies, Elsevier, and Universiteit Leiden. Online. Available at https://www.elsevier. com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/281920/Open-data-report.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2018. Bergstrom, T. C. 2001. Free labor for costly journals? The Journal of Economic Perspec- tives 15(4):183-198. Bergstrom, T. C., P. N. Courant, R. P. McAfee, and M. A. Williams. 2014. Evaluating big deal journal bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(26):9425-9430. Berman, F., and V. Cerf. 2013. Who will pay for public access to research data? Science 341(6146):616-617. DOI: 10.1126/science.1241625. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. 2003. Available at http://legacy.earl- ham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. Accessed March 29, 2018.

164 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research BibTeX. 2018. Your BibTeX Resource. Online. Available at http://www.bibtex.org. Ac- cessed March 22, 2018. Bilder, G., J. Lin, and C. Neylon. 2015. Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures. Sci- ence in the Open. Online. Available at http://cameronneylon.net/blog/principles-for- open-scholarly-infrastructures. Accessed March 30, 2018. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2017. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Open Access Policy. Online. Available at https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Gen- eral-Information/Open-Access-Policy. Accessed January 5, 2018. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2018. Gates Open Research. Online. Available at https://gatesopenresearch.org. Accessed January 8, 2018. BITSS (Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences). 2018. Mission and Objectives. Online. Available at https://www.bitss.org/about. Accessed February 14, 2018. Björk, B-C. 2017a. Scholarly journal publishing in transition—from restricted to open ac- cess. Electronic Markets 27(2):101-109. Björk, B-C. 2017b. Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing 30(2):173- 175. BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative). 2002. Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Online. Available at http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read. Accessed March 29, 2018. BOAI. 2012. Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative: Setting the default to open. Online. Available at http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10- recommendations. Accessed November 20, 2017. Bonazzi V. R., and P. E. Bourne. 2017. Should biomedical research be like Airbnb? PLOS Biology 15(4):e2001818. Borgman, C. L. 2010. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Borgman, C. L. 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bosman, J., and B. Kramer. 2018. Open access levels: A quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data. PeerJ Preprints. Online. Available at https://peerj. com/preprints/3520. Accessed March 15, 2018. Bourne, P. E., J. K. Polka, R. D. Vale, and R. Kiley. 2017. Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLOS Computational Biology 13(5):e1005473. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473. Accessed No- vember 9, 2017. Brazma, A., P. Hingamp, J. Quackenbush, G. Sherlock, P. Spellman, C. Stoeckert, J. Aach, W. Ansorge, C. A. Ball, H. C. Causton, T. Gaasterland, P. Glenisson, F. C. P. Hol- stege, I. F. Kim, V. Markowitz, J. C. Matese, H. Parkinson, A. Robinson, U. Sarkans, S. Schulze-Kremer, J. Stewart, R. Taylor, J. Vilo, and M. Vingron. 2001. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for mi- croarray data. Nature Genetics 29:365-371. doi:10.1038/ng1201-365. Buckley, K. 2017. Open Access to Harvard Research. Online. Available at http://libra ry.harvard.edu/02282017-1546/open-access-harvard-research. Accessed November 22, 2017. Buranyi, S. 2017. The long read: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific pub- lishing bad for science? Online. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/scien ce/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science. Accessed January 22, 2018.

References 165 Burwell, S. M., S. VanRoekel, T. Park, and D. J. Mancini. 2013. Open Data Policy-Man- aging Information as an Asset. Executive Office of the President. Office of Manage- ment and Budget. Online. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2018. Butler, D. 2017. Gates to launch open-access publishing site. Nature 543:599. Byrne, M. 2017. Making Progress Toward Open Data: Reflections on Data Sharing at PLOS ONE. Online. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2017/05/08/mak ing-progress-toward-open-data. Accessed May 25, 2018. Cafarella, M. J., A. Halevy, D. Z. Wang, E. Wu, and Y. Zhang. 2008. WebTables: Explor- ing the power of tables on the Web. Proceedings of the Very Large Database Endowment 1:538-549. Camerer, C. F., A. Dreber, E. Forsell, T-H. Ho, J. Huber, M. Johannesson, M. Kirchler, J. Almenberg, A. Altmejd, T. Chan, E. Heikensten, F. Holzmeister, T. Imai, S. Isaks- son, G. Nave, T. Pfeiffer, M. Razen, and H. Wu. 2016. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351(6280):1433-1436. Carroll, M. W. 2011. Why full open access matters. PLOS Biology 9(11):e1001210. Carroll, M. W. 2015. Sharing research data and intellectual property law: A primer. PLOS Biology 13(8):e1002235. Carvalho, J. 2017. FOSTER: Training Resources on Open Science. Online. Available at https://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/bitstream/10442/15545/1/FOSTERplus-Training-resou rces-on-open-access.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2018. Casadevall, A, and F. C. Fang. 2015. Impacted science: Impact is not importance. mBio 6(5):e01593-15. Cavoukian, A., and M. Chanliau. 2013. Privacy and security by design: A convergence of paradigms. Ontario, Canada: Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Cavusoglu, H., and S. Raghunathan. 2007. Efficiency of vulnerability disclosure mecha- nisms to disseminate vulnerability knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33(3). DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2007.26. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2003. HIPAA privacy rule and public health. Guidance from CDC and the US Department of Health and Human Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 52:1-12. CEDAR (Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval). 2018. Better Data for Bet- ter Science. Online. Available at https://metadatacenter.org. Accessed June 4, 2018. CENDI. 2017. Implementation of Public Access Programs in Federal Agencies. Online. Available at https://www.cendi.gov/projects/Public_Access_Plans_US_Fed_Agen cies.html. Accessed September 15, 2017. Chandrasekharan, S., S. Kumar, C.M. Valley, and A. Rai. 2009. Proprietary science, open science and the role of patent disclosure: the case of zinc-finger proteins. Nature Biotechnology 27(2):140-144. Chang, A. C., and P. Li. 2015. Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “usually not.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-083. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Online. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2015.083. Accessed January 10, 2018. CNI (Coalition for Networked Information). 2017. Rethinking Institutional Repository Strategies. Online. Available at https://www.cni.org/wp-content/.../CNI-rethinking- irs-exec-rndtbl.report.S17.v1.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2018. COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories). 2014. COAR Roadmap: Future Di- rections for Repository Interoperability. https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/ Roadmap_final_formatted_20150203.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2017.

166 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research COAR. 2015a. Promoting Open Knowledge and Open Science Report of the Current State of Repositories. Online. Available at https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/CO AR-State-of-Repositories-May-2015-final.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2018. COAR. 2015b. COAR Roadmap Future Directions for Repository Interoperability. Online. https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Roadmap_final_formatted_20150203.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2018. CODATA (Committee on Data for Science and Technology). 2016. CODATA Strategy and Achievement 2015-2016. Online. Available at http://www.codata.org/news/1 28/62/CODATA-Prospectus-Strategy-and-Achievement-2015-2016. Accessed Oc- tober 11, 2017. CODATA. 2017. About CODATA. Online. Available at http://www.codata.org/about-co data. Accessed October 11, 2017. CODESRIA (Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa). 2016. Dakar Declaration on Open Science in Africa and the Global South. Online. Avail- able at http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/5/50/Dakar-declaration-2016.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2017. Coffman, L., M. Niederle, and A. J. Wilson. 2017. A proposal to organize and promote replications. American Economic Review 107(5):41-45. Columbia University. 2017. Open Access Policy Frequently Asked Questions. Online. Available at https://scholcomm.columbia.edu/open-access/open-access-policies/fre quently-asked-questions. Accessed November 20, 2017. Congress.gov. 2017. S.1701 - Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act of 2017. 115th Congress (2017-2018). Online. Available at https://www.congress.gov/ bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1701/text. Accessed March 30, 2018. Conley, J. P., and M. Wooders. 2009. But what have you done for me lately? Commercial publishing, scholarly communication, and open-access. Economic Analysis and Policy 39(1):71-88. Conniff, R. 2012. When continental drift was considered pseudoscience. Smithsonian Magazine. Online. Available at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wh en-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214. Accessed June 28, 2018. COPDESS (Coalition on Publishing Data in the Earth and Space Sciences). 2015. COPDESS Statement of Commitment. Online. Available at http://www.copdess. org/statement-of-commitment. Accessed May 25, 2018. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). 2017. Promoting Integrity in Research and Its Publication. Online. Available at https://publicationethics.org. Accessed December 3, 2017. Cornell University Library. 2017. arXiv.org. Online. Available at arxiv.org. Accessed No- vember 9, 2017. COS (Center for Open Science). 2015. Guidelines for Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) in Journal Policies and Practices “The TOP Guidelines” Version 1.0.1. Online. Available at https://osf.io/ud578/?show=revision. Accessed March 22, 2018. COS. 2017. Six New Preprint Services Join a Growing Community across Disciplines to Accelerate Scholarly Communication. Online. Available at https://cos.io/about/ news/six-new-preprint-services-join-growing-community-across-disciplines-accel- erate-scholarly-communication. Accessed November 10, 2017. COS. 2018a. Open Science Badges Enhance Openness, a Core Value of Scientific Practice. Online. Available at https://cos.io/our-services/open-science-badges. Accessed March 23, 2018.

References 167 COS. 2018b. Registered Reports. Online. Available at https://cos.io/rr. Accessed May 25, 2018. COS. 2018c. Partner with COS on Grant Funding Proposals. Online. Available at https://cos. io/about/our-partners/partner-cos-grant-funding-proposals. Accessed March 22, 2018. COS. 2018d. Training Services. Online. Available at https://cos.io/our-services/training- services. Accessed March 22, 2018. Cousijn, H., A. Kenall, E. Ganley, M. Harrison, D. Kernohan, T. Lemberger, F. Murphy, P. Polischuk, S. Taylor, M. Martone, and T. Clark. 2017. A Data Citation Roadmap for Scientific Publishers. bioRxiv. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/100784. Crawford, W. 2016. Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015. Livermore, CA: Cites & In- sights Books. Online. Available at https://waltcrawford.name/goaj1115.pdf. Ac- cessed October 20, 2017. Crawford, W. 2018. Gold Open Access Journals 2012-2017. Livermore, CA: Cites & In- sights Books. Online. Available at https://waltcrawford.name/cntry1217.pdf. Ac- cessed June 7, 2018. Cross, J. 2009. Impact factors—the basics. The E-Resources Management Handbook. United Kingdom Serials Group. Online. Available at www.uksg.org/sites/uksg. org/files/19-Cross-H76M463XL884HK78.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2018. Crotty, D. 2016. The Pay It Forward Project: Confirming What We Already Knew About Open Access. Online. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/08/09. Accessed December 11, 2017. DataCite. 2018. Locate, Identify and Cite Research Data with the Leading Global Provider of Dois for Research Data. Online. Available at https://www.datacite.org. Accessed March 22, 2018. Data Curation Network. 2018. Our Mission. Online. Available at https://sites.google.com/ site/datacurationnetwork. Accessed May 25, 2018. Davis, P. M. 2010. Access, Readership, Citations: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Sci- entific Journal Publishing. Online. Available at https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bit- stream/handle/1813/17788/Davis%2C%20Philip.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed Janu- ary 11, 2018. Davis, P. M. 2011. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of sci- entific journal publishing. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biol- ogy 25(7):2129-2134. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988. Davis, P. 2017. Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS ONE as Largest Megajournal. Online. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/06/scientific-reports-over- takes-plos-one-as-largest-megajournal. Accessed May 25, 2018. Davis, P. M., B. V. Lewenstein, D. H. Simon, J. G. Booth, and M. J. L. Connolly. 2008. Open access publishing, article downloads and citations: randomized trial. BMJ 337:a568. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a568. dbGaP (Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes). 2018. Online. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap. Accessed June 6, 2018. Digital Curation Centre. 2018. Disciplinary metadata standards. Online. Available at http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/metadata-standards. Accessed March 22, 2018. Do, L., and W. Mobley. 2015. Single Figure Publications: Towards a novel alternative format for scholarly communication [version 1; referees: not peer reviewed]. F1000Research 2015, 4:268. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6742.1. DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://doaj.org. Accessed March 29, 2018. Docear. 2018. The academic literature suite. Online. Available at https://www.docear.org. Accessed March 22, 2018.

168 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research DONA Foundation. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://www.dona.net. Ac- cessed March 22, 2018. DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). 2013. San Francisco Declaration on Re- search Assessment: Putting Science into the Assessment of research. Online. Avail- able at http://www.ascb.org/files/SFDeclarationFINAL.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2018. Dryad. 2018. Open data best practices. Online. Available at https://datadryad.org. Ac- cessed March 22, 2018. Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences. 2016. Global Open FAIR Implementation Nodes. Online. Available at https://www.dtls.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/3.-GO-FAIR- cover-proposal.for-comments.docx. Accessed October 13, 2017. Dwork, C. 2008. Differential privacy: A survey of results. Pp. 1-19 in Theory and Appli- cations of Models of Computation. TAMC 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Sci- ence 4978, M. Agrawal, D. Du, Z. Duan, and A. Li, eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. EC (European Commission). 2012. Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assess- ment. Accompanying the Document: Commission Recommendation on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in the Digital Age. Online. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_eur opeenne/swd/2012/0222/COM_SWD(2012)0222_EN.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2018. EC. 2016. Realising the European Open Science Cloud: First Report and Recommenda- tions of the Commission High Level Expert Group on the European Open Science Cloud. Brussels, Belgium: EC. EC. 2017a. EOSC (European Open Science Cloud) Declaration: New Research & Innova- tion Opportunities. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/ pdf/eosc_declaration.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2018. EC. 2017b. Evaluation of Research Careers fully acknowledging Open Science Practices: Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Written by the Working Group on Rewards under Open Science. Luxembourg: Eu- ropean Union. EC. 2017c. Information Note: Towards a Horizon 2020 Platform for Open Access. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/information_note_plat- form_public.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none. Accessed April 13, 2018. EC. 2017d. Europe’s Future: Open Innovation, Open Science, and Open to the World. Re- flections of the Research, Innovation and Science Policy Experts (RISE) High Level Group. Brussels, Belgium: EC. EC. 2017e. Report on the Governance and Financial Schemes for the European Open Sci- ence Cloud: Adopted by the Open Science Policy Platform- May 2017. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/ospp_euro_open_scien ce_cloud_report-.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2017. EC. 2017f. Providing Researchers with the Skills and Competencies They Need to Practice Open Science: Open Science Skills Working Group Report. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/os_skills_wgreport_final.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2018. EC. 2018a. Open Access to Publications. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/re search/openscience/index.cfm?pg=access&section=monitor. Accessed April 23, 2018. EC. 2018b. Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation Roadmap for the Eu- ropean Open Science Cloud. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/op

References 169 enscience/pdf/swd_2018_83_f1_staff_working_paper_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode =none. Accessed April 23, 2018. EC. 2018c. Open Science Monitor. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/ openscience/index.cfm?pg=drivers&section=monitor. Accessed February 23, 2018. EC. 2018d. Study in support of the evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases. Online. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm ?doc_id=51599. Accessed June 8, 2018. The Economist. 2013. Unreliable research: Trouble at the lab. Online. Available at https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self- correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble. Accessed February 23, 2018. Edwards, C. 2017. Federal R&D Funding. Online. Available at https://www.downsizing government.org/federal-rd-funding. Accessed April 16, 2018. Eibe, F., M. Hall, and I. H. Witten. 2016. The WEKA workbench. Online Appendix for Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, Fourth Edition. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. e-IRG (e-Infrastructure Reflection Group). 2016. Long Tail of Data: e-IRG Task Force Report. The Hague, The Netherlands: e-IRG Secretariat. Online. Available at http:// e-irg.eu/documents/10920/238968/LongTailOfData2016.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2017. EOS (Earth and Space Science News). 2017. Connecting Scientific Data and Real-World Samples. Online. Available at https://eos.org/meeting-reports/connecting-scientific- data-and-real-world-samples. Accessed March 29, 2018. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. Transparency in Regulatory Deci- sionmaking. 40 CFR 30. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04- 30/pdf/2018-09078.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2018. Erway, R., and A. Rinehart. 2016. If You Build It, Will They Fund? Making Research Data Management Sustainable. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research. Online. Available at https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-making -research-data-management-sustainable-2016.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2018. ESO (European Southern Observatory). 2017. ESO Endorses the European Open Science Cloud Declaration. Online. Available at http://www.eso.org/public/australia/announ cements/ann17068/?lang. Accessed October 9, 2017. EUA (European University Association). 2015. EUA’s Open Access Checklist for Univer- sities: A Practical Guide on Implementation. Online. Available at http://www.eua. be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/Open_access_report_v3.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Ac- cessed November 22, 2017. Evans, J. A., and J. Reimer. 2009. Open Access and Global Participation in Science. Sci- ence 323(5917):1025. Eveleth, R. 2014. Free Access to Science Research Doesn’t Benefit Everyone. The Atlan- tic. Online. Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/ free-access-to-science-research-doesnt-benefit-everyone/383875. Accessed Febru- ary 23, 2018. Eysenbach, G. 2006. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLOS Biology 4(5):e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157. F1000 Research. 2018. Article processing charges. Available at https://f1000re- search.com/for-authors/article-processing-charges. Accessed June 7, 2018. Fabrizio, K., and A. DiMinin. 2008. Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy 30(30). Online. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1129542. Accessed January 10, 2018.

170 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research FAIRsharing. 2017. FAIRsharing Policies: A Catalogue of Data Preservation, Manage- ment and Sharing Policies from International Funding Agencies, Regulators and Journals. Online. Available at https://fairsharing.org/policies. Accessed October 20, 2017. Fanelli, D. 2018. Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis? Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences Mar 2018, 201708272; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1708272114. Fang, F. C., and A. Casadevall. 2015. Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity 83:1229-1233. doi:10.1128/IAI.02939-14. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2007. FDAAA 801 and the Final Rule. Online. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa. Accessed May 31, 2018. FDAAA (Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act) Trials Tracker. 2018. Who’s Sharing Their Clinical Trial Results? Online. Available at https://fdaaa.trialstracker. net. Accessed March 23, 2018. Fecher, B. and S. Friesike. 2014. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. Pro- ceedings of the 1st International Conference on Internet, Brussels. Fehder, D. C., F. Murray, and S. Stern. 2014. Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific journals as knowledge platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization 36:83-94. Fenner, M., M. Crosas, and J. S. Grethe. 2016. A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/097196. Accessed March 22, 2018. Figshare. 2017. The State of Open Data 2017: A selection of analyses and articles about open data, curated by Figshare. Digital Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9. figshare.5481187. Figshare. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://figshare.com. Accessed March 22, 2018. FORCE11. 2014. Data Citation Synthesis Group: Joint Declaration of Data Citation Prin- ciples. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.25490/a97f-egyk. Accessed March 22, 2018. Ford, P. 2018. GitHub is Microsoft’s $7.5 Billion Undo Button. Bloomberg. June 6. Online. Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-06/github-is-mic rosoft-s-7-5-billion-undo-button. Accessed June 6, 2018. Forde, J., C. Holdgraf, and Y. Panda. 2018. Post-training evaluation with Binder. Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Online. Available at https://fat conference.org/static/tutorials/forde_binder18.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2018. FOSTER (Facilitate Open Science Training for European Research). 2018. What Is Open Science? Introduction. Online. Available at https://www.fosteropenscience.eu. Ac- cessed March 29, 2018. Foster, E. D., and A. Deardorff. 2017. Open science framework. Journal of the Medical Library Association 105 (2):203-206. FREYA. 2018. The FREYA project. Online. Available at https://www.project-freya.eu/en. Accessed May 25, 2018. Fyfe, A., J. McDougall-Waters, and N. Moxham. 2015. 350 years of scientific periodicals. Notes and Records 69:227-239. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2015.0036. G7 (Group of Seven). 2017. G7 Science Ministers’ Communiqué. Turin, Italy, 27-28 Sep- tember, 2017. Online. Available at http://www.g7italy.it/sites/default/files/docu ments/G7%20Science%20Communiqu%C3%A9.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2017.

References 171 Gaboardi, M., H. W. Lim, R. M. Rogers, and S. P. Vadhan. 2016. Differentially Private Chi-Squared Hypothesis Testing: Goodness of Fit and Independence Testing. Pro- ceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, New York, NY. JMLR: Workshops and Proceedings 48. Galiani, S., P. Gertler, and M. Romero. 2017. Incentives for Replication in Economics. Online. Available at http://www.paulgertler.com/uploads/4/7/5/1/47512443/galiani- gertler-romano_replication_in_economics_nber.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2018. Gaule, P., and N. Maystre. 2011. Getting cited: Does open access help? Research Policy 40(10):1332-1338. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.025. Gelman, A. 2018. Can you criticize science (or do science) without looking like an obses- sive? Maybe not. Slate. March 26. Online. Available at https://slate.com/technol- ogy/2018/03/its-hard-to-criticize-science-without-looking-like-an-obsessive.html. Accessed May 31, 2018. Ginther, D. K., J. Basner, U. Jensen, J. Schnell, R. Kington, and W. T. Schaffer. Publica- tions as Predictors of Racial and Ethnic Differences in NIH Research Awards. Mimeo, University of Kansas. GitHub. 2018. Built for Developers. Online. Available at https://github.com. Accessed March 22, 2018. GO FAIR (Global Open FAIR). 2018. GO FAIR: a bottom-up international approach. Online. Available at https://www.go-fair.org. Accessed April 23, 2018. Goodman, L. 2018. GigaScience Wins 2018 PROSE Award for Innovation in Publishing. Online. Available at http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/gigascience-prose-award- for-innovation. Accessed June 6, 2018. Gordon, G. 2016. SSRN—the leading social science and humanities repository and online community—joins Elsevier. Online. Available at https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community- joins-elsevier. Accessed April 13, 2018. GSA (The Geological Society of America). 2018. Geoscience Data Preservation. Online. Available at https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/positions/pos9_dataPres.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2018. The Guardian. 2018. Performance-driven culture is ruining scientific research. Online. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2018/feb/16/ performance-driven-culture-is-ruining-scientific-research. Accessed February 23, 2018. Hahn, R. 2018. Many mocked this Scott Pruitt proposal. They should have read it first. Washington Post. May 10. Hamermesh, D. S. 2017. Replication in labor economics: Evidence from data, and what it suggests. American Economic Review 107(5):37-40. Hansen, J. 2017. Providing Support and Solutions for Open Science to Achieve Impact. Presentation to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Toward an Open Science Enterprise, Public Symposium. September 18, 2017. Harvard Dataverse. 2018. Share, Archive, and Get Credit for Your Data. Find and Cite Data Across All Research Fields. Online. Available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu. Accessed January 29, 2018. Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication. 2017. Open Access Policies. Online. Available at https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies. Accessed November 28, 2017. Healy, K. 2011. Choosing your workflow applications. The Political Methodologist 18(2):9-18.

172 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Heber, J. 2017. Advocating Open Science at PLOS. Presentation to the National Acade- mies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Toward an Open Sci- ence Enterprise, Public Symposium. September 18, 2017. Hefferon, J. and K. Berry. 2009. The TeX family in 2009. Notices of the American Math- ematical Society 56(3):348-354. Heidorn, P. B. 2008. Shedding light on the dark data in the long tail of science. Library Trends 57(2):280-299. Hendricks, G. 2015. Crossref to Auto-Update ORCID Records. Online. Available at https://www.crossref.org/blog/crossref-to-auto-update-orcid-records. Accessed May 25, 2018. Hess, C., and E. Ostrom. 2003. Ideas, artifacts, and facilities: Information as a common- pool resource. Law and Contemporary Problems 66(1&2): 111-146. Hicks, D., P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, and I. Rafols. 2015. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. Online. Available at https://www.na ture.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351. Accessed February 23, 2018. Hitchcock, S. 2018. The effect of open access and downloads (‘hits’) on citation impact: a bibliography of studies. Online. Available at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-bib lio.htm. Accessed March 23, 2018. Holdren, J. 2017. Public Access- Report to Congress- January 2017. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Online. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/site s/default/files/microsites/public_access-report_to_congress-jan2017-final.pdf. Ac- cessed September 15, 2017. Holmes, G., A. Donkin, and I. H. Witten. 1994. Weka: A machine learning workbench. Proceedings of the Second Australia and New Zealand Conference on Intelligent Information Systems. Howard, J. 2013. Rise of “altmetrics” revives questions about how to measure impact of research. Chronicle of Higher Education. Online. Available at https://www.chroni cle.com/article/Rise-of-Altmetrics-Revives/139557. Accessed March 29, 2018. Hrynaszkiewicz, I., and M. J. Cockerill. 2012. Open by default: A proposed copyright li- cense and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals. BMC Research Notes 7(5):494. Huang, Y., Y. Liu, C. Zheng, and C. Shen. 2017. Investigation of cross-contamination and misidentification of 278 widely used tumor cell lines. PLOS One. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170384. Accessed February 23, 2018. Hudson-Vitale, C. R., R. P. Johnson, J. Ruttenberg, and J. R. Spies. 2017. SHARE: Com- munity-focused infrastructure and a public goods, scholarly database to advance ac- cess to research. D-Lib Magazine 23(5/6). Hutchins, B. I., X. Yuan, J. M. Anderson, and G. M. Santangelo. 2016. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLOS Biology. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio. 1002541. Accessed February 23, 2018. IAC-IAP (InterAcademy Council and InterAcademy Partnership). 2012. The Global Net- work of Science Academies. Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enter- prise. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IAC. ICSU (International Council for Science)-WDS (World Data System). 2017. Trusted Data Services for Global Science. Online. Available at https://www.icsu-wds.org. Ac- cessed October 10, 2017. iDigBio (Integrated Digitized Biocollections). 2018. iDigBio website. Online. Available at https://www.idigbio.org. Accessed June 22, 2018.

References 173 Ihaka, R. 2010. R: Lessons learned, directions for the future. JSM (Joint Statistical Meet- ings) Proceedings 2010: Statistical Computing Section. Inglis, J. 2017. The bioRxiv Preprint Server: An Open Science Initiative for the Life Sci- ences. Presentation to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine’s Committee on Toward an Open Science Enterprise, Public Symposium. Sep- tember 18, 2017. INLEXIO. 2017. Preprint Servers: Challenges and Consequences. Online. Available at https://www.inlexio.com/preprint-servers-challenges-consequences. Accessed No- vember 10, 2017. Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2(8):e124. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Ac- cessed January 10, 2018. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2015. Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IWGSC (Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections). 2009. Scientific Collec- tions: Mission Critical Infrastructure of Federal Science Agencies. A report of the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections. National Science and Tech- nology Council, Committee on Science, Office of Science and Technology Policy. Online. Available at https://usfsc.nal.usda.gov/sites/usfsc.nal.usda.gov/files/IWGS C_GreenReport_FINAL_2009.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2018. IWGSC. 2016. About IWGSC. Online. Available at https://usfsc.nal.usda.gov/about-iw gsc. Accessed March 29, 2018. IWGSC. 2018. Agency Documents. Online. Available at https://usfsc.nal.usda.gov/agen cy-documents-view. Accessed March 29, 2018. Jacobs, N. 2018. Open Research in 2018, Real or Fake News? Online. Available at https:// wonkhe.com/blogs/open-research-in-2018-real-or-fake-news. Accessed April 13, 2018. Johnston, L. R., J. R. Carlson, P. Hswe, C. Hudson-Vitale, H. Imker, W. Kozlowski, R. K. Olendorf, and C. Stewart. 2017. Data curation network: How do we compare? A snapshot of six academic library institutions’ data repository and curation services. Journal of eScience Librarianship 6(1):e1102. https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2017. 1102. Jong, S., and K. Slavova. 2014. When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development. Research Policy 43(4):645-654. Kennison, R., and L. Norberg. 2015. A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication Infrastructure. EDUCAUSE Review. Online. Available at https://er.educause.edu/ar- ticles/2015/4/a-network-approach-to-scholarly-communication-infrastructure. Ac- cessed March 23, 2018. Kidwell, M. C., L. B. Lazarević, E. Baranski, T. E. Hardwicke, S. Piechowski, L-S. Falken- berg, C. Kennett, A. Slowik, C. Sonnleitner, C. Hess-Holden, T. M. Errington, S. Fiedler, and B. A. Nosek. 2016. Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency. Online. Available at http://jour- nals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456. Accessed March 23, 2018. Kimmelman, J., J. S. Mogil, and U. Dirnagl. 2014. Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLOS Biology 12(5): e1001863.

174 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Kittrie, E., A. A. Atienza, R. Kiley, D. Carr, A. MacFarlane, V. Pai, J. Couch, J. Bajkowski, J. F. Bonner, D. Mietchen, and P. E. Bourne. 2017. Developing international open science collaborations: Funder reflections on the Open Science Prize. PLOS Biology 15(8):e2002617. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002617 Kluyver T., B. Ragan-Kelley, and F. Pérez. 2016. Jupyter Notebooks – A Publishing For- mat for Reproducible Computational Workflows. Positioning and Power in Aca- demic Publishing: Players, Agents, and Agendas. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. Kriegeskorte, N., A. Walther, and D. Deca. 2012. An emerging consensus for open evalu- ation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6(94):1-5. Kriesberg, A., K. Huller, R. Punzalan, and C. Parr. 2017. An Analysis of Federal Policy on Public Access to Scientific Research Data. Data Science Journal 16:27. Online. Available at http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-027. Accessed March 30, 2018. Kunzmann, M., and F. Reckling. 2017. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Com- pliance Monitoring 2016. Online. Available at https://zenodo.org/record/811924#. WrU2ZtMzWmR. Accessed March 23, 2018. Larivière, V., S. Haustein, and P. Mongeon. 2015. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. Lawson, S. 2015. Fee waivers for open access journals. Publications 3:155-167. doi:10. 3390/publications3030155. Lerner, J., and J. Triole. 2000. The Simple Economics of Open Source. NBER Working Paper No. 7600. March. Lewis, D. W., L. Goetsch, D. Graves, and M. Roy. 2018. Funding Community Controlled Open Infrastructure for Scholarly Communication: The 2.5% Commitment Initia- tive. Online. Available at https://theidealis.org/funding-community-controlled-op en-infrastructure-for-scholarly-communication-the-2-5-commitment-initiative. Ac- cessed March 30, 2018. LIBER (The European Library Federation). 2012. Ten Recommendations for Libraries to Get Started with Research Data Management. Online. Available at http://liber europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/The%20research%20data%20group%202012%20v 7%20final.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2017. Library Research News. 2018. Web of Science new features. Online. Available at http:// blogs.sun.ac.za/libraryresearchnews/2018/01/04/web-of-science-new-features. Ac- cessed March 19, 2018. Lipton, M. 2006. Merger Waves in the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries. Online. Available at http://cornerstone-business.com/MergerWavesTorontoLipton.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2018. Luther, J. 2017. The Stars Are Aligning for Preprints. The Scholarly Kitchen. Online. Avail- able at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/18/stars-aligning-preprints. Ac- cessed November 10, 2017. Lynch, C. 2003. Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Association of Research Libraries Bimonthly Report 226:1-7. Machanavajjhala, A., J. Gehrke, D. Kifer, and M. Venkitasubramaniam. 2006. L-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/ICDE.2006.1. Mailman, M. D., M. Feolo, Y. Jin, M. Kimura, K. Tryka, R. Bagoutdinov, L. Hao, A. Ki- ang, J. Paschall, L. Phan, N. Popova, S. Pretel, L. Ziyabari, Y. Shao, Z. Y. Wang, K. Sirotkin, M. Ward, M. Kholodov, K. Zbicz, J. Beck, M. Kimelman, S. Shevelev,

References 175 D. Preuss, E. Yaschenko, A. Graeff, J. Ostell, and S. T. Sherry. 2007. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nature Genetics 39(10):1181-1186. Malin, B., and L. Sweeney. 2001. Re-identification of DNA through an automated linkage process. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium:423-427. McCabe, M. J. 2013. Online Access and the Scientific Journal Market: An Economist’s Perspective. Draft Report for the National Academy of Sciences. Online. Available at https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_0 63400.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2018. McCabe, M. J., and C. M. Snyder. 2014. Identifying the effect of open access on citations using a panel of science journals. Economic Inquiry 52(4):1284-1300. McCabe, M. J., and C. M. Snyder. 2015. Does online availability increase citations? The- ory and evidence from a panel of economics and business journals. The Review of Economics and Statistics 97(1):144-165. McCabe, M. J., C. M. Snyder, and A. Fagin. 2013. Open access versus traditional journal pricing: Using a simple “platform market” model to understand which will win (and which should). Journal of Academic Librarianship 39:11-19. McKiernan, E., P. E. Bourne, C. T. Brown, S. Buck, A. Kenall, J. Lin, D. McDougall, B. A. Nosek, K. Ram, C. K. Soderberg, J. R. Spies, K. Thaney, A. Updegrove, K. H. Woo, and T. Yarkoni. 2016. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5:e16800. http://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800. McNutt, M., K. Lehnert, B. Hanson, B. A. Nosek, A. M. Ellison, and J. L. King. 2016. Liberating field science samples and data: Promote reproducibility by moving be- yond “available upon request.” Science 351(6277):1024-1026. Meadows, A. 2016. Everything you ever wanted to know about ORCID. College and Re- search Libraries 77(1). MedOANet (Mediterranean Open Access Network). 2013. MedOANet Guidelines for Im- plementing Open Access Policies: For Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations. Online. Available at http://medoanet.eu/sites/www.medoanet.eu/ files/documents/MED2013_GUIDELine_dp_EN_ws.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2017. Merton, R. K. 1942. The Normative Structure of Science. Pp. 267-278 in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. N. W. Storer, ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Online. Available at https://www.collier.sts. vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2018. Miguel, E., L. Paluck, U. Simonsohn, C. Soderberg, B. A. Spellman, J. Turitto, G. Van- denBos, S. Vazire, E. J. Wagenmakers, R. Wilson, and T. Yarkoni. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348(6242):1422-1425. MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Libraries. 2009. MIT Faculty Open Access Policy: Policy adopted by unanimous vote of the faculty on 3/18/2009. Online. Available at https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-policy. Accessed June 27, 2018. MIT Libraries. 2018. Data Management. Online. Available at https://libraries.mit.edu/data- management/share/find-repository. Accessed January 29, 2018. Mogil, J. S., and M. R. Macleod. 2017. No publication without confirmation. Nature 542(7642):409-411. Molloy, J.C. 2011. The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open data means better science. PLOS Biology 9(12):e1001195.

176 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Mons, B., C. Neylon, J. Velterop, M. Dumontier, L. O. B. da Silva Santos, and M. D. Wilkinson. 2017. Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud. Information Services and Use 37(1):49-56. Moore, G. E. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38(8). Online. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By83v5TWkGjvQkpBc XJKT1I1TTA/view. Accessed March 23, 2018. Morey, R. D., C. D. Chambers, P. J. Etchells, C. R. Harris, R. Hoekstra, D. Lakens, S. Lewandowsky, C. C. Morey, D. P. Newman, F. D. Schönbrodt, W. Vanpaemel, E-J. Wagenmakers, and R. A. Zwaan. 2016. The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initia- tive: Incentivizing Open Research Practices through Peer Review. Royal Society Open Science. DOI:10.1098/rsos.150547. MPDL (Max Planck Digital Library). 2015. Disrupting the Subscription Journals’ Business Model. Online. Available at http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc: 2148961:7/component/escidoc:2149096/MPDL_OA-Transition_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2017. MSDSE (Moore-Sloan Data Science Environments). 2018. Moore-Sloan Data Science En- vironments. Online. Available at http://msdse.org. Accessed March 22, 2018. Mueller-Langer, F., and R. Watt. 2014. The Hybrid Open Access Citation Advantage: How Many More Cites is a $3,000 Fee Buying You? Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper 14-02. Online. Available at https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2391692. Accessed June 27, 2018. Mukherjee, A., and S. Stern. 2009. Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of open science. International Journal of Industrial Organization 27(3):449-462. Munafò, M. R., B. A. Nosek, D. V. M. Bishop, K. S. Button, C. D. Chambers, N. Percie du Sert, U. Simonsohn, E-J. Wagenmakers, J. J. Ware, and J. P. A. Ioannidis. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1(0021). doi:10.1038/ s41562-016-0021. Murray-Rust, P., C. Neylon, R. Pollock, and J. Wilbanks. 2010. Panton Principles, Princi- ples for Open Data in Science. Online. Available at https://pantonprinciples.org. Ac- cessed March 29, 2018. Murray, F., and S. Stern. 2007. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63(4):648-685. Narayanan, A., and V. Shmatikov. 2008. Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. DOI: 10.1109/SP.2008.33. NAS-NAE-IOM (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). 2009. Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Science Lit- eracy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Acad- emies Press. NASEM. 2017a. Communicating Science Effectively. Washington, DC: The National Acad- emies Press. NASEM. 2017b. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. 2018a. Envisioning the Data Science Discipline: The Undergraduate Perspec- tive: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

References 177 NASEM. 2018b. Project Information: Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Online. Available https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key= 49906. Accessed April 26, 2018. NASEM. 2018c. International Coordination for Science Data Infrastructure: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nature. 2017. Natural History Collections Face Fight for Survival. Nature 544 (7649):137- 138. Nature. 2018. Availability of data, material and methods. Online. Available at http://www. nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html#code. Accessed March 22, 2018. NERL (NorthEast Research Libraries consortium). 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at http://www.nerl.org. Accessed March 30, 2018. Neumann J., and J. Brase. 2014. DataCite and DOI names for research data. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 28(10):1035-1041. Neylon C. 2017. Openness in Scholarship: A Return to Core Values? Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing, IOS Press Nielsen, M. 2011. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2008. Analysis of Comments and Implementations of the NIH Public Access Policy. Online. Available at https://publicaccess.nih.gov/analy sis_of_comments_nih_public_access_policy.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2017. NIH. 2015. National Institutes of Health Plan for Increasing Access to Scientific Publica- tions and Digital Scientific Data from NIH Funded Scientific Research. Online. Available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/NIH-Public-Access-Plan.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2018. NIH. 2017a. Reporting Preprints and Other Interim Research Products. Online. Available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-050.html. Accessed April 23, 2018. NIH. 2017b. NIH Supports International Effort to Create a Central Service for Preprints. Online. Available at https://datascience.nih.gov/preprints/preprints_central_service. Accessed November 9, 2017. NISO (National Information Standards Organization). 2014. Alternative Metrics Initiative Phase 1 White Paper. Online. Available at https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_pub- lic/download.php/13809/Altmetrics_project_phase1_white_paper.pdf. Accessed Feb- ruary 23, 2018. NLM (National Library of Medicine). 2018a. A platform for biomedical discovery and data-powered health: National Library of Medicine Strategic Plan 2017-2027. NLM. 2018b. What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9? Online. Available at https:// ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting. Accessed April 16, 2018. Normile, D. 2018. South Korean Universities Reach Agreement with Elsevier after Long Standoff. Online. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/south- korean-universities-reach-agreement-elsevier-after-long-standoff. Accessed March 30, 2018. Nosek, B., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, S. Buck, C. D. Chambers, G. Chin, G. Christensen, M. Contestabile, A. Dafoe, E. Eich, J. Freese, R. Glennerster, D. Goroff, D. P. Green, B. Hesse, M. Humphreys, J. Ishiyama, D. Karlan, A. Kraut, A. Lupia, P. Mabry, T. Madon, N. Malhotra, E. Mayo-Wilson, M. McNutt, E. Miguel, E. Levy Paluck, U. Simonsohn, C. Soderberg, B. A. Spellman, J. Turitto, G. VandenBos, S. Vazire, E. J. Wagenmakers, R. Wilson, and T. Yarkoni. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348(6242):1422-1425.

178 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Nosek, B. A. 2017. Opening Science. Pp. 89-99 in Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science, R. Biswas-Diener and R. Jhangiani, eds. London, United Kingdom: Ubiquity Press. NRC (National Research Council). 1985. Sharing Research Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 1997. Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2002. Geoscience Data and Collections: National Resources in Peril. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2003. Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Author- ship in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2012a. The Future of Scientific Knowledge Discovery in Open Networked Environ- ments: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18258. NRC. 2012b. For Attribution: Developing Data Attribution and Citation Practices and Standards: Summary of an International Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2013a. Copyright in the Digital Era: Building Evidence for Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2013b. Frontiers in Massive Data Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Acade- mies Press. NRC. 2013c. Public Access to Federally-Supported Research and Development Data and Publications: Two Planning Meetings. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Online. Available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/cur rentprojects/dbasse_082378. Accessed March 30, 2018. NRC. 2015. Preparing the Workforce for Digital Curation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NSB (National Science Board). 2018. Science & Engineering Indicators 2018. Online. Avail- able at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181. Accessed April 26, 2018. NSF (National Science Foundation). 2015. NSF’s Public Access Plan: Today’s Data, To- morrow’s Discoveries: Increasing Access to the Results of Research Funded by the National Science Foundation. Online. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/ nsf15052/nsf15052.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2018. NSF. 2016a. Public Access to Results of NSF Funded Research. Online. Available at https:// www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access. Accessed January 10, 2018. NSF. 2016b. Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter II – Proposal Preparation Guidelines. January 25. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf16001/gpg_2. jsp. Accessed June 6, 2018. NSF. 2018a. Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results. Online. Available at https:// www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. Accessed March 21, 2018. NSF. 2018b. National Science Foundation Research Traineeship (NRT) Program. Online. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505015. Ac- cessed March 22, 2018. OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association). 2017. The International Com- munity of Open Access Publishers. Online. Available at https://oaspa.org. Accessed December 1, 2017

References 179 Odell, J. D., H. L. Coates, and K. L. Palmer. 2016. Rewarding open access scholarship in promotion and tenure: Driving institutional change. College & Research Libraries News. Online. Available at https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/ 10343/322.full.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed November 24, 2017. Odell, J., K. Palmer, and E. Dill. 2017. Faculty attitudes toward open access and scholarly communications: disciplinary differences on an urban and health science campus. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 5(1):eP2169. DOI: http:// doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2169. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2015. Making Open Science a Reality. Online. Available at http://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/0/02/Open- science-oecd.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2018. Offord, C. 2018. Scientists continue to use outdated methods. The Scientist. Online. Avail- able at https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/51260/title/Scientists- Continue-to-Use-Outdated-Methods. Accessed February 23, 2018. O’Neill, L., F. Dexter, and N. Zhang. 2016. The risks to patient privacy from publishing data from clinical anesthesia studies. Anesthesia & Analgesia 122(6):2017-2027. Open Access 2020. 2018. Expression of Interest in the Large-Scale Implementation of Open Access to Scholarly Journals. Online. Available at https://oa2020.org/ mission/#eois. Accessed May 25, 2018. Open Access Directory. 2017. Guides for OA Journal Publishers. Online. Available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page. Accessed December 1, 2017. Open Access Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2003. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Science and Humanities. Online. Available at https://openaccess. mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration. Accessed June 27, 2018. Open Access Oxford. 2018. Wellcome Trust and Charity Open Access Fund (COAF). Online. Available at http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wellcome-and-coaf. Accessed March 16, 2018. OpenAIRE. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://www.openaire.eu. Accessed March 22, 2018. OpenAIRE and ICSU World Data System. 2017. Immediate Release: OpenAIRE and ICSU World Data System Announce Cooperation to Advance Open Science. Online. Available at https://www.icsu-wds.org/news/press-releases/openaire-and- icsu-world-data-system-announce-cooperation-to-advance-open-science. Accessed October 12, 2017. Open Data Handbook. 2018. What Is Open? Online. Available at http://opendatahand book.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data. Accessed March 29, 2018. Open Definition. 2018. Open Definition 2.1. Online. Available at http://opendefini- tion.org/od/2.1/gl. Accessed March 29, 2018. Open Research Central. 2017. Open Research Central: The Central Portal for Open Re- search Publishing. Online. Available at https://openresearchcentral.org. Accessed January 8, 2018. Open Science Training Handbook. 2018. The Open Science Training Handbook. Online. Available at https://legacy.gitbook.com/book/open-science-training-handbook/book /details. Accessed April 23, 2018. Open Source Initiative. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://opensource.org. Ac- cessed March 29, 2018. ORCID. 2018a. User Facilities and Publications Working Group. Online. Available at https://orcid.org/content/user-facilities-and-publications-working-group. Accessed May 25, 2018.

180 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research ORCID. 2018b. The ORBIT Project. Online. Available at https://orcid.org/organiza tions/funders/orbit. Accessed May 25, 2018. ORFG (Open Research Funders Group). 2017. Policy Development Guide. Online. Avail- able at http://www.orfg.org/resources. Accessed December 18, 2017. ORFG. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at http://www.orfg.org. Accessed January 5, 2018. Oregon State University. 2017. OSU to expand sediment core collection to one of largest in the world. Online. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2017/mar/osu-expand- sediment-core-collection-one-largest-world. Accessed March 21, 2018. OSC (Open Science Collaboration). 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. OSF (Open Science Framework). 2018. Open Science Framework. Online. Available at https://osf.io. Accessed March 22, 2018. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). 2013. Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies from John P. Holdren. Washington, DC: OSTP. OSTP. 2014. Improving the Management of and Access to Scientific Collections. Online. Available at https://usfsc.nal.usda.gov/sites/usfsc.nal.usda.gov/files/OSTP_MEMO _Scientific_Collxn_FINAL_2014_03(1).pdf. Accessed March 21, 2018. Palca, J. 1992. The Genome Project: Life after Watson. Science 256(5059):956-958. Panitch, J. M., and S. Michalak. 2015. The Serials Crisis: A White Paper for the UNC- Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation. Online. Available at http:// www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/panitch-michalak.html. Accessed March 23, 2018. Paskin, N. 2003. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) System. Encyclopedia of Library and In- formation Sciences, Third Edition. Pasquetto, I. V. et al. 2017. On the reuse of scientific data. Data Science Journal 16(8): 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-008. Patashnik, O. 1984. BibTeX yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Proceedings of the TUGboat Annual Meeting 24(1). Pearce, N., and A. H. Smith. 2011. Data sharing: Not as simple as it seems. Environmental Health 10(107). http://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-107 Perkel, J. 2016. Democratic databases: Science on GitHub. Nature 538(7623):127-128. Peters, P. 2017. A Radically Open Approach to Developing Infrastructure for Open Sci ence. Online. Available at https://about.hindawi.com/opinion/a-radically-open-ap proach-to-developing-infrastructure-for-open-science. Accessed March 23, 2018. Pisanski, K. 2017. Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature 543(7646). Piwowar, H., J. Priem, V. Larivière, J. P. Alperin, L. Matthias, B. Norlander, A. Farley, J. West, and S. Haustein. 2018. The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the preva- lence and impact of Open Access articles. Peer J 6:e4375. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375. Accessed June 28, 2018. Ploeger, L. 2017. Understanding the costs of scholarly publishing – Why we need a public data infrastructure of publishing costs. Online. Available at http://www.openac cessweek.org/profiles/blogs/understanding-the-costs-of-scholarly-publishing-why- we-need-a. Accessed March 30, 2018. PLOS (Public Library of Science). 2016. Statement on Data Sharing in Public Health Emergencies. Online. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2016/02/statement-on- data-sharing-in-public-health-emergencies. Accessed June 4, 2018. PLOS. 2017a. Who We Are. Online. Available at https://www.plos.org/who-we-are. Ac- cessed December 1, 2017.

References 181 PLOS. 2017b. Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recognition. Online. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2017/04/protocols-io-tools-for-repro ducibility. Accessed June 6, 2018. PLOS. 2018. Publication Fees. Online. Available at https://www.plos.org/publication-fees. Accessed May 25, 2018. PLOS Blogs. 2017. Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recogni- tion. Online. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2017/04/protocols-io-tools-for- reproducibility. Accessed December 4, 2017. PLOS One. 2018. Data Availability. Online. Available at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/ s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Accessed January 29, 2018. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America). 2018. Editorial and Journal Policies. Online. Available at http://www.pnas.org/page/ authors/journal-policies. Accessed March 22, 2018. Pomerantz J., and R. Peek. 2016. Fifty shades of open. First Monday 21(5). Pond, W. 2000. Do security holes demand full disclosure? ZDNet. August 15, 2000. Posada, A., and G. Chen. 2017. Preliminary Findings: Rent Seeking by Elsevier: Publishers Are Increasingly in Control of Scholarly Infrastructure and Why We Should Care: A Case Study of Elsevier. Online. Available at http://knowledgegap.org/index. php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-in dustry/preliminary-findings. Accessed March 30, 2018. Poynder, R. 2018. The Open Access Big Deal: Back to the Future. Online. Available at https://poynder.blogspot.ae/2018/03/the-open-access-big-deal-back-to-future.html. Accessed April 18, 2018. Prinz, F., T. Schlange, and K. Asadullah. 2012. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10(712). doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1. Project Jupyter. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at http://jupyter.org. Accessed March 22, 2018. RCUK (Research Councils UK). 2012. RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance. Online. Available at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/rcu kopenaccesspolicy-pdf. Accessed March 30, 2018. RDA (Research Data Alliance). 2017a. Long tail of research data IG. Online. Available at https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/long-tail-research-data-ig.html. Accessed Decem- ber 19, 2017. RDA. 2017b. Who Is RDA? Online. Available at https://www.rd-alliance.org/node/51727. Accessed October 9, 2017. Registry of Research Data Repositories. Homepage. Online. Available at https://www. re3data.org. Accessed January 29, 2018. Reichman, J. H., and P. F. Uhlir. 2003. A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems 66:315-462. Research4Life. 2018. Access to Research in the Developing World. Online. Available at http://www.research4life.org. Accessed January 8, 2018. Rios, F. 2016. The pathways of research software preservation: An educational and plan- ning resource for service development. D-Lib Magazine, July/August. Online. Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july16/rios/07rios.html. Accessed May 31, 2018. ROARMAP (Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies). 2018. About the Repository. Online. Available at http://roarmap.eprints.org/information.html. Accessed March 23, 2018.

182 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Rogers, R., A. Roth, A. Smith, and O. Thakkar. 2016. Max-information, differential pri- vacy, and post-selection hypothesis testing. IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science:487-494. DOI 10.1109/FOCS.2016.59. Rosenbloom, J. L., D. K. Ginther, T. Juhl, and J. A. Heppert. 2015. The effects of research & development funding on scientific productivity: academic chemistry, 1990-2009. PLOS One 10(9):e0138176. The Royal Society. 2012. Final Report - Science as an Open Enterprise. Online. Available at https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/Report. Accessed October 12, 2017. Rücknagel, J., P. Vierkant, R. Ulrich, G. Kloska, E. Schnepf, D. Fichtmüller, E. Reuter, A. Semrau, M. Kindling, H. Pampel, M. Witt, F. Fritze, S. van de Sandt, J. Klump, H- J Goebelbecker, M. Skarupianski, R. Bertelmann, P. Schirmbacher, F. Scholze, C. Kramer, C. Fuchs, S. Spier, and A. Kirchhoff. 2015. Metadata Schema for the De- scription of Research Data Repositories. Version 3.0. Registry of Research Data Re- positories. doi: http://doi.org/10.2312/re3.008. Samberg, R., R. A. Schneider, A. Taylor, and M. Wolfe. 2018. What’s behind OA2020? Accelerating the transition to open access with introspection and repurposing funds. Scholarly Communication 79(2). Online. Available at https://crln.acrl.org/index. php/crlnews/article/view/16881/18521. Accessed March 30, 2018. Sample, I. 2012. Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices. The Guardian. Online. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/ harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices. Accessed March 23, 2018. Sansone, S. A., P. Rocca-Serra, and D. Field. 2012. Toward interoperable bioscience data. Nature Genetics 44(2):121-126. Schiermeier, Q. 2017. Hundreds of German universities set to lose access to Elsevier jour- nals: Negotiations to reduce journal prices and promote open access are progressing slowly. Nature 552:17-18. Schirrwagen, J., P. Manghi, and N. Manola. 2013. Data curation in the OpenAIRE schol- arly communication infrastructure. Information Standards Quarterly 25(3):13-19. Schonfeld, R. C. 2017. Elsevier Acquires bepress. The Scholarly Kitchen. August 2. Online. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acqui res-bepress/. Accessed June 7, 2018. Shieber, S. M. 2009. Equity for open-access journal publishing. PLOS Biology 7(8):e1000165. Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000165. Accessed April 24, 2018. Science. 2018. Science Journals: Editorial policies. Online. Available at http://www.sci encemag.org/authors/science-journals-editorial-policies. Accessed March 22, 2018. Science Exchange. 2018. Reproducibility Initiative. Online. Available at https://valida- tion.scienceexchange.com/#/reproducibility-initiative. Accessed May 25, 2018. Science International. 2015. Open Data in a Big World: An International Accord, Extended Version. In collaboration with the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), and the International Social Science Council (ISSC). Online. Available at http://www.science-international.org/sites/default/ files/reports/open-data-in-big-data-world_long_en.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2017. Science-Metrix. 2014. Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals at the European and World Levels—1996-2013. RTD-B6-PP-2011-2: Study to develop a set of indicators to measure open access. Online. Available at http://science-metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_e ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2018.

References 183 Science-Metrix. 2018. Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators: Open Access Avail- ability of Scientific Publications. Montréal, Canada: Science-Metrix Inc. Scientific Data. 2018. Recommended Data Repositories. Online. Available at http://www. nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories. Accessed January 29, 2018. SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics). 2018. Online. Available at https://scoap3.org. Accessed March 30, 2018. SESAR (System for Earth Sample Registration). 2018. Online. Available at http://www.ge osamples.org. Accessed March 21, 2018. Shamir, L., B. Berriman, P. Teuben, R. Nemiroff, and A. Allen. 2018. Best Practices for a Future Open Code Policy: Experiences and Vision of the Astrophysics Source Code Library. Online. Available at https://astrocompute.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/ shamirlior.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2018. SHARE (SHared Access Research Ecosystem). 2018. Online. Available at http://www. share-research.org. Accessed March 28, 2018. SHERPA/Juliet. 2016. Research Funders’ Open Access Policies. Online. Available at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php. Accessed October 20, 2017. SHERPA/RoMEO. 2016. Publisher Copyright Policies and Self-Archiving. Online. Avail- able at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php. Accessed October 20, 2017. Shieber, S. 2015. A Model Open Access Policy. https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/assets/files/ 23.model-policy-annotated_12_2015.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2017. Shieber, S., and P. Suber, eds. 2015. Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies. Produced by the Harvard Open Access Project and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. Online. Available at https://cyber.harvard. edu/hoap/sites/hoap/images/Goodpracticesguide-2015.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2017. Shulenberger, D. 2016. Substituting Article Processing Charges for Subscriptions: The Cure is Worse than the Disease. Association of Research Libraries. Available at http:// www.arl.org/storage/documents/substituting-apcs-for-subscriptions-20july2016.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2018. Simmonds, R., R. Taylor, J. Horrell, B. Fanaroff, H. Sithole, S. J. Van Rensburg, and B. Pretorius. 2016. The African Data Intensive Research Cloud. IST-Africa 2016 Con- ference Proceedings. Online. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp. jsp?arnumber=7530650. Accessed October 13, 2017. Singal, J. 2016. Inside Psychology’s ‘Methodological Terrorism’ Debate. The Cut. October 12. Available at https://www.thecut.com/2016/10/inside-psychologys-methodolog- ical-terrorism-debate.html. Accessed May 31, 2018. Smith, E., S. Parks, S. Gunashekar, C. A. Lichten, A. Knack, and C. Manville. 2017. Open Science: The Citizen’s Role and Contribution to Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Online. Available at https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/ PE246.html. Accessed February 23, 2018. SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). 2012. A SPARC Guide for Campus Action. Online. Available at http://sparc.arl.org/news/youve-signed- boycott-now-what. Accessed November 21, 2017. SPARC. 2016. Author Rights and Author Addendum. Online. Available at http://spar copen.org/our-work/author-rights. Accessed October 20, 2017. SPARC, PLOS (Public Library of Science), and OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publish- ers Association). 2014. HowOpenIsIt? Online. Available at https://www.plos.org/ files/HowOpenIsIt_English.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2018.

184 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Stall, S. 2017. Developing Common Standards for Researchers, Repositories, and Publish- ers to Enable Open and FAIR Data in the Earth and Space Sciences. Presentation to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Toward an Open Science Enterprise, Public Symposium. September 18, 2017. State of Open Data. 2018. About. Online. Available at http://www.stateofopendata.od4d. net/about. Accessed March 23, 2018. Stephan, P. 2012a. How Economics Shapes Science. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Stephan, P. 2012b. Research efficiency: Perverse incentives. Nature 484:29-31. doi:10. 1038/484029a Stephan, P. E., S. Gurmu, A. J. Sumell, and G. Black. 2007. Who’s patenting in the uni- versity? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Tech- nology 16(2):71-99. Stodden, V. 2017. Enhancing Reproducibility for Computational Methods. Presentation to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on To- ward an Open Science Enterprise, First Meeting. July 20, 2017. Stodden, V., F. Leisch, and R. D. Peng. 2014. Implementing Reproducible Research. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. The R series. Stodden, V., M. McNutt, D. H. Bailey, E. Deelman, Y. Gil, B. Hanson, M.A. Heroux, J. P. Ioannidis, and M. Taufer. 2016. Enhancing reproducibility for computational meth- ods. Science 354(6317):1240-1241. Storer, N. W. 1966. The Social System of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Suber, P. 2012. Open Access. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Online. Available at https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Ver sion.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2018. Suber, P. 2015. Open Access Overview. Online. Available at http://legacy.earlham.edu/ ~peters/fos/overview.htm. Accessed November 30, 2017 Swan, A. 2012. Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access. Paris, France: UNESCO (The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Or- ganization). Swan, A. 2016. The costs and benefits to the research community of Open Access: A brief- ing paper. Online. Available at http://pasteur4oa.eu/sites/pasteur4oa/files/resource /Costs%20of%20OA%20final_0.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2018. Sweeney, L. 1996. Replacing personally-identifying information in medical records, the Scrub system. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium:333-337. Sweeney, L. 1997. Weaving technology and policy together to maintain confidentiality. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 25(2-3):98-110. Sweeney, L. 2002. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 10(05):557-570. Sweeney. L. 2003. Identifiability of de-identified pharmacy data. Technical report. Pitts- burgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Data Privacy Lab. Sweeney. L. 2009. Identifiability of de-identified clinical trial data. Technical report. Pitts- burgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Data Privacy Lab. Szalay, A. S. 2017. From SkyServer to SciServer. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 675(1):202-220.

References 185 Sztein, E. 2016. The U.S. Government Role in Preserving Geoscience Sample and Data Collections. American Geophysical Union, Fall General Assembly 2016, abstract #U52A-02. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFM.U52A.02S. Taichman, D. B., P. Sahni, A. Pinborg, L. Peiperl, C. Laine, A. James, S-T. Hong, A. Haileamlak, L. Gollogly, F. Godlee, F. A. Frizelle, F. Florenzano, J. M. Drazen, H. Bauchner, C. Baethge, and J. Backus. 2017. Data sharing statements for clinical tri- als: a requirement of the international committee of medical journal editors. New England Journal of Medicine 376:2277-2279 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1705439. Taubenberger, J. K., D. Baltimore, P. C. Doherty, H. Markey, D. M. Morens, R. G. Web- ster, and I. A. Wilson. 2012. Reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus: Unexpected rewards from the past. mBio 3(5):e00201-12. Tennant, J. P., F. Waldner, D. C. Jacques, P. Masuzzon, L. B. Collister, and C. H. J. Hart- gerink. 2016. The academic, economic, and societal impacts of open access: An ev- idence based review. F1000 Research 5:632. Tenopir, C., E. D. Dalton, L. Christian, M. K. Jones, M. McCabe, M. Smith, and A. Fish. 2017. Imagining a gold open access future: Attitudes, behaviors, and funding sce- narios among authors of academic scholarship. College & Research Libraries 78(6). Online. Available at https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16738. Accessed March 30, 2018. Think, Check, and Submit. 2017. Choose the right journal for your research. Online. Avail- able at http://thinkchecksubmit.org. Accessed December 1, 2017. Tippmann, S. 2015. Programming tools: Adventures with R. Nature 517(7532):109-110. UC (University of California), Academic Senate. 2013. Open Access Policy for the Aca- demic Senate of the University of California, Adopted 7/24/2013. Online. Available at https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/OpenAccess_ adopted_072413.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2017. UC Libraries. 2016. Pay It Forward: Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing Charges for Large North American Research Institutions. Online. Available at http://icis.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UC-Pay-It-Forwa rd-Project-Final-Report.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2017. UC Libraries. 2018. Pathways to Open Access. Online. Available at https://libraries.uni- versityofcalifornia.edu/groups/files/about/docs/UC-Libraries- Pathways%20to%20OA-Report.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2018. UCOLASC (University Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication). 2018. Dec- laration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication. Online. Available at https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/ucolasc/sch olcommprinciples-20180425.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2018. Universities UK. 2017. Monitoring the Transition to Open Access. Online. Available at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/mon itoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2018. University of Minnesota Libraries. 2018. Discipline-Based Data Archives: Depositing Your Data. Online. Available at https://www.lib.umn.edu/datamanagement/data centers. Accessed January 29, 2018. USFSC (U.S. Federal Scientific Collections). 2018. The Registry of US Federal Scientific Collections. Online. Available at http://usfsc.grscicoll.org. Accessed March 29, 2018. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2015. Geological Collection Management System – A Master Catalog and Collections Management Plan for U.S. Geological Survey Ge- ologic Samples and Sample Collections. Online. Available at https://pubs.usgs. gov/circ/1410. Accessed March 29, 2018.

186 Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research USGS. 2018. Data Preservation. Online. Available at https://datapreservation.usgs.gov. Accessed March 29, 2018. Vale, R. D., and A. A. Hyman. 2016. Point of View: Priority of discovery in the life sci- ences. eLife 5:e16931 doi: 10.7554/eLife.16931. Vanhecke, T. E. 2008. Citation and research management tool. Journal of the Medical Li- brary Association 96(3):275-276. Van Noorden, R. 2014. Online Collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 512:126-129. Van Noorden, R. 2017. Gates Foundation demands open access: Global-health charity clashes with leading research journals. Nature 541:270. Vardi, M. Y. 2010. Revisiting the publication culture in computing research. Communications of the ACM 53(3)5. Online. Available at https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/3/76 297-revisiting-the-publication-culture-in-computing-research/fulltext. Accessed May 31, 2018. Vardigan, M. 2013. The DDI matures: 1997 to the present. IASSIST Quarterly 37(1-4):45- 50. Varian, H. R. 1994. Buying, sharing and renting information goods. The Journal of Indus- trial Economics 48(4):473-488. Varmus, H. 2009. The Art and Politics of Science. New York: W.W. Norton. Verzani, J. 2011. Getting Started with RStudio. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Vivli. 2018. About Vivli: Overview. Online. Available at http://vivli.org/about/overview. Accessed June 6, 2018. Voosen, P. 2017. Dueling preprint servers coming for the geosciences. Online. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/dueling-preprint-servers-coming-geo- sciences. Accessed November 10, 2017. Wagner, B. 2014. Open Access Citation Advantage: An Annotated Bibliography Version 3. Online. Available at https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/25214. Accessed May 27, 2018. Wallis, J. C., E. Rolando, and C. L. Borgman. 2013. If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PLOS ONE 8(7):e67332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067332. Wang, X., C. Liu, W. Mao, and Z. Fang. 2015. The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics 103:555-564. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0 Ware, M., and M. McCabe. 2015. The STM Report: An overview of scientific and schol- arly journal publishing. Online. Available at http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02 _20_STM_Report_2015.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2018. Wellcome Trust. 2016. Open Access Policy. Online. Available at https://wellcome.ac.uk/ funding/managing-grant/open-access-policy. Accessed October 20, 2017. Wellcome Trust. 2018. Wellcome Is Going to Review Its Open Access Policy. Online. Available at https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/wellcome-going-review-its-open-access- policy. Accessed May 25, 2018. West, J. D., T. Bergstrom, and C. T. Bergstorm. 2014. Cost effectiveness of open access publications. Economic Inquiry 52(4):1315-1321. The White House. 2009. Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Online. Available at https://obamawhite house.archives.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government. Accessed March 30, 2018.

References 187 The White House. 2013. Executive Order-Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information. Online. Available at https://obamawhitehouse. archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machi ne-readable-new-default-government. Accessed March 29, 2018. Wilkinson, M. D., M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, J-W. Boiten, L. B. da Silva Santos, P. E. Bourne, J. Bouwman, A. J. Brookes, T. Clark, M. Crosas, I. Dillo, O. Dumon, S. Edmunds, C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers, A. Gonzalez-Beltran, A. J. G. Gray, P. Groth, C. Goble, J. S. Grethe, J. Heringa, P. A. C. ’t Hoen, R. Hooft, T. Kuhn, R. Kok, J. Kok, S. J. Lusher, M. E. Martone, A. Mons, A. L. Packer, B. Persson, P. Rocca-Serra, M. Roos, R. van Schaik, S-A. Sansone, E. Schultes, T. Sengstag, T. Slater, G. Strawn, M. A. Swertz, M. Thompson, J. van der Lei, E. van Mulligen, J. Velterop, A. Waagmeester, P. Wittenburg, K. Wolstencroft, J. Zhao, and B. Mons. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Prin- ciples for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3:160018. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18. Williams, H. 2013. Intellectual property rights and innovation: evidence from the human genome. Journal of Political Economy 121(1):1-27. Willinsky, J. 2004. Scholarly associations and the economic viability of open access pub- lishing. Texas Digital Library 4(2). Online. Available at https://journals.tdl.org/ jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/104/103. Accessed April 16. 2018. Wilsdon, J., L. Allen, E. Belfiore, P. Campbell, S. Curry, S. Hill, R. Jones, R. Kain, S. Kerridge, M. Thelwall, J. Tinkler, I. Viney, P. Wouters, J. Hill, and B. Johnson. 2015. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Coun- cil for England): United Kingdom. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363. Wilsdon, J., J. Bar-Ilan, R. Frodeman, E. Lex, I. Peters, and P. Wouters. 2017. Next-gen- eration metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Report of the European Commission Expert Group on Altmetrics. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/re- port.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2018. Wilson, B., and M. Fenner. 2012. Open researcher and contributor ID (ORCiD): Solving the name ambiguity problem. Educase Review 47(3):54-55. Winerman, L. 2017. Trends report: Psychologists embrace open science. American Psy- chological Association 48(10):90. Online. Available at http://www.apa.org/moni tor/2017/11/trends-open-science.aspx. Accessed February 23, 2018. Wittenburg, P., and G. Strawn. 2018. Common patterns in revolutionary infrastructures and data. Draft manuscript. Witze, A. 2016. Iconic Antarctic geology lab gets the boot. Nature News 534(7608):448. Wykstra, S. 2017. Paving the Way to More Reliable Research. Inside Higher Ed. Online. Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/07/10/introducing-new- series-reproducibility-scientific-research-essay. Accessed January 10, 2018. The YODA (Yale University Open Data Access) Project. 2018. Forging a Unified Scien- tific Community. Online. Available at http://yoda.yale.edu. Accessed June 6, 2018. Zimmerman, P. 1995. The Official PGP User’s Guide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zenodo. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://zenodo.org. Accessed March 22, 2018. Zooniverse. Homepage. Online. Available at https://www.zooniverse.org. Accessed Feb- ruary 23, 2018. Zotero. 2018. Homepage. Online. Available at https://www.zotero.org. Accessed March 22, 2018.

Next: Appendix A Committee Member Biographies »
Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Openness and sharing of information are fundamental to the progress of science and to the effective functioning of the research enterprise. The advent of scientific journals in the 17th century helped power the Scientific Revolution by allowing researchers to communicate across time and space, using the technologies of that era to generate reliable knowledge more quickly and efficiently. Harnessing today’s stunning, ongoing advances in information technologies, the global research enterprise and its stakeholders are moving toward a new open science ecosystem. Open science aims to ensure the free availability and usability of scholarly publications, the data that result from scholarly research, and the methodologies, including code or algorithms, that were used to generate those data.

Open Science by Design is aimed at overcoming barriers and moving toward open science as the default approach across the research enterprise. This report explores specific examples of open science and discusses a range of challenges, focusing on stakeholder perspectives. It is meant to provide guidance to the research enterprise and its stakeholders as they build strategies for achieving open science and take the next steps.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!