This document discusses leveraging the power of the open web for science. It notes that current systems are creating friction despite original intentions of openness. It advocates for building capacity for open, web-enabled research through infrastructure, tools, standards, incentives and training to support reuse, collaboration and interoperability. The goal is to foster sustainable communities of practitioners doing open science.

1. kaitlin thaney
@kaythaney ; @mozillascience
open repositories / 9 june 2015
leveraging the power
of the web for science

2. doing good is part of our code

3. help researchers leverage
the power of the open web.

4. learning around
open source, data sharing
needed to further open practice;
empowering others to lead in
their communities.

5. code
(interop)
community
(people)
code/data literacy
(means to learn/engage)

6. (0)

8. our current systems are
creating friction.
despite original intentions.

9. current state of science
articles
data
patents

10. some have a firehose
articles
data
patents

11. quality versus quantity
measured systems

12. Source: Michener, 2006 Ecoinformatics.

14. (1)

15. what do we mean by
“web-enabled
research”?

17. communication
access, reuse, scale
community-building
the web as a platform

18. power, performance, scale

19. - access to content, data, code, materials.
- emergence of “web-native” tools.
- rewards for openness, interoperability, collaboration, sharing.
- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.
“web-enabled research”

20. research social capital capacity
infrastructure layers for
open research
open tools
standards
best practices
research objects
scientific software
repositories
incentives
recognition / P&T
interdisciplinarity
collaboration
community dialogue
training
mentorship
professional dev
new policies
recognition
stakeholders: universities, researchers,
tool dev, funders, publishers, libraries...

21. (2)

22. our models of discovery
are rapidly evolving.
shift from institutional to distributed.

23. http://bit.ly/1eZZC0f

25. access vs utility
how to reconcile?

26. http://bit.ly/1MEcOmD
An example of a false-positive in the field of Solar—Terrestrial research: A Purported
relationship between Neutron monitor changes and extremes of the Indian Monsoon
Dr. Benjamin A. Laken, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway

27. (3)

28. freedom to prototype
and innovate.
(connecting the dots.)

29. code as a research object
what’s needed to reuse ?
http://bit.ly/mozfiggit

33. <institutional archives>
<national archives>
<code repos>
syndication and storage
(via APIs)

34. http://softwarediscoveryindex.org/report/

35. from campaigning to discovery

39. open, iterative
development
the “work in progress” effect

41. http://openresearchbadges.org/

43. http://mozillascience.org/contributorship-badges-a-new-project/

44. (4)

45. how do we build
capacity?
furthering adoption of
open, web-enabled research

46. fostering a (sustainable)
community of practitioners

47. rewards, incentives,
reputation

49. Source: Piwowar, et al. PLOS.

50. supports needed for
“professional development”

51. “Reliance on
ad-hoc, self-
education
about what’s
possible
doesn’t scale.”
- Selena Decklemann

52. https://mozillascience.github.io/studyGroupHandbook/

54. resbaz.edu.au

55. mozillascience.org/collaborate

57. lowering barriers to entry
(+ leveling the playing field)

58. focus on building capacity,
not just more nodes.

59. (5)

60. http://ukiyo-e.org/ ; @jeresig

61. we have a history of
working collaboratively.
(but there’s room for improvement.)

63. 63 nations
10,000 scientists
50,000 participants
can we do the same / better
for research on the web?

64. think beyond access, to
utility.
design for interoperability.
remember the
non-technical challenges.

65. we’re here to help.
http://mozillascience.org
sciencelab@mozillafoundation.org

66. kaitlin@mozillafoundation.org
@kaythaney ; @mozillascience
special thanks: