The document provides an overview of new collaborative tools that are enabling open science practices. It discusses the need for open sharing of knowledge and peer collaboration. It then summarizes several new platforms, services, and trends that are helping facilitate open sharing of research outputs like pre-prints, as well as tools for peer review, project collaboration, and evaluating research in new ways beyond traditional metrics like the impact factor. The document highlights the evolving scholarly communications landscape and opportunities provided by open science.

1. Open Science in practice: new collaborative tools
Elena Giglia
Open Access office – University of Turin
elena.giglia@unito.it Photos are mine, https://www.flickr.com/photos/eg65/albums

2. Zen scholarly communication?
SKILLS AND SERVICES NEEDED FOR THE GREAT CONVERSATION
SHOULD SERVE ITS OBJECTIVES, NOT THE REVERSE.
WHAT DOES SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION NEED TO WORK?
 crystals of knowledge
 a set of peers
Stern, Niels, Guédon, Jean-Claude; Jensten, Thomas Wiben (2015). Crystals of Knowledge Production. An Intercontinental
Conversation about Open Science and the Humanities. “Nordic Perspectives on Open Science”, [S.l.], v. 1, p. 1–24, oct. 2015

3. https://101innovations.wordpress.com/
https://101innovations.wordpress.com/
A blurred environment…
Kramer, Bianca (2016), Defining the scholarly Commons. Reimagining research communications. Workshop notes and visualizations, Feb. 2016
600

4. Going deeper…

5. A shift towards pre-prints
http://asapbio.org/
http://www.nature.com/news/biologists-urged-to-hug-a-preprint-1.19384
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6288/899.full
https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/27/preprint-biology-bioxriv/

6. New trends in publishing
https://thewinnower.com/
http://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v1

7. A change of perspective
https://www.pubpub.org/
https://www.scienceopen.com/

8. A change of content

9. Loosening the grip
https://www.openlibhums.org/
http://www.lingoa.eu/
http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/

10. Bridging the gap
http://www.rapidscience.org/reward-metrics/

11. Building together
https://www.authorea.com/
https://www.overleaf.com/
http://f1000.com/work/

12. Not only texts
https://github.com/
https://figshare.com/
https://zenodo.org/
http://www.slideshare.net/

13. Not only authors
https://publons.com/
https://www.peerageofscience.org/

14. Redesigning
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01302597
http://www.openscholar.org.uk/institutional-repositories-start-to-offer-peer-review-services/

15. Peer review?
http://retractionwatch.com/
FC. Fang, A. Casadevall, Retracted Science and the Retraction Index, Infection and Immunity, 2011; 79(10): 3855–3859

16. Brembs, Digital Scholarship and Open Science need a digital infrastructure , Nov. 2015
http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/04/how-can-academia-kick-its-addiction-to-the-impact-factor/
https://royalsociety.org/events/2015/04/future-of-scholarly-scientific-communication-part-1/

17. Flying high
https://royalsociety.org/events/2015/04/future-of-scholarly-scientific-communication-part-1

18. Opening up evaluation
http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/02/the-open-citation-index/ http://sparceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Evaluate-SEBriefingPaper-1215.pdf
http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351
http://www.ascb.org/dora/

19. E.Giglia, Un altro mondo è possibile: dall’Open Access alla Open Science, Bibliotime 1 2016
That’s all!