Tag Archives: open science

A month ago, I had the opportunity to attend the Dagstuhl Seminar  Citizen Science: Design and Engagement. Dagstuhl is really a wonderful place. This was my fifth time there. You can get an impression of the atmosphere from the report I wrote about my first trip there. I have primarily been to Dagstuhl for technical topics in the area of data provenance and semantic data management as well as for conversations about open science/research communication.

This seminar was a great chance for me to learn more about citizen science and discuss its intersection with the practice of open science. There was a great group of people there covering the gamut from creators of citizen science platforms to crowd-sourcing researchers. 17272.01.l

As usual with Dagstuhl seminars, it’s less about presentations and more about the conversations. There will be a report documenting the outcome and hopefully a paper describing the common thoughts of the participants. Neal Reeves took vast amounts of notes so I’m sure that this will be a good report :-). Here’s a whiteboard we had full of input:

2017-07-05 11.28.24.jpg

Thus, instead of trying to relay what we came up with (you’ll have to wait for the report), I’ll just pull out some of my own brief highlights.

Background on Citizen Science

There were a lot of good pointers on where to start understand current thinking around citizen science. First, two tutorials from the seminar:

What do citizen science projects look like:

Example projects:

How should citizen science be pursued:

And a Book:

Open Science & Citizen Science

Claudia Göbel gave an excellent talk about the overlap of citizen science and open science. First, she gave an important reminder that science in particular in the 1700s was done as public demonstrations walking us through the example painting below. 2017-07-04 11.23.02

She then looked at the overlap between citizen science and open science. Summarized below:


A follow-on discussion at the with some of the seminar participants led to input for a whitepaper that is being developed through the ECSA on Citizen & Open Science for Europe. Check out the preliminary draft. I look forward to seeing the outcome.

Questioning Assumptions

One thing that I left the seminar thinking about was was the need to question my own (and my field’s) assumptions. This was really inspired by talking to Chris Welty and reflecting on his work with Lora Aroyo on the issues in human annotation and the construction of gold sets.  Some assumptions to question:

  • What qualifications you need to have to be considered a scientist.
  • Interoperability is a good thing to pursue.
  • Openness is a worthy pursuit.
  • We can safely assume a lack of dynamics in computational systems.
  • That human performance is good performance.

Indeed, in Marissa Ponti she pointed to the example below and highlighted some of the potential ramifications of what each of these (what at first blush are positive) citizen science projects could lead to. 2017-07-03 10.06.36

That being said, the ability to rapidly engage more people in the science system seems to be a good thing indeed. An an assumption I’m happy to hold.


Last week (Jan 29 & 30), I was at the NSF & Sloan foundation workshop: Supporting Scientific Discovery through Norms and Practices for Software and Data Citation and Attribution. The workshop is in the context of the NSF’s dear colleague letter on the subject. The workshop brought together a range of backgrounds and organizations from Mozilla to NIH and NASA. I got to catch up with several friends but was able to meet some new folks as well. Check out the workshop’s github page with a list of 22 use cases submitted to the workshop.

I was pleased to see the impact impact of the work of FORCE11 on helping drive this space. In particular, the Joint Principles on Data Citation and Resource Identifiers (RRIDS) seem to be helping the community focus on citing other forms of scholarly output and were brought up several times in the meeting.

I think there were two main points from the conference:

  1. We have the infrastructure.
  2. Sustainability


It was clear that we have much of the infrastructure in-place to enable the citation and referencing of outputs such as software and data.

In terms of software, piggy backing off existing infrastructures seems to be the most likely approach. The versioning/release mindset built into software development means that hosting infrastructure such as Github or Google Code provide a strong start. These can then be integrated with existing scholarly attribution systems.My colleague Sweitze Roffel presented Elsevier’s work on Original Software Publications. This approach leverages the existing journal based ecosystem to provide the permanence and context associated with things in the scientific record. Another approach is to use the data hosting/citation infrastructure to give code a DOI e.g. by using Zenodo. Both approaches work with Github.

The biggest thing will be promoting the actual use of proper citations. James Howison of University of Texas Austin presented interesting deep dive results on how people refer to software in the scientific literature  (slide set below) (Githhub). It shows that people want to do this but often don’t know how. His study was focused I’d like to do this same study in an automatic fashion on the whole of the literature. I know he’s working with others on training machine learning models for finding software mentions so that would be quite cool. Maybe it would be possible to back-fill the software citation graph this way?

In terms of data citation, we are much farther along because many of the existing data repositories support the minting of data citations. Many of the questions asked were about cases with changing or mash-ups of data. These are impotent edge cases to look at. I think progress will be made here by leveraging the landing pages for data to provide additional metadata. Indeed, Joan Starr from the California Digital Library is going to bring this back to the DataCite working group to talk about how to enable this. I was also impressed with the PLOS lead Making Data Count project and Martin Fenner’s continued development of the Lagotto altmetrics platform. In particular there was discussion about getting a supplementary guideline for software and data downloads included in COUNTER. This would be a great step in getting data and citation properly counted.


Sustainability is one of the key questions that have been going around in the larger discussion. How do we fund software and data resources necessary for the community. I think the distinction that arose was the need to differentiate between:

  • software as an infrastructure; and
  • software as an experiment/method.

This seems rather obvious but the tendency is for the later to become the former and this causes issues in particular for sustainability.

Issues include:

  1. It’s difficult to identify which software will become key to the community and thus where to provide the investment.
  2. Scientific infrastructure software tends to be funded on project to project basis or sometimes as a sideline of a lab.
  3. Software that begins as an experiment is often not engineered correctly.
  4. As Luis Ibanez from Google pointed out, we often loose the original developers overtime and there’s a need to involve new contributors.

The Software Sustainability Institute in the UK has begun to tackle some of these problems. But there is still lack of clear avenues for aggregating the funding necessary. One of the popular models is the creation of a non-profit foundation to support a piece of software  but this leads to “foundation fatigue.” Others approaches shift the responsibility to university libraries, but libraries may not have the required organizational capabilities. Katherine Skinner’s recent talk at FORCE 2015 covered some of the same ground here.

One of the interesting ideas that came up at the workshop was the use of other parts of the University institution to help tap into different funding streams (e.g. the IPR office; university development office). An example of this is Internet2 which is sponsored directly by universities. However, as pointed out by Dan Katz, to support this sort of sustainability there is a need to have insight into the deeper impact of this sort of software for the scientific community.


You can see a summary of the outcomes here. In particular, take a look at the critical asks. These concrete requests were formulated by the workshop attendees to address some of the identified issues. I’ll be interested to see the report that comes out of the workshop and how that can help move us forward.

%d bloggers like this: