presented at the Geneva Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI9), Geneva, June 18, 2015 Science is in transition. If all goes well, the transition is towards more open, efficient and honest/reproducible practices. Libraries should move with this change by supporting open science instead of just open access. Building on their successful project "101 innovations in scholarly communication" Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer present their interpretations of what is going on and can be expected in the six phases of the research cycle. They have tested their hypothetical workflows and show how real, day-to-day research workflows are changing from traditional to modern, innovative and experimental. These changes are reflected in tools and sites people use in various phases of that workflow. They might for example change from Web of Science → SPSS → Word+Endnote → Nature → ResearcherID → Impact Factors to Sparrho → ROpenScience+IPythonNotebooks → WriteLateX+Docear → The Winnower → Kudos → Publons+PubPeer. The way new generations of researchers work affects how information will be discovered, re-used, created, shared, communicated and assessed. There are huge opportunities for libraries and other stakeholders to contribute and work with the research community, but only if they are well prepared!

1. (except logo’s)
The good, the efficient, and the open
changing research workflows and the need to move from Open Access to Open Science
Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman , Utrecht University Library
Geneva Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI9), Geneva, June 18, 2015
@MsPhelps
@jeroenbosman

2. analysis
outreach
assessmentpublication
writingdiscovery

3. Simple cyclic model of the research workflow
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery

4. Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

5. Multi-cyclic model of the research workflow, with
loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

6. A multi-cyclic, multi-ordered
model of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

7. A multi-cyclic, multi-ordered
model of the research workflow, with loops
preparation
analysis
writingpublication
outreach
assessment discovery
Rounds of grant writing
and application
Iterations of
search and reading
Drafting, receiving
comments,rewriting
Submit, peer review,
rejection, resubmitting
Rounds of experiments
and measurements

8. Three goals for science & scholarship (G-E-O)
• declaring competing interests
• replication & reproducibility
• meaningful assessment
• effective quality checks
• credit where it is due
• no fraud, plagiarism
• connected tools & platforms
• no publ. size restrictions
• null result publishing
• speed of publication
• (web)standards, IDs
• semantic discovery
• re-useability
• versioning
open peer review •
open (lab)notes •
plain language •
open drafting •
open access •
CC-0/BY •
good
efficient open
technical
changes &
standards
research
governance
changes
economic
& copyright
changes
researcher
funder
publisher
public
government library

9. good
efficient open
Ongoing discussions
researcher
funder
publisher
public
government library

11. 2005
2010
Analysis
Outreach

12. Changing research workflows
Open Science

13. Survey: scholarly communication tools

14. Survey: scholarly communication tools

15. Survey: 1st 1000 results
What is you research role? What discipline are you working in?

16. Survey: 1st 1000 results
64 countries
1 300

17. Breakdown examples
What tools do you use to get access to literature etc.?

18. Breakdown examples
What tools do you use to archive/share data &code ?

19. Tool combinations in workflows
ResearchGate
(share pub +
researcher profile)
SPSS
LaTeX
1000
0

20. Distribution across Good-Efficient-Open
Good Efficient Open
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

21. Make these data work for you
?

22. Make these data work for you
Do Asian postdocs look more to impact
factors to select a journal to publish in than
their Latin American counterparts?

23. Make these data work for you
Is sharing ‘preprints’ gaining traction beyond
the fields of astronomy, physics and math, and
if so, what platforms are used?

24. Make these data work for you
Which tools are used in multiple research
phases, and are they leading tools
in any of these phases?

25. Policy applications

26. Policy applications

27. “Focus shifting from ‘journals’
to individual publishable units
(articles, but also other research output)”

28. “Clear(er) shift towards open science /
open access, leading to a diminishing
importance of traditional journals”

29. Call to action
[Tussenslide (of transitie in slide) over custom URL?]
http://101innovations.wordpress.com

30. Call to action
[Tussenslide (of transitie in slide) over custom URL?]
http://101innovations.wordpress.com
custom URL

31. Call to action

32. Thank you!