3 speakers, 15 minutes each, totally badass
Carolyn Broccardo - RePAIR Consensus Guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions and Researchers in Protecting the Integrity of the Research Record
As scientists, we must be acutely aware of the societal impacts of our research data. When the public perception of the research process begins to falter, we have failed in our duty to clearly and honestly convey our work. Furthermore, researchers, institutions, agencies, and publishers or editors have complementary roles and responsibilities in maintaining the integrity of the research record—the very basis for our research communication. However, it can be exceedingly difficult to bring together the key players in this huge research enterprise. In order to bring clarity to this process, we generated guidelines to outline key stakeholder responsibilities when questions arise regarding the integrity of the research record, including possible research or publication misconduct. We identify common barriers to communication as well as potential solutions. The goal of this document is to foster effective communication at all levels of the research life cycle, extending from the researcher to the funding agency.
Wladimir Labeikovsky - A look at data management in a peer-to-peer future
We’ve turned the promise of the web as a platform for sharing scientific data and literature in a decentralized, robustly democratic fashion into a bazaar of largely non-interoperable silos controlled mostly by rent-seeking, scale-obsessed concerns. What would it look like if we redecentralized the web, or at least the parts of the web where we exchange scientific information? I’ll present a high-level, whirlwind tour of the current projects and applications (e.g. dat, IPFS and their brethren) that aim to rebuild the web in this fashion. How does a decentralized web augment efforts in data sharing and preservation? What are the pitfalls and costs of going peer-to-peer? How can data librarians and researchers contribute to get it right?
Cat Bens - Bias Control: Protecting Us From Ourselves
Not too long ago, Francis Bacon issued his philosophical work entitled, Novum Organum Scientiarum (‘new instrument of science’), that continued our understanding about the scientific method by focusing on empirical investigation. He noted that as humans we are programmed to pay more attention to evidence that agrees with our preconceptions and to reject evidence that doesn’t. If we want to learn more about the universe, we needed to take this inherent tendency toward natural bias into consideration in the design of scientific experimentation and focus on empirical investigation. It’s been 400 years since Novum Organum and we as researchers still struggle with preventing non-random error from influencing our research planning, conduct, analysis and reporting. This presentation will provide a quick reminder of the real danger of research bias and go over some of the techniques we can use to control or limit bias in research.