Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Acceso Público. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Acceso Público. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, 16 de febrero de 2014

New Science Journal to Launch

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of the journal Science, announces plans for a new digital open-access publication, Science Advances.


 
ELIZA GRINNELL, HARVARD SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES

At the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago today (February 12), the organization announced the launch of its newest journal, a broadly focused, online-only publication called Science Advances. The journal will be fully open access, with authors paying article processing fees for publication, and will cover topics from life science to the social sciences to technology, engineering, and mathematics.

“This new publication is designed to encourage transformative research and attract a wide readership,” Science Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt said in a press release. “Science is becoming more integrated and interdisciplinary. This is why we decided to establish a single new journal with the broadest possible array of outstanding content, encompassing all fields of science.”

Science Advances is expected to debut next year. Manuscripts submitted to Science, Science Translational Medicine, or Science Signaling that receive favorable reviews will be automatically considered for publication in the new journal. “The goal is to speed publication, alleviate the burden on the reviewer community, and reduce the risk to authors of having to resubmit elsewhere,” McNutt and Alan Leshner, the association’s chief executive officer and executive publisher of Science, wrote in an editorial published this week.

“Since the mid-1990s, technology has posed new challenges for traditional scholarly publications, but it is also creating new opportunities, particularly for online collaboration among researchers,” Leshner said in a statement. “Our new journal will expand authors’ choices as well as the amount of scientific information that reaches the public.”

Tags technology, STEM, science publishing, publishing, open access publishing, open access, mathematics and bioengineering



ORIGINAL: The Scientist

By Jef Akst

February 12, 2014

domingo, 2 de febrero de 2014

"Desarrollo a Escala Humana". Libro por Manfred Max-Neef

Por Manfred A. Max-Neef
con colaboraciones de:
Antonio Elizalde y Martín Hopenhayn

Conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas reflexiones

Este documento cristaliza un trabajo esencialmente transdisciplinario realizado por un equipo de investigadores de distintos paíse s de América Latina. El trabajo fue preparado a lo largo de un año y medio con la colaboración de profesionales provenientes de Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Colombia, México, Brasil, Canadá y Suecia, dedicados a disciplinas tales como economía, sociología, psiquiatría, filosofía, ciencia política, geografía, antropología, periodismo, ingeniería y derecho. Los participantes constituyeron un grupo estable de reflexión e investigación colectiva que se reunió, en el curso de los dieciocho meses de trabajo, en tres seminarios - talleres, manteniendo contacto intelectual es trecho y permanente desde el comienzo hasta el término del proyecto.

Además del grupo estable, cuya continuidad permitió profundizar la reflexión colectiva en torno a problemáticas específicas del desarrollo, hubo invitados especiales en cada una de las reuniones. Los principales insumos para este trabajo lo constituyen los relatorios de cada uno de los Seminarios, Talleres y distintos documentos producidos por lo participantes. La redacción final estuvo a cargo del equipo del CEPAUR y apunta más a integrar de manera coherente la diversidad de los aportes que a reflejar la opinión particular de cada uno de los participantes. El documento producido sobre la base de los tres talleres, fue discutido en un seminario de evaluación final, en el centro Dag Hammarskjöld en Uppsala.1

Prefacio 
La propuesta que aquí se contiene constituye un aporte para una filosofía del desarrollo. Pretende por lo tanto, ser un aporte sugerente, susceptible de ahondarse en cualquiera de los múltiples ámbitos que aborda. El proyecto fue realizado de manera conjunta por el Centro de Alternativas de Desarrollo (CEPAUR) de Chile y por la Fundación Dag Hammarskjöld de Suecia. Nació de la necesidad de situar en el contexto latinoamericano (y a la luz de los cambios de escenario ocurridos durante el último decenio) la propuesta contenida en el Informe Dag Hammarskjöld de 1975 «Qué hacer: Otro Desarrollo». El texto resultante aspira a tener como interlocutores a agentes del desarrollo regional, planificadores y políticos, grupos de desarrollo local, académicos de diferentes disciplinas relevantes para el desarrollo, foros internacionales y profesionales e intelectuales dedicados a pensar caminos de humanización para un mundo en crisis.

La propuesta contenida en este trabajo es, pues, un esfuerzo por integrar líneas de reflexión, de investigación y de acción que puedan constituir un aporte sustancial para la construcción de un nuevo paradigma del desarrollo, menos mecanicista y más humano. La primera parte de este libro, fue publicada en 1986 como número especial de la revista Development Dialogue con el título Desarrollo a Escala Humana: una opción para el futuro. A esta edición, se ha sumado una nueva sección: «Notas sobre Metodología», así como dos nuevos capítulos que constituyen la Segunda Parte de este libro. De éstos, el primero es una versión ampliada del ensayo «La poda del lenguaje» que fue publicado en 1988 en Development , la revista de la Sociedad para el Desarrollo Internacional. El otro capítulo incorporado, es una versión corregida de la conferencia que el autor dio en el marco de la Conmemoración de Schumacher, octubre de 1989 en Bristol, Inglaterra. Estas dos adiciones al libro, representan, aunque no sean productos terminados, al menos, caminos hacia campos nuevos y de la XII Región. Chile, por su apoyo entusiasta y la eficaz realización de varios seminarios regionales llevados a cabo durante el período de ejecución de este proyecto. Sin el apoyo intelectual y material de estas instituciones, no hubiera sido posible la terminación exitosa de este proyecto. abiertos de investigación y reflexión. Subrayan el carácter elusivo e interminable de la búsqueda de respuestas finales para la cuestión del mejoramiento humano a través del desarrollo. El Centro de Alternativas de Desarrollo - CEPAUR - es una organización no gubernamental de espectro internacional, dedicada, a través de la investigación de naturaleza transdiciplinaria y proyectos de acción, a una reorientación del desarrollo, a través de la promoción de formas de autodependencia local que satisfa gan las necesidades fundamentales de los seres humanos, y de una manera má s gener al, a promover el desarrollo a escala humana.

Las oficinas de CEPAUR están en la Avenida Santa María 349, Apto 42 - B, Santiago, Chile, y la dirección postal es :

CEPAUR, Casilla 27001, 
Santiago 27, Chile. 
Manfred Max - Neef
Director Ejecutivo, CEPAUR

1 El equipo encargado de este proyecto desea expresar su agradecimiento a los funcionarios y acádemicos de la Universidad de La Serena en Chile, la Universidad Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil y la Fundación para el Desarrollo


ORIGINAL: Manfred Max-Neef (Enlace para descarga del libro)

domingo, 19 de enero de 2014

How to find an appropriate research data repository?

As more and more funders and journals adopt data policies that require researchers to deposit underlying research data in a data repository, the question how to choose a repository becomes more and more important. Heinz Pampel is one of the people behind re3data.org, an Open Science tool that helps researchers to easily identify a suitable repository for their data and thus comply to requirements set out in data policies.

Background

The debate on open access to research data is gaining relevance. This February, the federal agencies in the U.S. have been told by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to maximize access to data from publicly funded research. In June, the G8 science ministers published a set of principles for open scientific research data. The ministers declared that, if possible, „publicly funded scientific research data should be open“. And already last year, the European Commission announced a pilot framework in Horizon 2020, the coming EU framework programme for research and innovation, to promote open access to research data.

Although scientists agree with the potential benefit of data sharing for the scientific progress, the majority is reserved when it comes to practical implementations. One reason for the reluctance is a lack of reliable “systems that make it quick and easy to share data” (Tenopir et al. 2011).

The current landscape of data repositories is heterogeneous. Some initiatives like the Data Seal of Approval (DSA) and the World Data System (WDS) are working on the standardization of data repositories. And there are already certification and auditing procedures for data repositories. Two examples are the DIN 31644 and the ISO 16363 standards. But these standards are not widely used yet. Research data repositories and their services are mostly characterized by the scientific discipline in which they work. They store a wide variety of file formats under different conditions for access and reuse. In many cases it is difficult for researchers to find an appropriate repository for the storage of their data. To overcome these shortcomings we started re3data.org – Registry of Research Data Repositories.

re3data.org – Registry of Research Data Repositories

Launched in 2012, re3data.org provides an overview of existing research data repositories. In September 2013, re3data.org lists 600 research data repositories, 400 of these are described in detail by a comprehensive vocabulary. The registry covers data repositories from all academic disciplines.

In re3data.org researchers can easily see the terms of access and use of each data repositories and other characteristics. Information icons help researchers to easily identify an adequate repository for the storage and reuse of their data.


Aspects of a Research Data Repository with the corresponding icons used in re3data.org.

re3data.org covers the following aspects of a research data repository:
  • general information (e.g. short description of the repository, content types, keywords),
  • responsibilities (e.g. institutions responsible for funding, content or technical issues),
  • policies (e.g. guidelines and policies of the repository),
  • legal aspects (e.g. licenses of the database and datasets),
  • technical standards (e.g. APIs, versioning of datasets, software of the repository),
  • quality standards (e.g. certificates, audit processes).
The re3data.org portal offers two search possibilities:
  • (1) free text search through a simple search box, and 
  • (2) filters for more specific searches. 
In the list of results each record includes the name of the repository, the subjects covered, a brief description of the content and a set of icons visualizing key properties of the repository. A comprehensive view of the descriptive record of the repository can be obtained by clicking on the name of the repository in the search results. It is also possible to simply browse through the list of indexed data repositories.

Example screenshot of search results for geosciences data repositories using persistent identifiers.

Operators of data repositories can suggest their infrastructures to be listed in re3data.org by filling in an online application form. A repository is indexed when the minimum requirements for inclusion in re3data.org are met. These requirements are described in the re3data.org vocabulary. The project team reviews each repository and reviewed repositories are identified by a green check mark.

The project cooperates with other Open Science initiatives like
Some publishers already refer to re3data.org in their Editorial Policies as a tool for the identification of suitable data repositories.
Next Steps
In the upcoming project phase the focus will be on improving usability and implementing new features. Among other things, the dialog with repositories operators will be supported by a workflow system. Beyond the development of the registry, the project will promote the standardization of research data repositories.

re3data.org is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Project partners are GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). These three partners, with their expertise in information infrastructures, guarantee the sustainability of the registry.

Further information on re3data.org can be found in a recently published article in PLOS ONE:

Pampel, H., et al. (2013). Making Research Data Repositories Visible: The re3data.org Registry. PLOS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078080


ORIGINAL: PLOS
By Heinz Pampel
November 4, 2013 

miércoles, 1 de enero de 2014

3D Brain Maps Guide Doctors — via iPhone



Here, the brain has been neatly sliced in half.
Credit: Albert L. Rhoton Jr., MD, 2007.


Far from the state-of-the-art medical facilities available in the United States, many brain surgeons in developing countries look to their smartphones for guidance. The phones have started to fulfill this role, in part, thanks to the thousands of 3D brain images, produced by Dr. Albert Rhoton at the University of Florida, that are freely available online.

"I've had young surgeons from Africa, Brazil and other countries tell me they're pulling the images into the operating room" and using them during surgery, said Rhoton, head of the Neuro-Microanatomy Lab at the University of Florida's McKnight Brain Institute.

From its beginnings as a training tool for surgical residents, the doctor's image library has grown into the world's largest collection of 3D brain images. Physicians across the globe now use the detailed anatomical images to train residents, prepare for surgeries and even guide them when performing surgery. [Gallery: See the Amazing 3D Images of the Human Brain]

Human Brain
Neural Connections
Brain Atlas
Brain Blueprint
Brain Blocks
Neurocortex

The images are "our small contribution to making what is a delicate, awesome experience for neurosurgery patients more accurate, gentler and safer," Rhoton told LiveScience.

Rhoton has collected images of brain anatomy for as long as he's been teaching surgery — 50 years — and began moving to 3D technology 25 years ago. Only recently, however, did he realize how smartphones and online download venues could expand the reach of his educational tools. Two and a half years ago, Rhoton and his colleagues began working with the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) to make the brain images and videos available on iTunes University — all at no cost.

Even before the iTunes U venture, Rhoton had shared his brain images with hospitals and universities as a visiting instructor. "I've always given these images to those who wanted to use them," he said, "in the hopes that they would help some patient I'll never know and never meet."

  The big blue structure here (dyed by Rhoton for easy viewing) shows where the great cerebral vein drains blood from the cerebrum. Credit: Albert L. Rhoton Jr., MD, 2007.

The guides show the detailed structures of various sections of the brain, with blood vessels and nerves color-coded in bright red and blue. The colors make the details of neural anatomy much clearer than in the normal, grayish brain matter.

Rhoton and the residents he instructs have built up the library over decades, performing careful dissections and transferring the images they obtain to 3D photography and video. The iTunes U content is engineered to be usable across device platforms, from iPhones to laptops to 3D television.

Having images in 3D provides advantages over 2D images for brain surgeons, Rhoton said. For instance, two-dimensional content tends to flatten brain anatomy, obscuring the way nerves, veins and other structures traverse the brain matter, he said. Surgeons viewing the 3D images, in contrast, can plan a precise surgical path, avoiding delicate structures whose damage would have dire consequences.

With 3D images, "the anatomy is displayed in such a way that you can orient the images to the direction of approach the surgeon is using in the OR [operating room]," Rhoton said. "You can see where the nerves and structures are that need to be protected in that particular area, using that specific approach, in that specific direction."

Rhoton and AANS have formatted the images with a menu, so that users can control the angle and area of the brain they want to view; users can even click links to call up medical literature related to the portion of the brain they're viewing.

Rhoton's work earned him the 2011 Surgeon of the Year award from the journal World Neurosurgery. His images and educational efforts have helped "several thousands of neurosurgeons scattered across the planet to save millions of lives," Dr. Hildo Azevedo-Filho, chairman of neurological surgery at the University of Pernambuco in Brazil, wrote in recognizing the award.

After seeing how surgeons have used his images during actual surgeries, Rhoton and the AANS next hope to feed the brain maps directly into endoscope screens used in surgery. They're developing technology that would split that screen to show Rhoton's images side by side with the live feed from cameras inserted into the patient's brain.

Moreover, Rhoton said the library of images and videos will only continue to grow. "We've just scratched the surface on the number of images," he said.

Follow Michael Dhar @michaeldhar. Follow us @livescience, Facebook& Google+.

ORIGINAL: Live Science
By Michael Dhar, LiveScience Contributor
December 30, 2013

lunes, 2 de septiembre de 2013

eLife digital publication

ORIGINAL: http://elife.elifesciences.org/about-the-journal

eLife is a researcher-led, open access digital publication for outstanding research in life science and biomedicine.

The eLife journal is a platform to maximise the reach and influence of new findings and a showcase for new approaches to the presentation, evaluation and use of research.

eLife is a collaboration between the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, the Wellcome Trust, and over 200 of the world’s most talented biomedical scientists.

We aim to make eLife the first choice journal for all researchers, in particular for early-career researchers. It’s important that early experiences of publishing are constructive and fair. eLife is a publishing venue to advance careers in science; the editors act decisively and provide a swift, fair and supportive author experience; and we maximise the potential exposure for all published works.

At eLife, our goal is to accelerate scientific advancement by making new research available quickly, openly, and in a way that helps others to build upon it. We make data more accessible and more useable. We aim to create a broader audience for important discoveries, and to track and report the impact of published articles – on research, and on society as a whole.

Review Process



eLife returns decisions on important papers quickly. Our peer-review process is rigorous, but decisive, constructive, and fast.

At eLife, we’ve taken a fresh approach to peer review to save you time, and to provide clear direction and constructive input.
  • Decisions are quick and efficient
  • Revision requests are designed to be clear and manageable
  • Multiple rounds of revision are usually avoided

Here's how it works

Submissions are evaluated by a team of academic editors who are active and respected researchers, who have expertise across disciplines, and who are committed to assessing submissions efficiently and fairly. Our approach focuses on delivering the highest level of service to authors and saving time along the way.

Initial decisions are delivered quickly

Our Senior Editors decide whether initial submissions are appropriate for in-depth peer review, usually in consultation with members of the Board of Reviewing Editors. We ask for the research article in a single PDF along with a cover letter. Only once editors commit to full review are authors asked to provide additional information and files to support the peer-review process. We aim to return initial decisions within three to five days. 

Active scientists make all decisions
A Senior editor assigns a member of the Board of Reviewing Editors to oversee the peer-review process. The Reviewing editor usually reviews the article him or herself, calling on one or two additional reviewers as needed.

Revision requests are consolidated
Reviewers get together online to discuss their recommendations, communicating openly with one another before a decision is reached, refining their feedback, and striving to provide clear and concise guidance. If the work needs essential revisions before it can be published, the Reviewing editor incorporates those requirements into a single set of instructions. We aim to deliver decisions after peer review within a month of receiving the full submission.

Limited rounds of revision
Further rounds of revision are largely eliminated, as the Reviewing editor is able to assess most revised submissions without further outside review.

Decisions and responses are available for all to read
We include the most substantive parts of the decision letter after review and the associated author responses alongside published articles, subject to author agreement, so that readers can assess and comment on the review process too.

jueves, 11 de julio de 2013

Open Data Tools: Turning Data into ‘Actionable Intelligence’

ORIGINAL: SciLogs
by Shannon Bohle
10 July 2013

My previous two articles were on:
open access("Open Access Advocates Trumpet the Fall of the Paywall") and  
open data("What is E-science and How Should it be Managed?"). 
They conveyed major changes that are underway around the globe in the methods by which scientific and medical research findings and data sets are circulated among researchers and disseminated to the public. I showed how E-science and ‘big data’ fit into the philosophy of science though a paradigm shift as a trilogy of approaches: deductive, empirical, and computational, which was pointed out, provides a logical extenuation of Robert Boyle's tradition of scientific inquiry involving “skepticism, transparency, and reproducibility for independent verification” to the computational age.

The Honourable Robert Boyle 1627–1691, Experimental Philosopher
(Image credit: Wellcome Library, London). Published with written permission.
First published in 1661,
The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly call'd Hypostatical; As they are wont to be Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is præmis'd Part of another Discourse relating to the same Subject was written by Robert Boyle and is the source of the name of the modern field of 'chemistry.'  Image credit: Project Gutenberg.
There has been a strong support in the belief that information should be freely available, a tradition that libraries have advocated since the days of Andrew Carnegie’s campaign to build free public libraries in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, beginning in 1883. That policy is now being backed through legislative policy in the US, UK, and the EU mandating that scientific and medical articles and their data be freely accessible to the public when they are a result of taxpayer’s funding. The control over the dissemination of this scientific information seems up for grabs and challenges the traditional model of subscription-based journals as the primary mode by which this information is circulated. Libraries, publishers, commercial entities, as well as government agencies, are all competing against one another for the unfettered access and publication of these “free” materials for the potential revenue streams they will bring in. Supposedly, these revenues will occur through memberships and advertising in the case of journal publishers, continued state and grant funding in the case of libraries, advertising and new product creation in the case of commercial enterprises, as well as job continuation or shifted positions with new duties for civil servants and government contractors through compliance with legislative mandates, Congressional requests, and Presidential directives. Competition, as usual, is also occurring within these sectors amongst one another. Hopefully, all this disruption and competition will lead to valuable new economic growth and benefits for society. Making the published articles and credited data openly available is just the first step. How can that data be cleaned and merged with similar data perhaps from disparate sources? How will it be visualized to make the data clearer? How will the data be stored and preserved so that it is not corrupted over time? 


Video credit: Digital Curation Centre. "Managing Research Data."
Produced by Piers Video Production, (Duration: 0:12:36).

This third article on open access and open data evaluates new and suggested tools when it comes to making the most of the open access and open data OSTP mandates. According to an article published in The Harvard Business Review’s “HBR Blog Network,” this is because, as its title suggests, “open data has little value if people can't use it.” Indeed, “the goal is for this data to become actionable intelligence: a launchpad for investigation, analysis, triangulation, and improved decision making at all levels.” Librarians and archivists have key roles to play in not only storing data, but packaging it for proper accessibility and use, including adding descriptive metadata and linking to existing tools or designing new ones for their users. Later, in a comment following the article, the author, Craig Hammer, remarks on the importance of archivists and international standards, “Certified archivists have always been important, but their skillset is crucially in demand now, as more and more data are becoming available. Accessibility—in the knowledge management sense—must be on par with digestibility / 'data literacy' as priorities for continuing open data ecosystem development. The good news is that several governments and multilaterals (in consultation with data scientists and - yep! - certified archivists) are having continuing 'shared metadata' conversations, toward the possible development of harmonized data standards...If these folks get this right, there's a real shot of (eventual proliferation of) interoperability (i.e. a data platform from Country A can 'talk to' a data platform from Country B), which is the only way any of this will make sense at the macro level.” 


Image credit: Rock Health. Rock Health is a business incubator started by four Harvard graduates, and has an impressive lineup of partners such as Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Genentech, and others. They offer many resources, like these free videos, and a four month program for those wishing to create new tools for mobile and health 2.0 initiatives.
From a business perspective, the management of open data in the health sciences, for example, holds both the potential to reduce losses and increase profits. Preserving, storing, and retrieving data in a manageable fashion, then, will affect not only data consumers but also data producers. According to a National Law Review article published in late June this year, the “increased availability of health care data means more oversight and more litigation” because “data is the lifeblood of health care fraud enforcement efforts” which affects the overall cost structure of service provision. According to a report by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “health care fraud costs the country an estimated $80 billion a year…[so] rooting out health care fraud is central to the well-being of both our citizens and the overall economy.” At the same time as cutting fraud and waste, data tools developed by U.S. “digital health startups net[ted] $849M in investments in first half of 2013," and $78M of that was attributed to analytics and 'big data.'

What Percentage of Caregivers Conduct the Following Online Health-Related Activities?

"A survey by the Pew Research Center and the California HealthCare Foundation finds that 72% of caregivers reported going online to find health information, while 52% have participated in online social activities related to health and 46% have gone online for a diagnosis." (Image credit: iHealthBeat, Pew Research Center / California HealthCare Foundation.

Additionally, a report by issued in June 2013 by The Pew Research Center and the California HealthCare Foundation indicated that as many as "39% of U.S. adults are caregivers and many navigate health care with the help of technology," but of those, "39% of caregivers manage medications for a loved one; few use tech to do so." Similarly, it reported, "Most caregivers say the internet is helpful to them" and "nine in ten caregivers own a cell phone and one-third have used it to gather health information." It seems, then, that a viable window is open for new open data tools in the area of internet and mobile technologies to provide caregivers with more information about medical tests, medications, and clinical trials using metadata descriptors.

Nature will launch Scientific Data in 2014.

"Scientific Data is a new open-access, online-only publication for descriptions of scientifically valuable datasets. It introduces a new type of content called the Data Descriptor, which will combine traditional narrative content with curated, structured descriptions of research data, including detailed methods and technical analyses supporting data quality. Scientific Data will initially focus on the life, biomedical and environmental science communities, but will be open to content from a wide range of scientific disciplines. Publications will be complementary to both traditional research journals and data repositories, and will be designed to foster data sharing and reuse, and ultimately to accelerate scientific discovery."


Video credit: Nature, "Scientific Data."

In addition to financial rewards, there are also financial incentives sponsored by government agencies, non-profit charities, publishers, and for-profit businesses to develop tools and to create successful commercial projects engaged in data re-use. The Obama administration is offering a “Big Data Research Initiative” backed by $200M for new projects routed through six departments: DARPA, DOE, DOD, HHS/NIH, NSF, and USGS. The deadline to reply to this year’s call for projects involving big data collaborations is September 2, 2013. Interested individuals can send proposals to the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program (BigDataprojects@nitrd.gov). A detailed description of the requirements can be found on their website. According to a White House press release, Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated that,
John P. Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Image credit: Wikipedia).

“In the same way that past Federal investments in information-technology R&D led to dramatic advances in supercomputing and the creation of the Internet, the initiative we are launching...promises to transform our ability to use Big Data for scientific discovery, environmental and biomedical research, education, and national security,” This is the second year of the Big Data Initiative, and “the Administration is encouraging multiple stakeholders including federal agencies, private industry, academia, state and local government, non-profits, and foundations, to develop and participate in Big Data innovation projects across the country.”

Victoria Costello (vcostello@plos.org) of PLOS I OPEN FOR DISCOVERY manages the ASAP awards program, which is sponsored by 27 global organizations including Google, PLOS, and the Wellcome Trust. “The ASAP Program will award three top awards of $30,000 each” in October 2013 to recognize the best in creative data “reuse, remixing, [and] repurposing—which enables countless clinical translations and subsequent discoveries based on previously published (OA) research.” Similarly, Eli Lilly will be accepting submissions until October 2, 2013, for a "Clinical Trial Revisualization Design" competition, and is giving away $75K in cash and prizes. Their goal is to encourage "designers and developers to re-imagine clinical trial information in a patient-centric way [because] clinical trial information can often be dense and difficult to digest from a patient’s perspective." 

Betsy L. Humphreys, Deputy Director, National Library of Medicine (Image credit: National Library of Medicine).
Published with written permission from Betsy L. Humphreys.
Going back to 2011, before the recent open access and open data mandates, the National Library of Medicine sponsored their own contest, "NLM Show Off Your Apps: Innovative Uses of NLM Information", with 35 entries using their biomedical data. Wondering if databases such as PubMed Central might make use of added metadata from the field of health informatics, and open data elsewhere, I contacted Betsy L. Humphreys (blh@nlm.nih.gov), Deputy Director of the National Library of Medicine, to discuss the feasibility of adding health information metadata tags found in electronic health records (EHRs) to the records in their database, either on their side or on the entrepreneurial side of things. 

According to Humphreys, my concept of “connecting EHRs with NLM databases is very sensible,” but directly adding metadata tags is not a very practical approach. Part of the problem in doing this lay in the sheer number of PubMed records, more than 22 million of them, and the fact that they are updated nightly. Another major problem is that whenever the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) or the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) (used to identify lab tests and clinical observations) is updated, some of the records with those tags would need updating. Perhaps the best reason why this approach should not be implemented by the NLM, Humphries informed me, is that within PubMed Central, there is a lot of interoperability, including a correspondence table that includes SNOMED CT using the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Metathesaurus, and whenever possible, records are mapped with their synonyms. But, on the entrepreneurial side of things, she said, "there are indeed many EHR vendors who use the MedlinePlus Connect API, which enables the use of SNOMED CT, LOINC, or RxNorm in search arguments, in order to integrate NLM’s data into an electronic health record through a patient portal.” The interview with Humphreys left me with hope that there are indeed ample opportunities for entrepreneurs to create new data tools or physical products that create something new through mashups that combine electronic health records, published medical research records in existing databases like Medline Plus, PubMed, and PubMed Central, as well as other data.

When working with government data it may be helpful to keep a few key guidelines in mind. The problem is, there are many guidelines. A working group within OpenGovData.org developed "8 Principles of Open Government Data" which are: " 
  1. Data Must Be Complete... 
  2. Data Must Be Primary... 
  3. Data Must Be Timely... 
  4. Data Must Be Accessible... 
  5. Data Must Be Machine processable... 
  6. Access Must Be Non-Discriminatory... 
  7. Data Formats Must Be Non-Proprietary... 
  8. Data Must Be License-free." 
This is very similar to the Sunlight Foundation's "Ten Principles for Opening Up Government Information"—
  1. Completeness... 
  2. Primacy... 
  3. Timeliness 
  4. Ease of Physical and Electronic Access... 
  5. Machine readability... 
  6. Non-discrimination... 
  7. Use of Commonly Owned Standards...
  8. Licensing... 
  9. Permanence... 
  10. Usage Costs.
Open government data initiatives could also be held up to a 5-star rating method, which has been proposed by Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web:
  • * Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open licence to be Open Data
  • ** Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. Excel instead of image scan of a table)
  • *** As (2), plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of Excel)
  • **** All the above, plus use W3C open standards (RDF and SPARQL)
  • ***** All the above, plus link your data to other people’s data to provide context
Pictured above is Matthew D. Carmichael delivering a talk about data integrity for archival administration of digital data and other e-records. Information critical to the safekeeping of digital data was discussed at the Fourth Annual Virtual Center for Archives and Records Administration (VCARA) Conference on Digital Stewardship & Knowledge Dissemination in the 21st Century held on May 22, 2013, and hosted in the virtual world Second Life by San Jose State University’s School of Library and Information Science. The conference promoted “the impact of archivists, records administrators and digital curators on the future of knowledge dissemination in the context of cultural heritage institutions.” Rating the Quality of Open Data

The Open Data Institute has created an "Open Data Certificate" for data and rates it against a checklist. Certificates awarded grade data as "Raw: A great start at the basics of publishing open data, Pilot: Data users receive extra support from, and can provide feedback to the publisher, Standard: Regularly published open data with robust support that people can rely on, and Expert: An exceptional example of information infrastructure." In 2009, The White House created a scorecard by which open data can be evaluated according to 10 criteria: "
  • high value data, 
  • data integrity, 
  • open webpage, 
  • public consultation, 
  • overall plan, 
  • formulating the plan, 
  • transparency, 
  • participation, 
  • collaboration, and 
  • flagship initiative." 
The U.S. government's simple stoplight-like rating system was as follows: green for data that "meets expectations," yellow for data that demonstrates "progress toward expectations," and red for data that "fails to meet expectations." At the other end of the spectrum, there is an exceptionally complex checklist offered by OPQUAST. On May 9, 2013, President Obama issued an Executive Order "Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information" wherein a new "Open Data Policy" has just been established and being newly implemented through "Project Open Data" in which there are seven key principles: "public, accessible, described, reusable, complete, timely, and managed post-release." There does not seem to be an associated rating system, however, to evaluate how well the data complies with the principles. Finally, Nature has has set up three criteria for data: firstly, "experimental rigor and technical data quality," secondly, "completeness of the description," and lastly, "integrity of the data files and repository record."

Finding Solutions with Data Analysis and Visualization
Personally, while at Cambridge, I veered from historical preservation a bit and spent some time studying about the preservation of modern science data. As a librarian and archivist, knowing how to preserve scientific and and medical history meant learning about some of the standard file formats in which science data is typically stored, the software tools used to create and analyze scientific data (which may also be required for reproducibility and long-term access to preserved data sets), along some hands-on training to actually use those software tools.

I completed computer training useful in scientific computing through the UCS service, such as "Programming Concepts for Beginners," "Python: Introduction for Absolute Beginners," "Unix Intro," "Unix: Simple Shell Scripting for Scientists," "Programming Concepts-Pattern Matching," "Emacs," "mySQL," and "Condor and CamGRID" used in parallel, distributed, and grid computing. I did not have the opportunity to work with Cambridge’s COSMOS, “the world's first national cosmology supercomputer,” which was “founded in January 1997 by a consortium of leading UK cosmologists, brought together by Stephen Hawking.” But it would have been pretty exciting to use this data-intensive system.

The truth is, many scientists are routinely employed in hacking their own programs to link measuring equipment, data analysis, and visualization together and my best guess is that they would benefit from more end-to-end integrative open source software systems development. While by no means exhaustive, I compiled a list linking to 349 subject specific tools and 123 general tools that are useful for all of this newly available open data. Certainly, some if not all of the tools in this list might have its quality rated according to the eight aforementioned standards.

More than 349 Subject Specific Open Data Tools
• Earth, geology, ecology, climate, and weather sciences tools include Microsoft’s SciScope. Metadata standards include EML (The Ecological Metadata Language) and the ISO 19115:2003 International Standard for Geographic Information. Polymaps is a tool for making dynamic, interactive maps.
Weather Modeling (Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
• GoGeo is a UK-based site that provides a listing of 161 free software products, 50 data services, and 10 search portals relating to geographical information. A standard for this field is the CSDGM (Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata).
• Berkeley compiled a good listing of molecular biology resources including databases and tools for protein and nucleotide sequencing as well as model organisms. Foldit is a game that enables players to solve real problems in protein folding through its simulation software. Some of the metadata standards in the biological fields include: ABCD (Access to Biological Collections Data) Schema developed by the (Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG) of Australia and with the International Union of Biological Sciences, Darwin Core, developed in Australia by TDWG for natural history specimens and observations, Genome Metadata, MIGS/MIMS (Minimum Information About a (Meta)Genome Sequence), and FGDC. GenBank Flat File Format is a standardized format for biological data.
• In astronomy, NASA maintains the FITS file format standard and documentation. A new metadata astronomy thesaurus to provide better linking among scholarly astronomy articles, called the Unified Astronomy Thesaurus (UAT), was recently released. The World Wide Telescope (WWT) “is an application that runs in Windows that utilizes images and data stored on remote servers enabling you to explore some of the highest resolution imagery of the universe available in multiple wavelengths.” An international consortium comprised of the Spitzer Science Center, ESA/Hubble, California Academy of Sciences, IPAC/IRSA, and the University of Arizona established a metadata standard for astronomy called the Astronomy Visualization Metadata Standard.
• CERN developed ROOT, a tool for ‘big data’ analysis in physics, and CASTOR (Cern Advanced STORage Manager) that is written in Scientific Linux for storage management of ‘big data’ physics files.
• Chemistry tools include PubChem, ChemSpider, Chemical Markup Language (CML), as well as eBank UK, a digital repository for crystallographic data.
• In medicine, several online tools allow patients to better manage their health care through a Personal Health Record (PHR) including: Microsoft HealthVault, PatientsLikeMe, getHealtZ, onpatient, WebMD Health Record, and Patient Ally. Other tools include EM data analysis and visualization of the brain like NeuroTrace. CARMEN (Code, Analysis, Repository and Modeling for e-Neuroscience) in the UK is a virtual neurophysiology laboratory. Amira was designed for data analysis and visualization in the life sciences along with MeVisLab for medical image processing and visualization. ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Data Element Definitions and Infobuttons are useful when working with data in the health sciences. Standard tools include PubMed, PubMed Central, MedlinePlus, and GenBank.

123 General Open Data Tools (Organized by Topic)

Data Analysis and Calculation, Data Mining, Graphics Plotting, Image Processing, Data Visualization and Simulation, Reports: Avizo, Cave5D, ELKI, Excel, Feko, Fiji, ggplot2, GIMP, Gnuplot, GoogleVis, Graph, IDL, ImageJ, JMP, KaleidaGraph, MATLAB, Multiphysics, NumPy, Omniscope, OpenCV, OpenGL, OpenGL Vizserver, Open Office, OriginLab, ParaView, PCA/PLS plots, Photoshop, RGGobi, SCIDAVIS, SCILAB, SciPy, SenseWeb, Simulink, Stata, Tableplot, Tabplots, VisIt, Wolfram Alpha, Word. (39 tools).



Data Storage or Repository: arXiv, CEPH, D-Space: RTI and ControlDesk, DataFlow / DataBank, Dryad. (5 tools).

File Sharing, Identification, and Management: CollateBox, FigShare, Libmagic, TrlD File Identifier for .NET. (4 tools).

Instrument Control: LabVIEW. (1 tool).

e-GMS (e-Government Metadata Standard) 1.0-2002, GDFR (Global Digital Format Registry), ISO 8:1977 Publishing, ISO 215:1986 Publishing, ISO 23081, ISO International Standards on Archives and Records Management, ISO IT Applications in Science, ISO Medical Science and Health Care Facilities, ISO Natural Sciences (07), JHOVE, JHOVE2, METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard), MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema), NISO Z39.87-2006 Metadata for Images in XML, OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting), OData (Open Data Protocol ), PREMIS (Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies), PRONOM, RAD (Rules for Archival Description), RDF(Resource Description Framework), RIR (Representation Information Registry Repository), SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) Core, Standard Archive Format for Europe (SAFE), UDFR (Universal Digital Format Registry),


Will ‘Actionable Intelligence’ Ultimately be a Result of ‘Artificial Intelligence’?
Despite the fact that my research proposal to enter the computer science graduate program at Cambridge (below) was not accepted, as a proposal, I thought it raised some relevant points about the future applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning for integration and analysis of science data across platforms or in the cloud:

Methodological Approaches in Artificial Intelligence for the Reuse of "Big Data" in Scientific Computing
Preservation of the science cyberinfrastructure requires an understanding of long-term and archival digital storage formats, data provenance, metadata schemas, and storage repositories essential for both reproducibility and accountability of scientific results and reuse of existing science data sets. These two factors drive mandated availability of prepublication data sets[1] in scientific research projects generated from governmentally-funded agencies like the NSF[2], NIH[3], MRC[4] and Wellcome Trust[5].
Rules mandating data reuse hold the potential to optimize research fiscal spending, spur unprecedented new scientific discoveries in digital repositories by finding relationships across differently funded projects, and promote greater scientific collaboration amongst geographically separated institutions. Yet, in a 2005 symposium on digital biology, additional problems cited “bottlenecks” that “occur owing to our limited capacity to control quality and integrate data from myriad sources, to share data across multiple tasks and to exchange data among different people and organizations...Problems with data integration affect all data tasks, including semantic interpretation, data representation, modeling, data storage and query."[6]
Despite the fact funders require data set policies, they leave standards to individual institutions; concurrency of metadata standards within and across disciplines has not occurred, though some advocate RDF for semantic interoperability. Legacy data provide substantial difficulty in updating to new standards and backlogs exist: "Even if standards to facilitate data discoverability, access, and use were to be introduced in the future ... huge problems ... applying ... standards retrospectively to the huge amounts of existing data that do not conform to them [was forseen]."[7]
Another problem is that achieving scalability requires supervised, semi-supervised or autonomous automation. I would like to explore the use of artificial intelligence, establishing and monitoring probabilistic relationships across legacy and new linked and/or unlinked datasets housed within distributed or cloud-based data repositories, as a more robust way to search legacy data and data with missing or minimal metadata. This approach may hold the potential for innovative breakthrough discoveries in fields such as basic biological research, clinical medical research, genomics, proteomics, climate modeling, and computational astrophysics.

Sources:
1. Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors. (9 September 2009). Nature 461, 168-170 doi:10.1038/461168a
2.National Science Foundation. (January 2011). Chapter II - proposal preparation instructions. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#dmp
3. National Institutes of Health. (April 17, 2007). NIH data sharing policy. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/
4.Medical Research Council. (September 2011). MRC policy on research data-sharing. Retrieved from http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Ethicsresearchguidance/datasharing/Policy/index.htm
5. Wellcome Trust. (August 2010). Policy on data management and sharing. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTX035043.htm
6. Morris, R. W., et al. (2006). Digital biology: an emerging and promising discipline. Trends in Biotechnology, doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2005.01.005
7. Smithsonian Institution. Office of Policy Analysis. (March 2011) Sharing Smithsonian digital scientific research data from biology. Retrieved from http://www.si.edu/content/opanda/docs/Rpts2011/DataSharingFinal110328.pdf

The future of AI lies in the imagination. Fortunately, ideas and concepts can be simulated even if it is not yet possible to actualize them in the real world. In my award-winning Mars environment simulation, Curiosity AI, an embodied artificial intelligent agent could search through academic databases in various subjects like astronomy and provide answers, and robot equipment could perform in-situ analysis of data. The humanoid robot could command and operate expert AI systems and launch a swarm designed to take temperature and pressure readings in the environment. The data I used in my expert system for the Phoenix Lander were raw archived data from the NASA mission (because that was what I had available through the Mars Data Archive), but the concept was designed with the idea in mind that AI would enable the processing and calculation of real-time in-situ mission data directly from instruments on Mars.

The amount of raw scientific and medical data is swelling beyond what can be viewed and interpreted by individuals without the intermediary aid of machines filtering and computing that data deluge for us. As such, the paradigm shift introducing the computational approach mentioned at the beginning of this article may become Kuhnian, sweeping away and gaining domination over the two older scientific approaches.

I can only conclude this article on open data tools by saying that when attempting to be knowledgeable about many things, it usually results in becoming an expert at nothing. Find the tools that work best for you and stick with them; however, every now and again it is good to see what new tools might be out there, and now is that time.

If you enjoyed this three-part series and would like more information, NISO will be conducting two webinars later this year on “Research Data Curation:” Part 1: E-Science Librarianship (September 11, 2013) and Part 2: Libraries and Big Data (September 18, 2013).

Disclaimer: I own a startup company (not mentioned here) related to computer technology, primarily engaged in library and archives consulting, computer technology R&D, 3-D modeling and simulation, and artificial intelligence research.

domingo, 13 de enero de 2013

Our tribute to Aaron Swartz – #pdftribute

January 13, 2013

Swartz at 2009 Boston Wikipedia Meetup
Aaron was an activist, a champion, and an incredibly smart guy who worked on things he really cared about. So much has been said about his life, his death, and his fight for research open access — and I’m glad to be part of this conversation.

Late last night, I noticed that @evavivalt was opening access to her papers online in tribute to the memory of Aaron Swartz. I tweeted to some people I know in Silicon Valley, and to some friends of Aaron’s, and then Anonymous picked it up — and it just caught on. We’ve now had over 3.5 million impressions and over 500 tweets per hour.

This is something we can do for the memory of Aaron Swartz, and to lead the way toward more access to the scientific process for everyone.

Now is the time to participate.

If you’re in the UK, write to @ukhouseoflords using this link as they are accepting comment on these issues over the next couple of weeks. If you’re in the United States, perhaps you can help launch a similar inquiry at the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology by tweeting to @SciSpaceTechCmt.

For hackers, perhaps you can take all of the #pdftribute files and put them on a central web page. Maybe other journals will follow (or exceed!) JSTOR’s lead and give more open access. Whatever happens, let’s all be a part of it.

Please tweet your papers using #pdftribute!

Aaron H. Swartz (November 8, 1986 – January 11, 2013) was an American computer programmer, writer, archivist, political organizer, and Internet activist. Swartz co-authored the "RSS 1.0" specification of RSS[2], and built the Web site framework web.py and the architecture for the Open Library. He also built Infogami, a company that merged with Reddit in its early days, through which he became an equal owner of the merged company.[i]

Swartz also focused on sociology, civic awareness and activism. In 2010 he was a member of the Harvard University Center for Ethics. He cofounded the online group Demand Progress (best known recently for its campaign for Richard O'Dwyer) and later worked with US and international activist groups Rootstrikers and Avaaz.

On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested in connection with systematic downloading of academic journal articles from JSTOR, which became the subject of a federal investigation.[3][4] JSTOR offended Swartz mainly for two reasons: 

  • it charged large fees for access to these articles but did not compensate the authors and 
  • it ensured that huge numbers of people are denied access to the scholarship produced by America's colleges and universities.[5][6] 
On January 11, 2013, Swartz was found dead in his Crown Heights, Brooklyn, apartment, where he had hanged himself.[7][8][9]

UPDATE: #pdftribute hashtagged tweets http://t.co/7PjIZp5y by @patricksocha and @devopstom