Université de Lorraine highlights its open science policy on its landing page.

https://www.univ-lorraine.fr

The Lorraine Model : a podcast from UiT, the Artic University of Norway.

#UnivLorraine
#OpenScience
cc @jflutz @AspaasPer

La recherche publique est muselée par le financement sur projets, l'exigence de cofinancements privés, à produire de la "PI" transférable.

Pour expérimenter quoique ce soit, il faut se conformer aux appels qui nous demandent de nourrir la "transition digitale" ou la "révolution de l'IA".

Que certains adhèrent à cette idéologie n'a rien de surprenant. Les jeter en pâture dans des enquêtes-choc n'y changera rien.

Nous avons besoin d'ingénieurs (dev, UX/UI, data) dans les labos de SHS, d' #OpenScience, de transfert vers l'#ESS. Bref, d'une politique de recherche qui surmonte l'impensé numérique.

🔍 [Portrait Science Ouverte #9] À la rencontre de François Dupire, responsable qualité de la plateforme MassLor et ambassadeur Science ouverte au L2CM_UMR7053, un laboratoire de l'Université de Lorraine

La science ouverte, c’est aussi une pratique quotidienne portée par des chercheuses et chercheurs convaincus.

💡 Dans cette interview, François revient sur :
✔️ son engagement dans le réseau des ambassadeurs Science Ouverte de l’Université de Lorraine,
✔️ l’impact du cahier de laboratoire électronique sur les pratiques collaboratives,
✔️ les bénéfices concrets d’un Plan de Gestion de Données d'entité bien structuré,
✔️ et sa vision personnelle d’une science plus rigoureuse, transparente et accessible à tous.

👉 Lire l’interview complète : https://factuel.univ-lorraine.fr/node/30308

#ScienceOuverte #OpenScience

Here is how PCI is elevating the standards for open and reproducible science: introducing 4 already-existing and 2 new features 🧵👇
#OpenScience#Reproducibility

@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(

I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1

"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers."

I enjoy inventing (and teaching) methods for computational (bio)mechanics and computational design.

I am the developer of:
* GIBBON https://www.gibboncode.org/
* Comodo https://github.com/COMODO-research/Comodo.jl

I am an advocate for #openscience #opensource and a co-founder and editor for JOSS, the Journal of Open Source Software.
https://joss.theoj.org/

https://kevinmoerman.org/

When I read posts like this, I sometimes wish to conduct a meta study and ask how well #OpenScience criteria are realized in publications in current papers of a given field. And to compare how the groups of my uni would fit in that distribution.

I would not make friends. Also: It would be a truly Herculean task for which I will not find the time. 🤷‍♂️ 😢

https://fediscience.org/@fresseng/113595003857695255