Show your work: Tools for open developmental science.

<em> The second installment of the paper (first part here) where I discuss building tools for Open (or indeed any) Science. </em> <strong> Tools for open science – building around the needs of scientists </strong> It is the rapid expansion and development of tools that are loosely categorised under the banner of 'Web2.0' or 'Read-write web' that makes the sharing of research material available.

Funders are well positioned to shift the incentives for open science inherent in grant application processes and improve the way research is evaluated. Institutions can change the status quo by promoting and rewarding researchers careers, and collaborating with research libraries in contributing to development of the European Open Science (EOSC) infrastructure, tools and relevant skills. This document elaborates on the outcome of the workshop Research Institutions and Libraries and the role of Funders in the European Open Science Cloud held at the LIBER 2018 Conference in Lille, France. It sets a vision in which open science is the norm, and all funding bodies as well as institutions and researchers recognise the benefit of open science and embed best open science practice into their processes.

In order to create the necessary conditions for life and development of society, the production of various products are organized. The nomenclature and consumer qualities of the produced products are determined by the level of scientific and technical development, economic and social living conditions. For the production of products, houses and buildings are erected, which are equipped with certain means of production. The term of functioning of means of production is due to physical and moral wear and tear of machines and mechanisms. Buildings and structures in, which means production are located and function also age physically and morally, although this aging occurs slower than the means of production.Scientific and technical progress is currently characterized by a faster onset of wear and tear of the nomenclature of manufactured products. In addition, in connection with the changes taking place in society, the nomenclature of manufactured products replaced. The problem of retooling the functioning industry (replacing morally or physically outdated means of production, the emergence of need to produce new types of products) arose before humanity a long time ago.Under reconstruction - the production of works, which carried out according to single project:- with a change in volume-planning decisions;- replacement or strengthening of existing structures;- demolition of existing and construction of new structures related to the operation of technological equipment;- with the replacement of obsolete or physically worn equipment;- with mechanization, production automation, etc. When carrying out the reconstruction of the main production facility, as a rule, significant volumes of work are always performed on auxiliary and service facilities.Reconstruction also includes the construction of new workshops and facilities instead of those, which being liquidated, the further operation of which is deemed impractical due to technical and economic conditions. They can be erected both on free territories and on areas vacated as a result of the liquidation (demolition) of the object.Technical re-equipment is clear as the implementation of a set of measures in accordance with the technical development plan of the enterprise according to projects and estimates for individual objects and types of work (without expanding existing production areas) to raise the technical level of individual areas of production, aggregates, and installations to modern requirements by introducing new equipment and technology, mechanization and automation of production processes, modernization and replacement of obsolete or physically worn equipment with new, more productive ones.Sometimes technical rearmament considered as a type of reconstruction with a relatively small amount of construction and installation work. As it is not difficult to see from the given definitions, new construction and expansion are in fact new construction, while the difference between them is only in the conditions of execution of works. Expansion of construction is carried out in difficult (compressed) conditions. Technical rearmament, as it was emphasized, mainly involves the organization of the dismantling of the old and the installation of new equipment on the existing foundations.In the future, the main attention will be paid to the issues of actual reconstruction, namely:- organization of works related to the strengthening of existing building structures, their replacement with temporary transfer of loads;- replacement of beams and trusses in areas of the covering located in areas difficult to reach for installation cranes;- by increasing the pitch of the columns without disassembly.

Collaborative Open Science is essential to addressing complex challenges whose solutions prioritize integrity and require cross-domain integrations. Today, building workflows, processes, and data flows across domains and sectors remains technically difficult and practically resource intensive, creating barriers to whole-systems change. While organizations increasingly aim to demonstrate accountability, they often lack the tools to take action effectively. By making it simple to connect data and platforms together in transparent, reusable and reproducible workflows, the OGC Open Science Persistent Demonstrator (OSPD) aims to enable responsible innovation through collaborative open science. The OSPD focuses specifically on using geospatial and earth observation (EO) data to enable and demonstrate solutions that create capacity for novel research and accelerate the practical implementation of this research.Collaborative Open Science and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data are widely recognized as critical tools for taking advantage of the opportunities created through addressing complex social and environmental challenges. To date, many millions have been invested in hundreds of initiatives to enable access to analytical tools, provide data management, data integration and exchange, translate research results, and support reproduction and testing of workflows for new applications. These investments have resulted in a plethora of new data, protocols, tools and workflows, but these resources frequently remain siloed, difficult to use, and poorly understood, and as a result they are falling short of their full potential for wider impact and their long term value is limited.This presentation will illustrate how the OGC OSPD Initiative, through its design, development and testing activities, provides answers to leading questions such as:How can we design Open Science workflows that enable integration across platforms designed for diverse applications used in different domains to increase their value? How can we lower barriers for end users (decision makers, managers in industry, scientists, community groups) who need to create Open Science workflows, processes, and data flows across domains and sectors remains technically difficult and practically resource intensive, creating? How can Open Science workflows and platforms enable collaboration between stakeholders in different domains and sectors? How can we empower organizations to demonstrate accountability in their analytical workflows, data, and representations of information through Open Science? What Open Science tools do organizations need to take action effectively? How can Open Science and FAIR data standards practically support accountability? How can we make it simple to connect data and platforms together in transparent, reusable and reproducible (FAIR) workflows? What are the specific challenges of using geospatial, earth observation (EO), and complementary data in this context?

Citizen Science, the active involvement of lay people without any academic education in the scientific process, has experienced a massive increase in academic fields and projects in the last years. This active involvement can be designed in many different ways, which is often project and context specific. The popularity of citizen science goes hand in hand with the discussion about open science, and in fact both concepts are deeply connected with each other in many ways. Whereas in open science lay people don’t have to be involved in a project necessarily, citizen science often uses open science methods and tools to make this active involvement possible. In this text, we will give a short introduction to citizen science, its connections to open science, and the developments of citizen science in Austria in the last years and in the future?

Galileo’s greatest contribution did not involve lenses, pendulums or mathematics. His most revolutionary act – what is at the core of what might be called the Galilean moment – was to usher in a way of looking at the world in which we can look at the heavens with lenses, think of its chandeliers and swings as pendulums, and read its book in the language of mathematics. This is more than a scientific development; it is at once an intellectual and a cultural transformation. The Galilean moment connects with the humanities in two ways. One is that Galileo, thanks to his training in the humanities, was able to transform mathematics from what was essentially a branch of philosophy and theology, studied by artists and humanists, into a tool for scientists. But if the humanities were a legacy that made the Galilean achievement possible, that achievement now posed a fundamental challenge for the humanities: how to characterize the relation between that mathematically structured world and our own. This is a second way in which the humanities are connected with the Galilean moment. The humanities still struggle to cope with that challenge, which will eventually force the humanities to rethink their role.

In recent years, different countries have implemented the teaching of computer programming from the first grade in schools, with the aim of incorporating computational thinking as a new way of thinking that is a necessary skill for scientific and technological development, a fundamental axis for development in the 21st century. Recent reviews of the state of the art have shown that this task is only being carried out by countries that have given space to technology and science, incorporating it at the elementary school level. However, developing countries do not yet consider the significance of the issue, so to date they have not taken the necessary steps in this direction. In addition, learning computer programming is fundamental for countries to join technological development, so that they can be creators of technology and not just users of it. The problem is that there is no didactic development for the teaching of programming, nor validated evaluation instruments to quantify the learning of computer programming. The objective of this research is to validate a programming test that evaluates technical skills in the Python programming language. The instrument proposed to be validated is a 90-item test, which after validation by experts was reduced to 70 items, and after the psychometric analysis that considered the calculation of reliability, difficulty and discrimination indexes, resulted in the proposed 45-item instrument, as a standard instrument for the evaluation of learning in the Python programming language. It should be noted that the validation methodology was carried out using the classical theory of psychometric analysis.

The Open Science and Innovation Vision included in ESA’s EO Science Strategy (2024) addresses 8 key elements: 1) openness of research data, 2) open-source scientific code, 3) open access papers with data and code; 4) standards-based publication and discovery of scientific experiments, 5) scientific workflows reproducible on various infrastructures, 6) access to education on open science, 7) community practice of open science; and 8) EO business models built on open-source. EarthCODE (https://earthcode.esa.int) is a strategic ESA EO initiative to support the implementation of this vision. EarthCODE (Earth Science Collaborative Open Development Environment) will form part of the next generation of cloud-based geospatial services, aiming towards an integrated, cloud-based, user-centric development environment for European Space Agency’s (ESA) Earth science activities. EarthCODE looks to maximise long-term visibility, reuse and reproducibility of the research outputs of such projects, by leveraging FAIR and open science principles and enabling, thus fostering a sustainable scientific process. EarthCODE proposes a flexible and scalable architecture developed with interoperable open-source blocks, with a long-term vision evolving by incrementally integrating industrially provided services from a portfolio of the Network of Resources.  Additionally, EarthCODE is a utilisation domain of EOEPCA+, contributing to the development and evolution of Open Standards and protocols, enabling internationally interoperable solutions.  EarthCODE will provide an Integrated Development Platform, giving developers tools needed to develop high quality workflows, allowing experiments to be executed in the cloud and be end-to-end reproduced by other scientists. EarthCODE is built around existing open-source solutions, building blocks and platforms, such as the Open Science Catalogue, EOxHub and EOEPCA. It has additionally begun to integrate platform services from DeepESDL, Euro Data Cube, Polar TEP and the openEO federation on CDSE platforms, with more being added annually through ESA best practices. With it’s adopted federated approach, EarthCODE will facilitate processing on other platforms, i.e. DeepESDL, ESA EURO Data Cube, Open EO Cloud/Open EO Platform and AIOPEN/AI4DTE.   The roadmap for the portal includes the initial portal release by end of 2024, followed by the capability to publish experiments in Q1 2025 (including development, publishing, finding and related community engagement), and by mid-2025 to have a further release with reproducibility capabilities around accessibility and execute functionalities.  Collaboration and Federation are at the heart of EarthCODE. As EarthCODE evolves we expect providing solutions allowing federation of data and processing. EarthCODE has ambition to deliver a model for a Collaborative Open Development Environment for Earth system science, where researchers can leverage the power of the wide range of EO platform services available to conduct their science, while also making use of FAIR Open Science tools to manage data, code and documentation, create end-to-end reproducible workflows on platforms, and have the opportunity to discover, use, reuse, modify and build upon the research of others in a fair and safe way. Overall, EarthCODE aims to enable elements for EO Open Science and Innovation vision, including open data, open-source code, linked data/code, open-access documentation, end-to-end reproducible workflows, open-science resources, open-science tools, and a healthy community applying all the elements in their practice.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents were extensive, touching aspects of their lives such as those reviewed in this Special Section : school experiences, family relationships, peer relationships, and civic engagement. In parallel with these effects on individuals, the fields of developmental and psychological science were shaken up by this global crisis. The accelerated transition to online data collection and collaboration presented opportunities to expand research on adolescence, breaking down many physical and social barriers to participation and sparking methodological innovation. Yet, this crisis also shed light on the global digital divides and the uneven impacts of the pandemic across the research community. This commentary reflects on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the methods and methodologies of developmental science, the challenges and opportunities it surfaced, and the populations included and omitted in this period of research. We integrate reflections on how the pandemic shaped our own research and on how the pandemic has shaped the future of developmental science.

Globally, the open science movement has as its main principle the openness of publicly funded data and research outputs. It is essential that actors in this movement include the development and implementation of legal, technical and technological infrastructure. The premise of this research was that if the purpose of open science is free access to research products, then technological infrastructure is fundamental to crystallise availability, visibility, reproducibility and unrestricted access. The research aimed to identify actions of the open science movement in Latin America and study technological infrastructure for data repositories developed and implemented there. The methodology comprised a bibliographic review and quantitative methods. For the exploratory analysis, the sources for retrieval of information were official Web portals of library entities, the Registry of Research Data Repositories, and the Dataverse Project. The search was based on defined variables, namely actions, data repository, infrastructure, library collaboration, and repositories in the Registry of Research Data Repositories and Dataverse. Findings were studied through a descriptive content analysis based on defined variables. We found that nine Latin American countries carry out open science actions; eight develop research data repositories; eight implement technological infrastructure to develop repositories; seven collaborate with libraries in open science actions; and seven have their repositories recorded in the Registry of Research Data Repositories and Dataverse, resulting in 62 research data repositories in Latin America. We concluded that these libraries are actors and laboratories with methodological and pragmatic elements that contribute to the organisation, reproducibility, transparency, management and open access that support the paradigm shift which the scholarly communication system requires.

Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) compile and use indicators, risk assessments, and other analyses to address regional policy needs at varying spatial scales. Although approaches to implementing IEAs are context-specific, challenges in data acquisition, management, processing, analysis, and communication are universal. By embracing open science, in which scientific data, methods, and products are made publicly accessible, along with the ever-expanding tools facilitating open science, IEA practitioners will be better equipped to address these challenges. Here, we provide a snapshot of the state of open science practices in IEAs on-going across the United States. We show that open science has improved the flexibility, reproducibility, and efficiency of the scientific workflows within the IEA framework. Although the initial time investment necessary for developing open science workflows may appear daunting, we show that the subsequent returns provided by the efficient and transparent development of IEA products are worth the effort. By improving the implementation of IEAs, open science tools and principals have the potential to further Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) worldwide.

The goal of this volume is to report recent work in an emerging discipline that refers to itself as developmental science. It is the position of most practitioners identifying themselves with this discipline that development must be conceptualized as processes of structural or organizational change, particularly such change as leads to emergence of novelty. Development so defined is not limited to a process that occurs only for human individuals; many other entities can be considered as undergoing development. Based on these fundamental assumptions, this volume devotes its attention to the more specific consideration of the role and value of comparative perspectives in developmental science.

This paper summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the issue open science in health economics in the reality of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim is to study the openness of the results of scientific work in the field of health economics. To achieve this goal, the following tasks have been set: to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the concepts of open science, health, health economics, research, education; author’s structuring of the concept of open science in the context of health economics; identification of the main stakeholders and their role in the field of open science in the field of health economics. The object of research is the field of health economics. The subject of research is the determinants of the impact of open science on the health economy. In order to identify the vectors of scientific developments in recent years in the field of open science and health economics, the method of bibliometric analysis was used using the tools of the Scopus database and the software VOSviewer v.1.6.10. Based on the selected works, terminological maps were constructed for individual categories and the main clusters were identified, as a result of which the intensity of the use of one term with others was assessed. Scientific discoveries play an important role in health care. Especially in a pandemic, access to up-to-date data will save more lives and preserve the health of the world’s population. After all, the level of economic well-being of a country depends on the level of health of the population and its ability to work. It is determined that open science should include combining knowledge and efforts to support research in the field of health economics and reduce the knowledge gap between countries; mobilizing decision-makers, researchers, innovators, publishers and civil society representatives to ensure free access to scientific data, research results, educational resources and research facilities in the field of health economics; strengthening the links between science and political decisions to meet societal needs; ensuring open science for society, despite the fact that the borders between countries are closed. The results of the study can be useful for researchers who have been conducting study on this topic, and students majoring in ‘Health Economics’.

Abstract. The need for open science has been recognized by the communities of meteorology and climate science. While these domains are mature in terms of applying digital technologies, the implementation of open science methodologies is less advanced. In a session on “Weather and Climate Science in the Digital Era” at the 14th IEEE International eScience Conference domain specialists and data and computer scientists discussed the road towards open weather and climate science. Roughly 80 % of the studies presented in the conference session showed the added value of open data and software. These studies included open datasets from disparate sources in their analyses or developed tools and approaches that were made openly available to the research community. Furthermore, shared software is a prerequisite for the studies which presented systems like a model coupling framework or digital collaboration platform. Although these studies showed that sharing code and data is important, the consensus among the participants was that this is not sufficient to achieve open weather and climate science and that there are important issues to address. At the level of technology, the application of the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles to many datasets used in weather and climate science remains a challenge. This may be due to scalability (in the case of high-resolution climate model data, for example), legal barriers such as those encountered in using weather forecast data, or issues with heterogeneity (for example, when trying to make use of citizen data). In addition, the complexity of current software platforms often limits collaboration between researchers and the optimal use of open science tools and methods. The main challenges we observed, however, were non-technical and impact the practice of science as a whole. There is a need for new roles and responsibilities in the scientific process. People working at the interface of science and digital technology – e.g., data stewards and research software engineers – should collaborate with domain researchers to ensure the optimal use of open science tools and methods. In order to remove legal boundaries on sharing data, non-academic parties such as meteorological institutes should be allowed to act as trusted agents. Besides the creation of these new roles, novel policies regarding open weather and climate science should be developed in an inclusive way in order to engage all stakeholders. Although there is an ongoing debate on open science in the community, the individual aspects are usually discussed in isolation. Our approach in this paper takes the discourse further by focusing on “open science in weather and climate research” as a whole. We consider all aspects of open science and discuss the challenges and opportunities of recent open science developments in data, software, and hardware. We have compiled these into a list of concrete recommendations that could bring us closer to open weather and climate science. We acknowledge that the development of open weather and climate science requires effort to change, but the benefits are large. We have observed these benefits directly in the studies presented in the conference and believe that it leads to much faster progress in understanding our complex world.

Background: Digital tools that support open science practices play a key role in the seamless accumulation, archiving and dissemination of scholarly data, outcomes and conclusions. Despite their integration into open science practices, the providence and design of these digital tools are rarely explicitly scrutinized. This means that influential factors, such as the funding models of the parent organizations, their geographic location, and the dependency on digital infrastructures are rarely considered. Suggestions from literature and anecdotal evidence already draw attention to the impact of these factors, and raise the question of whether the open science ecosystem can realise the aspiration to become a truly “unlimited digital commons” in its current structure. Methods: In an online research approach, we compiled and analysed the geolocation, terms and conditions as well as funding models of 242 digital tools increasingly being used by researchers in various disciplines. Results: Our findings indicate that design decisions and restrictions are biased towards researchers in North American and European scholarly communities. In order to make the future open science ecosystem inclusive and operable for researchers in all world regions including Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, those should be actively included in design decision processes. Conclusions: Digital open science tools carry the promise of enabling collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups through responsive design. We therefore encourage long term funding mechanisms and ethnically as well as culturally inclusive approaches serving local prerequisites and conditions to tool design and construction allowing a globally connected digital research infrastructure to evolve in a regionally balanced manner.