Commit 5546e54d authored by Tensi, Annika's avatar Tensi, Annika
Browse files

Merge branch 'sub-sites' into 'main'

added pictures and nested sides, failed to change menu

See merge request !5
parents fa842957 569084ec
Pipeline #41761 passed with stages
in 43 seconds
......@@ -15,7 +15,14 @@ permalinks:
menu:
main:
- name: About
identifier: "About"
url: /about/
weight: 1
- name: Who are we
identifier: "who"
parent: "About"
url: /about/whoarewe/
weight: 2
- name: Events
url: /Events/
- name: Award
......
---
title: "About"
date: '2016-05-05T21:48:51-07:00'
author: "Annika Tensi"
url: /about/
---
### [How to get in touch](https://openscience-wageningen.com/getintouch/)
### [Who are we](/about/whoarewe/)
![logo OSC-W](/./about_files/logo_big.png)
Open Science Communities, like the OSC-W, are independent, bottom-up local communities made up of members of various scholarly disciplines and career stages.
......@@ -22,5 +28,3 @@ The OSC-W is a platform for open science newcomers and experienced researchers,
# Our Target Group
Researchers, staff, institutional stakeholders, and students who have never heard about, who are curious towards, and who are experienced with open science practices.
[How to get in touch](https://openscience-wageningen.com/getintouch/)
......@@ -2,14 +2,9 @@
title: "Get in touch"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2021-10-20'
output:
html_document:
df_print: paged
tags:
- Open Science
- Wageningen
categories: null
url: /getintouch/
---
## Contact us
......
---
title: "Who are we"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2022-03-30'
url: /about/whoarewe/
---
Currently, we are a group of researchers and staff from WUR. Our community comprises academics and support staff from different disciplines and career stages. All researchers, students and support staff of WUR and NIOO-KNAW and at all career stages, are welcome!
Get to know us and find out why we are enthusiastic about Open Science.
| |<div style="width:1px"></div>| <div style="width:500px"></div> |
| ----------- |-| ----------- |
| ![Profile Picture Annika](/profilepicsmembers/Annika.jpg)| |**Annika Tensi** <br> *PhD Candidate* <br> Business Economics, WUR|
I believe that Open Science practices and tools have the power to fight fraudulent practices and frustrations through transparency and reproducibility. For instance, pre-registering hypotheses and analyses fights p-hacking and HARKing, which in turn leads to more trustworthy scientific results. Also, sharing understandable and reproduceable data and code fights the file drawer problem and duplications.
Of course, being open makes us more vulnerable, too, since we potentially also share our mistakes. That means, also the research culture needs to change. It should be regarded as an achievement to make and learn from mistakes through scientific exchange. I believe that Open Science helps to change research cultures for the better.
| |<div style="width:1px"></div>| <div style="width:500px"></div> |
| ----------- |-| ----------- |
| ![Profile Picture Edoardo](/profilepicsmembers/Edo.png)| |**Edoardo Saccenti** <br> *Assistant Professor* <br> Systems and Synthetic Biology, WUR|
The scientific method changed the history of humanity, opening the way to all discoveries and inventions that shaped and are shaping the world. For many varied reasons science today is often under attack and the unprecedented and unforecasted reproducibility crisis is harming science and the work of many devoted scientists. For this reason, I believe that it is important that everybody embraces the principles of Open Science to aim achieve the goal of a Science that is truly reproducible and inclusive.
| |<div style="width:1px"></div>| <div style="width:500px"></div> |
| ----------- |-| ----------- |
| ![Profile Picture Murilo](/profilepicsmembers/Murilo.jpg)| |**Murilo de Almeida Furtado** <br> *PhD Candidate* <br> Business Economics, WUR|
Once I could understand how unequal opportunities could constrain society's development, I could quickly understand the importance of open, accessible and democratic education. Some people say that happiness is only real when shared, and I believe that the same applies to knowledge. Quoting Paulo Freire, an important educator from my home country, “Education does not change the world. Education changes people. People change the world”. If science can help build a better world, I have no doubt that one of the best ways it can do it is through Open Science.
---
title: "Further information Lighthouse Award"
title: "Details Submission Award"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2022-03-15'
output:
html_document:
df_print: paged
tags:
- Open Science
- Wageningen
- Lighthouse Award
- Pioneer
- Submission
categories: null
---
### Procedure
......
---
title: "Details Lighthouse Award"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2022-03-15'
output:
html_document:
df_print: paged
tags:
- Open Science
- Wageningen
- Lighthouse Award
- Pioneer
- Submission
categories: null
---
# Submission Information
### Submit your own Open Science case
The submission form requires the following information, if you apply for the Lighthouse Award yourself:
| Information | Description |
| ----------- | ----------- |
| **Contact information** | |
| **Case Study Title** | The case study should be no more than 800 words in total. |
| **Open Science objectives/practices** | Please specify one or more of the Open Science objectives/practices addressed in your case study |
| **Introduction** | Please provide a brief description of the open practice(s) and tool(s) used, as well as the context in which the open practices were used. |
| **Motivation** | Why did you use the Open Science practice(s) (e.g., what are the benefits and for whom) |
| **Lessons learned** | Please reflect on the barriers or challenges and/or supporting factors (e.g., supervisor, workshops, infrastructure, funding) encountered. |
Additional information:
- How much extra time did the open practices require?
- URLs, references and further information
- word count (excluding title, URLs, references and further information)
### Nominate a colleague
The submission form requires the following information, if you nominate a colleague:
| Information | Description |
| ----------- | ----------- |
| **Your contact information** | Your nomination is anonymous |
| **The contact information of the nominee** | After your nomination, we will contact the nominee to ask for permission. |
| **Motivation** | Please describe why you think that your colleague deserves the first Open Science Lighthouse Award. |
The description should be no more than 500 words in total. You can include information on the Open Science objectives/practices that your colleague advances, how they inspire you and others to open your research or how your colleague and others are benefiting from their open research practices.
## Detailed Information
### Procedure
Submitted entries will be screened for eligibility by members of OSC-W. The jury consists of members of the OSC-W core group. The organizers choose the best entries from the eligible submissions. The applicants will be notified by the end of April 2022 and invited to present their case studies as success stories during the OSC-W launch event in May 2022. The eligible submissions will be showcased on the OSC-W website.
### Objectives
Applicants should describe activities that align with one or more of the following Open Science objectives:
- Making the outputs of research, including publications, data, software and other research materials freely accessible while considering the FAIR data sharing principles.
- Using online tools and services to increase the transparency of research processes and methodologies.
- Making scientific research more reproducible by increasing the amount and quality of information placed on the public record.
- Using alternative models of publication and peer review to make the dissemination and certification of research faster and more transparent.
- Using open collaborative methods and tools to increase efficiency and widen participation in research.
### Practices
The case study should describe one or more of the Open Science practices listed below:
- Using publication under an open license to communicate research outputs, which may include publications, data, software code, and web resources
NB: given that open access publishing is nowadays the most common publication mode for scholarly articles, having published open access articles alone will not be enough to qualify an entry as eligible
- Disseminating research findings as a preprint, either independently of formal submission to a journal, or as part of a journal’s open peer review procedure
- Providing an open peer review of a paper submitted under a formal peer review process managed by a publisher
- Creating a public pre-registration of a study design or publishing a study as a registered report
- Incorporating open and participatory methods into the design and conduct of research, e.g., by using open notebook-based methods or creating a project using a ‘citizen science’ online platform
- Introducing Open Science concepts and practices into teaching and learning
- Creating new tools or technologies to facilitate Open Science practices, e.g., for combining or repurposing datasets and other research outputs from separate locations or disciplines, or for mining content
- Undertaking activities to develop the environment for Open Science, e.g., by engaging in high-profile communications, by causing a journal to adopt pro-Open Science policies, or by participating in community initiatives to develop data or metadata standards
### Case Study examples
These are some examples of suitable subjects for a case study:
- A dataset or software source code created by you has been made openly available and then re-used by researchers or other end-users, e.g., to inform policymaking or develop services or products
- You are a humanities researcher who has created an open web resource and consider the practicalities and challenges of sustaining long-term access and usability
- You have recently submitted an article through a publisher’s open peer review system, and discuss your experience and some of the pros and cons of open peer review
- You conduct qualitative social science research exploring sensitive issues and discuss the ethical and practical challenges of sharing data collected from participants
- You have developed a new software tool to facilitate Open Science, e.g., to combine or repurpose datasets from disparate sources
- You have participated in a community group to develop data or metadata standards and tools for your discipline
- In your teaching you have introduced students to Open Science principles and practices, for example by setting replication study assignments.
---
title: "Details Lighthouse Award"
title: "Submission information"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2022-03-15'
output:
html_document:
df_print: paged
tags:
- Open Science
- Wageningen
- Lighthouse Award
- Pioneer
- Submission
categories: null
---
# Submission Information
---
### Submit your own Open Science case
The submission form requires the following information, if you apply for the Lighthouse Award yourself:
......
......@@ -2,23 +2,15 @@
title: "Lighthouse Award 2022"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2022-03-15'
output:
html_document:
df_print: paged
tags:
- Open Science
- Wageningen
- Lighthouse Award 2022
- Pioneer
- Submission
categories: null
url: /lighthouse/
---
# Win the first Open Science Lighthouse Award
With the Open Science Lighthouse Award, we want to celebrate and reward WUR researchers and researchers from associated institutes (e.g., NIOO-KNAW) who have used open practices and tools to make their research more transparent, accessible and reproducible.
We hope that the Open Science success stories of WUR researchers encourage more colleagues to open their research and promote the bottom-up adoption of open science practices across the science groups and research institutes.
|<div style="width:250px"></div> | <div style="width:150px"></div> |
| -----------| ----------- |
| With the Open Science Lighthouse Award, we want to celebrate and reward WUR researchers and researchers from associated institutes (e.g., NIOO-KNAW) who have used open practices and tools to make their research more transparent, accessible and reproducible. <br> <br> We hope that the Open Science success stories of WUR researchers encourage more colleagues to open their research and promote the bottom-up adoption of open science practices across the science groups and research institutes. |![Lighthouse with text: Win the first Open Science Lighthouse Award](/images/lighthouse_txt.jpg) |
## Submission is open
You can either submit your own Open Science case story to apply for the Lighthouse Award or you can nominate a colleague. There are two separate submission forms. Submission is open for students, researchers and support staff on all levels.
......
......@@ -2,15 +2,7 @@
title: "OSC-W Launch Event"
author: "Annika Tensi"
date: '2022-03-17'
output:
html_document:
df_print: paged
tags:
- Open Science
- Wageningen
- Launch Event
categories: null
summary: "The Open Science Community Wageningen invites researchers, students, supporting staff and anyone that is interested to the official launch event. We would like to welcome colleagues from WUR and NIOO-KNAW. "
---
# **13 May 2022** **14.00 - 17.00 hrs** & open bar
......@@ -30,7 +22,11 @@ The Open Science Community Wageningen invites researchers, students, supporting
- Experience from other OSCs
- Open Bar
### Elisabeth Bik *The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research*
[Event Flyer](/files/OSCW_Launch_Flyer_v2.pdf)
| |<div style="width:1px"></div>| <div style="width:500px"></div> |
| ----------- |-| ----------- |
|![Profile Picture Elisabeth Bik](/images/ElisabethBik.jpg) | | **Elisabeth Bik** <br> *The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research*|
Science builds upon science. Even after peer-review and publication, science papers could still contain images or other data of concern. If not addressed post-publication, papers containing incorrect or even falsified data could lead to wasted time and money spent by other researchers trying to reproduce those results. Elisabeth Bik is an image forensics detective who left her paid job in industry to search for and report biomedical articles that contain errors or data of concern. She has done a systematic scan of 20,000 papers in 40 journals and found that about 4% of these contained inappropriately duplicated images. In her talk she will present her work and show several types of inappropriately duplicated images and other examples of research misconduct. In addition, she will show how to report scientific papers of concern, and how journals and institutions handle such allegations.
......
This diff is collapsed.
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment