Exploring NASA-TOPS in Community: Open Results

Following the steps of our previous meeting, during the last session of our Study Group on the contents of NASA TOPS Open Science 101, we reviewed concepts and tools related to open scientific results, always paying attention to the various dimensions of open access in Latin America. Here we share some of our learnings and collective conclusions.

What are the results of research and how does sharing them openly benefit us?

Throughout these meetings, we frequently discussed the challenges associated with transitioning from closed science to open science. On the one hand, we agreed on how overwhelming it can be to encompass all the various recommended practices simultaneously. On the other hand, we highlighted the lack of motivation sometimes found among researchers to adopt these practices, as the associated benefits are not always visible.

Module 5 of Open Science 101 allowed us to rethink research outcomes as all those objects that can be created from work at various stages of the process. We thus moved away from the traditional conception of the final manuscript or the conference presentation as the only valid products.

Products also include the project we envisioned, the data collected, the source code used for analysis, the associated documentation (manuals, tutorials), the agreements generated throughout the process (e.g., community guidelines, authorship guidelines, publication policies), and the publications that allowed us to disseminate the research (blog articles, opinion pieces, texts and videos for social media, etc.).

Each of these results can be published and cited, shared openly, reused. We can receive and give credit for participating in their production. We can share it with our community and request feedback to improve it. Among other benefits, this increases the impact and visibility of our project.

Opening the results obtained at various stages of the research cycle also enhances the reproducibility of our work. According to the analysis of the results of a survey conducted by Nature in 2016, over 70% of researchers have failed to reproduce experiments of other scientists, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. The reasons are several. Articles often lack the necessary information for other researchers to reproduce the results. Often, raw data or intermediate products are not shared along with the final manuscript; even when they are openly published, the code or software needed for analysis is not made available.

Finally, we discussed the benefits associated with disseminating our results. One example is the use of preprints. A preprint is a version of a manuscript that is shared publicly before undergoing peer review, a usual requirement for final publication. Although preprints do not go through a peer review process as with an academic journal, they allow us to show the results of our research with some immediacy. Additionally, the platforms where these documents are published often foster a space for community evaluation. Participants in the meeting talked about their importance in generating a collaborative ecosystem and as a way to collaboratively assess the quality and relevance of the product.

Finding and Reusing Open Results

A portion of module 5 is dedicated to searching for open results and their subsequent use.

We can search for peer-reviewed open access publications using academic search engines on the web, both generic and domain-specific. Supplementary materials such as data, code snippets, and links to software can often be found within these articles. Once relevant articles in our field are identified, we can further explore related research artifacts by following authors on social networks, exploring their posts in discussion forums, visiting their blogs, and subscribing to newsletters where available. The module introduces various platforms where such conversations and resources occur, including Github, Twitter, LinkedIn, Mastodon, reddit, and Stack Overflow.

A discussion emerged regarding the availability of open results linked to the reader or user’s ability to assess their quality. Some key considerations posed by Open Science 101 Module 5 include:

• Has the material undergone peer review?
• Are the data and the code for analysis also open?
• Are the authors specialists in the field?
• Is there a community involved in the production and maintenance?
• Is the community actively engaged in discussions?
• Is the website hosting the resource ending in .edu, .gov, or .org?
• Does the website contain advertisements?

Once resources suitable for reuse are identified, it’s crucial to consider the licensing terms under which the work is framed. When individuals share their work, assigning a license that permits reuse is essential for others to utilize and cite it appropriately. Reusing results is a way to maximize their impact. An example is the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), which provides researchers with extensive genomic and clinical data on various types of cancer. TCGA databases contain data from thousands of tumor samples, allowing the study of molecular characteristics, identification of potential biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis, discovery of new therapeutic targets, and explanation of underlying mechanisms in cancer development and progression. Ultimately, this can lead to improved methods for disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

During the meeting, we also discussed various ways in which we can participate in or collaborate on a project. A relatively simple and accessible way to start getting involved is by providing feedback. This can be done in an open or closed manner. Open feedback is visible to anyone in the community (an example is initiating an issue on GitHub). Additionally, the contribution is archived, allowing for follow-up on actions taken based on the feedback, and credit can be obtained for the contribution. If the feedback is closed (for instance, through an email to those who have authorship over the work), the community will not be familiar with it, it is difficult to track progress and actions taken, and to receive credit for the contribution. Typically, open projects share contribution guidelines that outline the various ways in which we can collaborate.

Regarding feedback, it was mentioned during the meeting that open feedback requires substantial curation, can lead to deviations from the initial research objective, and demands greater capacity to process related information. This presents a challenge but at the same time contributes to the development of better applications or products.

Opening our results as a way to generate community

• As previously mentioned, opening the results of each stage of a project can be overwhelming. Transitioning to open science involves relearning and grasping tools, modules, and methodologies, but also the opportunity to collaborate with diverse individuals to combine a variety of skills, perspectives, and resources toward a common goal.

Projects that apply open and reproducible approaches facilitate collaboration and enable recognition of each person’s contribution. This increases motivation to work within a community setting. Additionally, if different individuals or groups lead the development and maintenance of products generated at each stage, thinking openly becomes more feasible.

It’s important to consider that conceptualizing a project in communal terms also involves recognizing and prioritizing ways in which it can benefit the participating community. During the meeting, it was mentioned that clarifying the objective and providing a sense of purpose increases participation, but also prompts consideration of whether all shared data will truly lead to actions or changes within the contributing community.

A specific case discussed during the meeting, brought forth by Jeremías Fabiano, was the platform “ ¿Qué pasa, Riachuelo? (QPR)” from the Co-Act Environmental Justice project (in Spanish). “It’s a social citizen science tool to promote environmental justice actions in the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin. Through collaborative mapping, it organizes, systematizes, and shares the visions and accumulated knowledge over the years by social organizations, scientists, and other actors who generate actions towards environmental justice in the Basin. Citizen participation is central to the environmental justice approach; the goal is to protect threatened ecosystems, reduce impacts on exposed populations, and limit inequalities associated with pollution.” This project has successfully engaged groups, individuals, and organizations connected to the basin, making them active members of the project, focusing research on improving living conditions and reducing environmental harm.

When the community comprises people from very different backgrounds, opening the results also involves identifying alternative ways to communicate them. Communicating scientific findings in non-academic formats such as blogs, podcasts, and forums is an effective strategy to reach a broader and more diverse audience. These mediums can present scientific discoveries in a more accessible and engaging manner, using less technical and more friendly language. This not only facilitates understanding of complex concepts but also sparks interest in scientific topics among individuals who are often excluded from the academic sphere.

Moreover, these formats allow for greater interaction and participation from the community. Readers and listeners can leave comments, ask questions, and engage in discussions, fostering active dialogue among those involved in science from various roles. This interaction can create a sense of community around scientific topics, promoting greater understanding and appreciation of science within society. Simultaneously, disseminating results in more accessible formats has the potential to increase the impact of the findings. Ideas and discoveries can spread quickly and reach individuals who can apply them in their daily lives, work, or decision-making processes.

Do you want to reuse any of our content? Please, be our guest!

These were the materials we used in the second meeting of our study group (in Spanish):

• Presentation
• Shared document
• Recording

Our materials are available for free under this CC BY 4.0 license. You can reuse or edit any material that appears here. We only ask that you include a reference to this website or the material citation when available. For further information, please contact us at formacion@metadocencia.org.

Regarding the meetings

Between January and March 2024, 6 meetings are being held to explore the contents of the Open Science 101 course, which is part of the NASA TOPS initiative.

Ver detalles de los encuentros (in Spanish)

Acknowledgments

This publication was made possible thanks to a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7386372) grants from NASA 80NSSC23K0854 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8215455), 80NSSC23K0857 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8250978), and 80NSSC23K0861 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8212072), and the DAF2021-239366 grant and grant DOI https://doi.org/10.37921/522107izqogv from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, a fund advised by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (Funder DOI 10.13039/100014989) and the “Open Cloud Collaborative Project for Latin America and Africa (the Catalyst Project)” grant from the same funder (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8431422).

Did you like this publication? You can freely reuse it under a CC BY 4.0 license, just remember to cite it.

Here is the citation we recommend for reference:

Jesica Formoso, Nicolás Palopoli. (2024). “Exploring NASA-TOPS in Community: Open Results”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13328508