Linkrot is real and digital preservation problematic. One reason why I have started migrating my blog to a more robust platform. That first step gave me version control. This summer my blog was accepted to Rogue Scholar. That gave me DOIs. And an idea.
Blogs come and go. Sometimes they move from one location to another. However, blogs have not been systematically archived, perhaps for work by efforts by OpenLaboraty.
Every day a child is born with an inherited metabolic disorder, and many do not grow old. MetaKids is a Dutch foundation that collects money and raises awareness and the charity selected this year for the NPO (Dutch national radio/tv) 3FM Serious Request. This has become a Dutch tradition. Serious Request will play music on the radio, when people contributed to the fundraiser, and the more money, the more often the music gets played.
If you are into openscience chemistry or chemistry blogging, then you probably heard of Rich Apodaca’s Depth-First blog. Rich started blogging in 2006 but this is not how I discovered his work originally.
Before we go into the learning bit, let’s just revisit what a version of record is. Wikipedia describes it as “the fully copyedited, typeset and formatted copy of a manuscript as published” (with two references). Basically, in the whole scheme of research output, it is a release . It is a tagged version of the output, allowing people to discuss that version specifically, so that we do not run into endless “oh, but I meant
Jerven Bolleman et al. recently published a great preprint about how to use RDF to give SPARQL queries context by linking it (semantically) with metadata. The context includes keywords, the SPARQL endpoint the query can be run against, and a human-oriented description of the query.
The x-odus continues and there is a wave of researchers moving from X to another walled-garden called Bluesky. This is good and bad. First, it is good that people are leaving X (imho) and it is good that they move to a platform that supports open standards, the AT Protocol. But I am less sure, about moving to another closed source platform. I prefer Mastodon.
Open Science doesn’t make publishing easier. That that’s all for the better: our research efforts are complex, so why should the publishing be. Sure, I am not talking about references formatting or moving the Methods section to the right location, or some silly statement that all authors agree with the manuscript when you are the only author. No, let’s talk about data. What should you publish? How, and when?
I have not posted a lot about our Virtual Human Platform for Safety Assessment (VHP4Safety) project yet. Actually, more generally I do not post frequently about the funded projects. This is likely that few of them are Open Science by contract and often they have some formal process in place to approve output. That makes open notebook science-style posting about these projects hard. One is restricted to previously cleared material.
It was on my radar for some time already, but did not get around to finishing it. But I completed all five modules of the NASA Transform to Open Science (TOPS) Open Science 101 (doi:10.5281/zenodo.10161527). This Open Science 101 consists of several modules, starting with The Ethos of Open Science , via Open Tools and Resources , Open Data , and Open Code , to Open Results . Now, since I have been
Division 1 of our Institute of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM) held a meeting last week which had a panel discussion on the use of patents to bring research to the market, aimed at PhD candidates of the institute. Patents are one of the routes to make research output more sustainable. For example, the research output into a new method to study something or make something often needs the development into a product.