# Bibliodiversity, open science and research integrity

Olivier Le Gall

► To cite this version:

Olivier Le Gall. Bibliodiversity, open science and research integrity. ENRIO 2021 Congress on Research Integrity Practice, ENRIO - European network of research integrity offices, Sep 2021, Helsinki, Finland. hal-03832951

HAL Id: hal-03832951

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03832951

Submitted on 28 Oct 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Bibliodiversity, open science and research integrity

ENRIO Congress, online, Sep21
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Reproducibility of scientific results

→ DOI:10.2777/341654

- Reproducibility results from continuum of practices

- Is there a “crisis of reproducibility”?

- not so much

- (see also Fanelli 2018
    DOI:10.1073/pnas.1708272114)

- Policy should frame reproducibility as an ideal, with systemic action

- ... in which opening science takes a big part

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

"La science est un bien commun que nous devons partager le plus largement possible. Le rôle des pouvoirs publics est de rétablir la

## What is open science?

Qu'est-ce que la science ouverte ?

* La science ouverte, c'est la diffusion sans entrave des publications et des données de la recherche. Elle s'appuie sur l'opportunité que représente la mutation numérique pour développer l'accès ouvert aux publications et – autant que possible – aux données de la recherche.

* Son objectif : faire sortir la recherche financée sur fonds publics du cadre confiné des bases de données fermées. Elle réduit les efforts dupliqués dans la collecte, la création, la diffusion et la valorisation de la recherche.

Il est plus simple à faire

à économiser et occuper plus d'équilibre dans les pays développés et dans les pays en développement.

* Elle constitue un levier pour l'intégrité scientifique et favorise la confiance des citoyens dans la science. Elle constitue un progrès scientifique et un progrès de société.

* [Open science] is a lever for research integrity and favors the confidence of citizens in science. It makes a scientific progress and a society's progress.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

# Exploring the connection between RI & OS
→ see Lex Bouter, 1st ENRIO Congress

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Recent evolution in views on how to
foster Research Integrity

FFP

QRPs

RRP

Transparency

Open Science

Replication Crisis

✓ Open Methods

✓ Open Codes

✓ Open Data

✓ Open Access
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

"Open science is a lever for research integrity"

→ to what extent? **the case of bibliodiversity**

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Bibliodiversity:
"the diversity
of those acting
in scientific
publishing"

http://jussieucall.org
~120 signing institutions worldwide (mostly FR)

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

# The Jussieu call, 2017 (in brief)

1. Open Access must be complemented with support for bibliodiversity;

2. The development of innovative scientific publishing models must be a budget priority;

3. Experiments should be encouraged in writing practices, refereeing, content editorial services and additional services;

4. The research evaluation system should be thoroughly reformed and adapted;

5. More investment efforts in open source tools should be made and coordinated;

6. [...]

7. [...]

8. Priority should be given to business models that do not involve any payments, neither for authors nor for readers.

http://jussieucall.org

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

# The Jussieu call, 4 years later

- The French national fund or open science (FNSO)

- Under the aegis of the 1st National Plan for Open Science (2018)

- Aims at reducing the editorial concentration and setting up an ecosystem for responsible scholarly publishing

- Diamond OA, new networked services, etc.

- 1st call (Dec19): 22 projects funded, 2.6M€

- 5 infrastructures, 7 platforms, 10 editorial initiatives

- 2nd call (Jan21): results due early Oct21

- Similar initiatives in other countries (e.g. https://journal.fi/)

http://jussieucall.org

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

- But opening science is not just about promoting OA

- A bunch of services covering the entire scholarly ecosystem

- The 2nd National Plan for Open Science (2021)

- "France is committed to ensuring that the results of scientific research are open to all, researchers, companies and citizens, without hindrance, without delay, without payment"

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

# Opening science is not just about OA

- Can quality and integrity be certified

- In published articles?

- In methods and protocols?

- In codes and software?

- In data?

- Etc.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Certification of published articles
→ revisit peer-review

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Mammals,lands (F)

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Mortality (number of rats per group)

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

DOI:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005 (2012, retracted 2014) → DOI:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5 (republished 2014)
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

# Peer-review

→ a solid ground to ensure publication quality through
scholarly debate

- No doubt!

- But a process that is

- One-shot

- Person-dependent

- Opaque

- Redundant

- Sterile

→ Post-publication PR

→ Crowd-based PR

→ Open PR

→ Citable PR

→ Non-anonymous PR

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Editor #1:

"Only I have a question.
In the manuscript say:
the authors were the
ethics committee with
some friends. [...]"

- The 2020 push-scooter hoax

- A grossly fake article

- It was retracted

- and subtracted...

- and its title truncated...

- An open review process

- It is OK at 1st sight

- 3 experts (?), 3 editors

- True exchanges with the editor

- A decision made

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

Ex.: Peer Communit(ies) In...

→ renew the peer-reviewing process based on preprints

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

peercommunityin.org

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

# PCI to introduce the Peer Community Journal

PCI

peercommunityin.org

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

PCI-recommended
article

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

Final, citable
article hosted
by preprint
server

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

Author's
choice to
submit to

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

OR

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

**Peer Community Journal**

Direct publication in diamond open access

Starting fall 2021

**PCI-friendly journals**

- accept with no further peer review

OR

- fast response (≤ 5 days) to presubmission enquiry

OR

- use of PCI evaluation if appropriate

If not satisfied by
the decision

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

OR

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

Other journals

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

If not satisfied by
the decision

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

# Opening science is not just about OA

- Can quality and integrity be certified

- In published articles?

- In methods and protocols?

- In codes and software?

- In data?

- Etc.

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

# Certification of the methods and protocols

- The lack of details on methods and protocols is a recognized source of lack of reproducibility

- Publication (and peer review) of protocols

- Now many dedicated journals (including OA!)

- Still an uncommon practice

- Registered reports

- Also reduce the bias against negative results

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

https://www.cos.io/rr

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

# Reproducibility & replicability

- CASCaD (Certification Agency for Scientific Code and Data)

- https://www.cascad.tech/

- A non-for-profit certification agency created by scholars

- Re-run the code and data and report any discrepancy

- "same data + same method = same results"

- Allows researchers to signal the reproducibility of their work

- The CASCaD service does not cover

- The quality of the scientific results displayed in the article

- The quality of the code or data provided by the authors

- Other disciplines than economics and management sciences

- ReScience C

- A (diamond OA) journal that encourages the replication of already published studies (in computational research)

- See See DOI:10.7717/peerj-cs.142

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

# Opening science is not just about OA

- Can quality and integrity be certified

- In published articles?

- In methods and protocols?

- In codes and software?

- In data?

- Etc.
<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

# Certification of data quality and integrity

- **Data (experimental/observational) is key in research**

- A key for research integrity of the associated publications

- Selection / Beautification / Falsification / Fabrication

- Making data available to reviewers and readers of the publications is certainly an asset for their proper auditing

- A key for the process of opening science

- FAIR research data is the target standard of all OS policies

- But really... who wants to reuse falsified or fabricated data?

- How about data generated by / reused by citizens/stakeholders?

- **How to certify research data?**

- Auditing / certification processes

- Beyond data journals

- Enhancement of metadata

Findable Q

Accessible

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

Interoperable

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

Reusable

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

# Open science practices are generally favorable for research integrity

- **Opening and resetting the publication process**

- Will be difficult but probably feasible

- Promoting integrity by design remains a challenge

- Also an opportunity for re-appropriation of a key scholarly process

- An arena of editorial experiments

- Adoption is another challenge

- **However other key processes also need attention**

- The situation is even more difficult for code, data, etc.

- Citizen/participative science

- Research integrity often "the elephant in the room"

- **Integrity is just one pillar of responsible science**

- **R**oSiE is committed to Explore / Engage / Guide / Equip

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

Thank you

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>