Hi Tim,
"The only acceptable channel for communication about the review of an NIH
grant application after submission" quote from its section refers
specifically only to how the PI/authorized organized representative can
contact the NIH, i.e., they cannot directly communicate with reviewers and
so
Hi Debanu,
the section of your quote of the NIH rules is introduced with
"The only acceptable channel for communication about the review of an
NIH grant application after submission ", i.e. it would not restrict
James to upload the draft before(!) he submits. James might want to
double-check with
Hi James,
I think it is quite different for publications/open publications
(investigator initiated submissions on outcomes of grant-funded research,
which are meant for public dissemination, even though all patentable IP is
still employed-owned, whether a university, a national lab or a company)
Hey Debanu,
Hmm. Last time I did it I didn't have to go through any IP lawyers to
upload a pre-print to biorxiv. What I was thinking of is something
similar to that. Researchers, on their own, deciding to upload their
applications and reviews. What would be the motivation? Well, I imagine
Dear Debanu
The UNESCO initiative as I mentioned is very interesting. I will offer alerts
at key moments.
At International Data Week in S Korea just concluded the Plenary session was on
Open Science around the World. Africa, Latin America, S Korea and Malaysia
talks all were defining open
Thinking about it some more, I think all the materials (patentable IP or
trade secrets, which in the US are IP and under Defense of Trade Secrets
Act) of a researcher are owned by the university. So just getting across
tech transfer/IP of individual univs would be a massive hurdle before
thinking
Dear John,
For sure it is an aspiration as a society and as a civilization: to think
beyond individual nations. And for that we have some examples as you
mentioned at the scientific (IUCr, PDB) and political level (UN). We also
have the EU, ASEAN, NATO, etc.
However, despite having these
Dear Debanu,
There is indeed much at stake here.
Would I do it now, share my proposals, No.
Would I do it if funders’ rules required it. Yes.
When might funders’ rules require it eg when Tax payers insist that the
priority is achieving societal goals asap. Might that happen in the foreseeable
>So, 2nd question is: would you do it? Would you upload your application
>into the public domain for all to see? What about the reviewer comments?
>If not, why not? Afraid people will steal your ideas? Well, once
>something is public, its pretty clear who got the idea first.
I do not think this
Dear James,
This is coming closer to your concept:-
https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports?_ga=2.256611083.1499354793.1646731928-1289064925.1646731928
which I learned about in the current issue of Research Professional:-
board on behalf of John R Helliwell
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:18 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] open review?
Dear James,
This is an interesting question you have posed.
The trend to open peer review reports in articles that we see more often today
got a major kick of
Dear James,
This is an interesting question you have posed.
The trend to open peer review reports in articles that we see more often today
got a major kick off by the ASAPBio Workshop some years back
https://asapbio.org/peer-review . The workshop questions to participants
included “would you
t peer review system until we have clear
evidence that there is something better!
Nic
From: CCP4 bulletin board On Behalf Of Frank von Delft
Sent: 23 June 2022 07:09
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] open review?
I suspect funders will worry about it becoming even harder to find review
I suspect funders will worry about it becoming even harder to find
reviewers - they're already hard to flush out, if I'm not mistaken, and
might become even more reclusive if they run the risk of being pilloried
in public.
If that sounds theoretical: even in this community, for all its
Hi James,
I agree that it’sa good suggestion. In Sweden when you apply to any of the
publicly funded grant agencies the application is automatically in the public
domain. This means that anyone can ask to see your proposal and the agency is
obliged to send it out to the people asking for it.
Dear James,
I think open reviews would be a major improvement in the grants review
process. Most grant reviews are done carefully and honestly, but I have
seen some that were clearly written carelessly and dishonestly that would
not
have been submitted if the reviewers knew they would have to
Greetings all,
I'd like to ask a question that I expect might generate some spirited
discussion.
We have seen recently a groundswell of support for openness and
transparency in peer review. Not only are pre-prints popular, but we are
also seeing reviewer comments getting published along
17 matches
Mail list logo
