Thank you very much to all of you to be here for the organizers to give me the opportunity
to present this work. So I'm interested. I'm going to talk about this joint work with Professor
Tomas Rezio at the University in Ebrichha in Madrid. So we are going to talk about
opensions, about the research so far, about research data, in three steps, the definition
of dissemination evaluation and then we will go to the conoderned challenges. So we
start with opensions at some point in our work with Tomas. We were finding people saying,
I don't know very well what means opensions. Maybe we can say something. So this is the proposition
of the definition that we propose. Opensions is the political and legal framework, where
research outputs are ser and disseminated in order to be rendered visible, accessible,
or reliable. As you can see, I have always a lot of information in each page. Please don't
try to read all of them. You have these lies in the website. For each page, I will go to
the main points in order to keep the main ideas, the main information. Then you can go read
these lies with time. Please come back to me as you have some questions. This work is not only
about proposing a definition, but also to extract a landscape of information that is sometimes
a bit complex. And this is much easier to see in this portrait. You have copies here,
available for you, if you like some. So in the poster, you can see why what has motivated
us to propose a definition that the definition is again here. Why this definition stands
over three pillars, the definition of open access to publications, the free software definition,
something about that, that I don't like to mention because it's too complex. The definition
of free software is very important for us because when I started to be confronted to the
open science world in other European level, I say, well, these people never ask, never say
anything about license. And the license is very important. The role of the license are very
important. This is one of the first legal points in this proposition. Here we did studies on
political context at the European level, for France and Spain, we did studies on political
issues. We cannot talk anymore about the open science without mentioning the UNESCO
work. The UNESCO work started in 2019. You know, very well that there was a COVID, so that
changed a lot. There were some people think about this question. There was some preliminary
report. This is why we did a first version of our work to send our work to the committees
that were working on this. Then there is the final report. This is talking to every country
about all scientific areas. This is the first work I started to write with the mass in 2018, but
this is work I have been doing in my lab for a long time. When my direction asked me to take
care about the results of what in my lab, I started to go to my colleagues and see, what are
you doing, what results of what are you. The vocabulary didn't exist still at this point. So what
are you doing as a software? People were surprised and they had two questions. What I do is software.
What I do is software of the lab, and both questions have, and still have, positive answers.
So with the mass, I did propose a phase definition in the context of our research lab
in France, and then with the mass, we did the reconsider this formulation, and now we talk about
our research team, maybe international. So this is the formulation we propose.
Rocea software is a well-identified set of code that has been written and well-identified
research team. It is so word that has been built and used to produce a result,
publish it or disseminate it in some article of scientific contribution. We are in a digital
world, so its research software is in fact a set of files that contain the source code,
maybe the compiler code. There may be many other things like documentation, like license,
the examples of use, with videos that look inside your body, you can put many things down there.
So again, when I was working in my lab, I also in a project at French level, French national level,
some people were disseminated the software correctly with the license. Most of the people,
a lot of people were saying, no, no, my software is already free. It is there, you can do whatever
you like, why you need the license. In fact, if you don't have a license, you saw what is no free,
and this was a message I had been working a lot to send to the community. So please choose a license
and put a license in the software, before distribute the software. And maybe you should talk
with the health of the laboratory of the health of institutions. So I told you, I have done a lot
of training sessions, I am not the only one, obviously. This has a nice result, I think,
there has been a national adolescent, national survey in France. We saw this software listed
80% now, they have a license. This was not a situation, a lot of time ago. So since
are going well, but the information, the training should keep going.
So this is the work I started to do with the mass in 2018, because the question is, we are doing
a lot of software in our research laboratories, but how this software has a role in the evaluation
step. Because in research, when you evaluate something, you look at the publications articles.
So we did propose this, this schedule protocol with four steps. The first one is the
station, the second one is the simulation, the third one is used, and the fourth one is
reserved. The first one is the station, as you have seen already in this room today,
the station is very important, but it's also the way to identify a research of what
as a research output. You know, who has done it, which is the team who has participated
to the output, and is a legal point, is where do they have with copyright issues?
Then the dissemination is where the evaluation committee, we can't check if the software is
disseminated correctly following a dissemination protocol, like the one we have proposed here,
this corresponds to maybe open science policies and the legal point is licensed.
The use step is where you concentrate all the aspects related to the software,
quality, etc, and you can go as far as you like, and this is the point that we have
associated to the reproducibility of the research results, and the fourth point is a research.
So evaluation of research as you saw now. Now, how we go from software to that.
One of the things that is important to realize for us is that we have never tried to say what
so what is. We have adopted the legal vision, because the importance of alpha-sip writes,
can we do the same with data? If I just undo, we can not do something similar with data, because
data in itself does not fall under any specific legal regime. There is personal data,
there is data related to geographical data, environmental data, but there is no legal status for data.
But this is to a problem to propose a definition of research data. As this knowledge changes
for says, anyway, data may not be protected, and anyway, you should check the own case by case
basis. And not only from the legal point of view, also from the scientific point of view,
and from the technical point of view, the people that give the data away. So, as I told you,
we don't say what data is, but we can say what the research data is, and we have a similar formulation
as the one proposed for research software. So, research data is a well-identified set of data that
has been produced. We are using all this terminology by a research team that data has been collected,
processed, in order to produce a public set result or disseminated is on contribution.
Again, we are in a digital world, we have a set of files containing the data, and maybe many other
things. One of the characteristics is that data is going to be manipulated with software, and this
software can be or no processed software. So, the dissemination procedure, now we can say,
yes, we can use the same dissemination procedure, that is always what we propose is always very flexible,
it can be adapted to each case. It is the same, and there are two little differences,
there is one that, in this step, you will check the author's tips if there is, or there is not,
maybe there are other legal context. Here, you say, well, maybe, let's say, software,
sorry, software and data and not the same object. So, what is something that you write? Data is
something that you collect, so you will not deal with the object suddenly in the same way.
And is the same for the specific application protocol that we propose, steps are the same,
there are two differences, exactly the same, the legal context, to be check it before the dissemination,
you should be aware of the legal context of your data. They use a weak concentrate in the, in this
step, all the quality related to data, et cetera, but the framework is a sad video same.
So, the conodrome challenges, this is work by Christine Bormann in 2012,
that said, it is a researcher, very well known, the researcher's data world,
as he said, data setting is a conodrome. The challenges are to understand which data might be
served by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why and to what effects, answers will
inform data policy and practice. So, here are the answers we try to, we have, provide
to these questions, with data is to be served, and by whom, this is the research team,
the research team takes the decision of which is the opposite to be served.
How following a dissemination procedure, like the one we have proposed, where there are many places,
now you can find them here with whom, this is an interesting question, because as Christine Bormann
already says, intended users may vary from researchers, in a very specific domain
to the general public, and between these two extremes, you can have everything.
Under what conditions, license, the license gives the selling conditions, why,
there are many reasons, maybe open science policies, maybe research evaluation,
the conodrome challenges for researchers software, because the questions for Bormann's
world for research data, and now we have saved this year with us, well, what about the commuter
challenges for research software? In fact, the questions are obviously the same, and the answers are
pretty similar. I am not going to enter, because we don't have much time. This is, as for a lot of
work, I don't like to give you more information. So we have a speak about the open science,
about research software, about research data, in three steps, definition, dissemination, evaluation.
We have used the information, we have from research software, and we have been able to apply
this knowledge in comparing these two options, we have been able to use this information for
research data to say what is not similar, for the conodrome challenges is the other way around.
Thus, we have built a framework to study research software, to understand, explain then,
and to promote their contribution to open science. It has been constructed in three stages,
definition, dissemination, evaluation. We have proposed a similar framework for research data,
in this context, we have been able to produce answers to the Bormas conodrome challenges
for research data, and for research. So what does it? Thank you very much for your attention.
If you like to take a copy of the poster, please, okay, I would like, I would like to
take a copy of the poster.
Excuse me, I don't hear you very well, it's too nice, sorry. Please.
Yes?
I mean, when we did propose this formulation, there were some people saying, excuse me.
So the question is, other people propose the definitions about open science with
the process of science, not just the open.
There are many different considerations. There was someone when we were preparing this
work, saying, more or less, do people don't know what you like?
My, what I like is that research outputs are in this way. I do not just, I, it's my dad.
It's the scientists I know, I have been working all my life with, they like that they work,
it's visible, accessible, that you say. This is what I understand about the scientific community where
I am since long time, and not only I, obviously, the mass agrees and the mass is all professor
that is retired and has a experience in many scientific areas. So, but it's not just about the
outputs, it's about the political and legal framework. And this is not just a, a, a, a, a
the level of, of a laboratory at the level of the institution at the level of a country or the European
Commission. I have been always working with questions related to intellectual property. When I
started to work around the research software, the questions are who is the author of the software,
how this works, who decides the license. So, for me, it was important to clarify the legal
questions. Processes, I am not particularly confronted to this kind of work. So, I understand other
people has other pieces, it's normal. They are fine. But my idea is to simplify the, the landscape
of open science before this work, it was very complex. I can no go and talk with the people in my
lab saying, oh, look at this, open science, they have no time, these two complex. So, you
should give something clear, simple, that is possible to take in one second.
Thank you very much.