Skip to content

/Module-6-Open-Access-to-Research-Papers

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add research grant proposals to the research pipeline #3

Open
johnsamuelwrites opened this issue Oct 24, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@johnsamuelwrites
Copy link

commented Oct 24, 2018

A research grant proposal is the starting point of the research pipeline. It may be accepted, rejected or in a waiting list for further detailed review. Journals like RIOJournal give an opportunity to upload the grant proposals. Nevertheless, very less has been discussed on the pros and cons of uploading them.

Major questions that need to be discussed:

  • Should all accepted proposals be published online and granted a persistent identifier?
  • In case of rejected grant proposals, how wise is it to upload them? Will it create a bias for future grant requests?
  • Should proposal grant reviews be made publicly available?
  • What are the possible open licences for grant proposals and the review comments?
  • Any possible issues on uploading accepted grant proposals? Who should upload them? Funding agencies? or individual contributors?
  • Should contributors to the proposal upload a grant proposal like preprint papers at the time of submission? Is it possible that funding agency directly refer the 'preprint' like grant request?
@Daniel-Mietchen

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

commented Oct 24, 2018

@johnsamuelwrites I think these questions would be great fodder for http://ask-open-science.org/ . Can you post them (or variants thereof) there?
@johnsamuelwrites

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Author

commented Oct 24, 2018 •
edited

Some pointers from @Daniel-Mietchen :

  • Mietchen, Daniel, Ross Mounce, and Lyubomir Penev. “Publishing the Research Process.” Research Ideas and Outcomes 1 (December 17, 2015): e7547. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.1.e7547.
  • Mietchen, Daniel. “The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding.” PLOS Biology, vol. 12, no. 12, Dec. 2014, p. e1002027. PLoS Journals, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027.
  • Gurwitz, David, Elena Milanesi, and Thomas Koenig. “Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency.” PLOS Biology 12, no. 12 (December 2, 2014): e1002010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010.
@johnsamuelwrites

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Author

commented Oct 24, 2018

@Daniel-Mietchen, if approved, it will be available here: https://ask-open-science.org/1348/how-include-research-grant-proposals-the-research-pipeline
@Daniel-Mietchen

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

commented Oct 25, 2018

You pasted the first one twice - should be Mietchen D (2014) The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding. PLoS Biol 12(12): e1002027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027 instead.
@johnsamuelwrites

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Author

commented Oct 25, 2018

@Daniel-Mietchen Updated.
@Protohedgehog

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 27, 2019

@johnsamuelwrites do you think this still has place within the existing structure now..?
@johnsamuelwrites

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Author

commented Aug 27, 2019

@Protohedgehog I feel that research grant proposals (at least starting with the accepted and funded ones) have a place in the research pipeline and their open access helps other research members.
I am not sure whether a separate module is needed for this topic. That's why I added this issue in the module 6, which covers open access. But if you are interested in opening a new module on discussion of different topics, I leave the decision to you.
@Protohedgehog

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 28, 2019

Sorry @johnsamuelwrites I meant within the structure here: https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-6-Open-Access-to-Research-Papers/tree/master/content_development - we have 15 sub-topics now for this module. Would this fit in, or shall we add a new one?
@Protohedgehog

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 4, 2019

@johnsamuelwrites any thoughts on this? I have some time to integrate them if you think it fits
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
Module 6 development
  
To do
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@johnsamuelwrites @Daniel-Mietchen @Protohedgehog
You can’t perform that action at this time.