Open Material used for the writing of the INF project.
julien colomb
3508a7788f
git-annex in @MacBook-Pro-4
|
1 year ago | |
|---|---|---|
| .log | 1 year ago | |
| 01_project_management | 1 year ago | |
| 02_material_methods | 2 years ago | |
| 03_data | 2 years ago | |
| 04_data_analysis | 2 years ago | |
| 05_figures | 2 years ago | |
| 06_disseminations | 1 year ago | |
| 2021_SFB1315-INF-grantapplication @ 520d7a1be2 | 1 year ago | |
| .gitignore | 2 years ago | |
| .gitmodules | 3 years ago | |
| 01_SFB1315INFproject_open.Rproj | 3 years ago | |
| LICENSE | 3 years ago | |
| README.md | 2 years ago | |
| sync | 3 years ago |
(apart from papers and datasets)# Next SFB 1315 grant: Information Infrastructure Project
This repository collect different documents and information to be used to write an INF project for the next SFB1315 grant application.
04_data_analysis/survey_data_analysisApplication version 1, was done via here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J7ttPCOIxeOpPEV_yB6Z0xmOpOvmd5hh/view?usp=sharing timeline link will be added later.
last year survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eZl5Otpuuk8xD8rkIxd2B-zjml-PtX-MD1IevStpzKA/edit#responses
Early discussion made on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1awo4WPHXOT-1-3DKlD2DGBmxw2AimRi_4qm4BOdpIW4/edit?usp=sharing
Please use gin issues to give us comments or feedback.
If you would like to participate in the writing, please open an issue stating what tool you would like to use to co-write the document. (I have been using Rmd so far, as it it a nice tool to write fast while getting a nicely formatted pdf or html as an output).
A first draft was used to get feedback from kerstin Helbig (CMS, data management HU berlin) and Evgeny Brobov (data management BIH). You can find it in the olderdrafts folder.
I continue to work on that document in a Rmarkdown format in the Proposal_forinf.RMD file. We will probably go to a different production tool if more people want to participate in the writing, as Rmd is quite particular.
See also the sketch written for the SFB committee and the document used to gather feedback (google docs links).
Involved already:
Contacted, but no feedback so far:
to contact ? :
See document folder for examples and DFG guidelines for INF projects. It seems we can ask for 1 postdoc to 2.5 postodc positions. We will probably go for 2 postdoc, trying to get one position co-funded by the HU.
In this document, data is meant in the broad sense the DFG is using it, that is it includes dataset, software, reagents, protocols and any digital outputs the SFB may be producing.
Julien's conclusion reading the material:
- need to show extra development, not just application of existing solutions
- "data" can be read as "research outputs"
- training might be included here or somewhere else
- IT expertise of project leaders should be present
In this SFB, I would not try to develop new tools, but work on the implementation of existing tools (gin, VRE for data management, smartfigures for data discovery) and standards (BIDS, BIDS for animal studies, openMINDS,...). In particular:
Open research: foster the creation and dissemination of non-traditional research outputs (reagents, protocols, datasets, software, blog posts, nanopublication, negative results,...). This might be particularly important for the C groups.
Use of a ELN at the SFB level?
There are a lot of tools and standards created internationally (Human Brain Project, neuro-NFDI, BIDS for animal data, ...) and from specific SFB (Charite VRE system). The application of these tools inside our SFB is not straightforward, especially since most of our members are not used to do any data management.
Data discoverability is a problem which is often underestimated (but see https://www.go-fair.org/implementation-networks/overview/discovery/ and https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/data-discovery-paradigms-ig). The smartfigure concept could enhance discoverability. Indeed, the smartfigures can be used to impose semantic tags to figures and the underlying data, instead of tagging only the publication as it is mostly done nowadays.
Open research is becoming trendy and its practice may well be determinant for obtaining european grant (https://www.openscienceclinique.eu). Preparing the ECR for open research practices might bring a plus for the DFG
I have been mainly collaborating on existing project and tried to keep up to date with the latest developments: the development of the smartfigure gallery (platform design, authoring, usability), GIN (templates, submodule use with datalad), openMINDS (metadata standards from the human brain project), animal experiment metadata (unnamed consortium, arrive guidelines), authoring tools (n3c attribution working group, orcid), data management outreach (RDA working group) and data discoverability (GOFAIR group). On the other hand, I have been trying different strategies to motivate SFB members to use the smartfigure gallery, and GIN, for example creating a vitrine website (sfb1315-output.de) and a moodle course for GIN use. I expect to have 4 to 6 papers and probably other research outputs published for 2021 that will recognise that work.
If we go with this plan, I would try to work on the publication of non-traditional outputs, using the sfb-output.de website as a vitrine for it.
1 to 2 postdoc position seem accurate, as the work with VRE is very different from the work with GIN ?
My position would be to coordinate and work with the EMBO team for the smartfigure, and the G-node team for GIN, and maybe with the VRE team (unless we get a second position). It will also include continuing to work with the Human brain project and the nfdi-neuro for metadata creation and use.
I was curious to have your inputs/insights into the DFG position and whether the novel codex (https://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/principles_dfg_funding/good_scientific_practice/index.html) has had an impact on the evaluation criterium or their application (for example, Guideline 12: An important basis for enabling replication is to make available the information necessary to understand the research (including the research data used or generated, the methodological, evaluation and analytical steps taken, and, if relevant, the development of the hypothesis), to ensure that citations are clear, and, as far as possible, to enable third parties to access this information. Where research software is being developed, the source code is documented.). How are open practices evaluated at the DFG, and how is it developing ?
The section you mentioned did not (yet) find it´s way into the Guidelines for CRC Reviewing Proposals https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/koordinierte_programme/sfb/formulare_merkblaetter/index.jsp section 5 Information Infrastructure Project (if proposed)
But of course research data handling, open access publications and the so called third mission are getting more and more important within the reviewing process and will lead to that reviewers will have a closer look into that. Until today I would say that I haven´t seen a project rejection that explicitly is referring to a bad/not existing data management plan or that PIs are not publishing OA but I am pretty sure that will be our future and I encourage every applicant to write about it in the application. When we look at the standard DFG program (research project) the codex has been included in the application template: https://www.dfg.de/formulare/54_01/54_01_en.pdf 1.4.3Forschungsdaten und Wissensmanagement which underlines the will and need within DFG to draw attention to the open science aspects.
What´s needed when talking about the crc the german version of the application template gives more information on rdm etc. https://www.dfg.de/formulare/60_200/60_200_de.pdf 1.4.3Forschungsdaten und Wissensmanagement.
So to conclude - it will be very soon very important to have an innovative and holistic open science approach when applying for DFG funding.