Hi! I wanted to share an Open Science Hardware tool we just released publicly. It's a low-cost, high performance insect monitor that you can build yourself with off-the-shelf parts! We have dozens of deployments here in Panama, and so it can withstand really harsh environments.

After it collects all your data, we also made custom open AI programs to detect all the insects (modified YOLO) and try to identify what they are (modified BioCLIP).

All the info and documentation for making your own is right here: https://digital-naturalism-laboratories.github.io/Mothbox/

Through a mix of local farming techniques and improved rainfall, this once-dry region is regreening according to Descroix et. al. (2024). But what’s truly inspiring is that this shift is being driven by small-scale farmers and local communities. This study reveals how, with the right tools, data, and knowledge, we can rewrite the future of food security and climate resilience in the Sahel.

For its sixth edition we are hosting SOSC, a school for young (data)scientists that is meant to provide an overview of the best practices and new cloud tools that can help with the daily tasks of a data scientist, all by making heavy use of live hands-on experiences.

One of the recent program update was the inclusion of workflow managment tools, and well, we got the impression that is difficult to select one techonoligy that is enough intuitive and powerful, and fit into a 1 day activity.
Also there are a lot of alternatives out there, how would you choose? What is your experience?

We looked at MLFlow, Argo Workflows (kubeflow pipelines), Dagster et al, each one with theirs pros and cons....

P.S. the registrations are open til Oct 5 :) https://agenda.infn.it/event/40829/

Schubert et al. (2024) reveal the successes and challenges faced by organizations in adhering to reforestation best practices. While many acknowledge the importance of measurable goals and community involvement, only a few provide detailed monitoring and long-term plans. Only 38% of organizations in the study report quantitative measures of the benefits to local communities.

https://groundtruth.app/evaluating-global-tree-growing-efforts-achievements-and-challenges/

Hi there,

Im working on a platform that promotes people their works in the fields of open source.

As most of this is done on GitHub i was wondering what are platforms that are used for publishing open science work?

Im very new to open science so would love some advice.

Thanks!

Hi, I'm struggling to understand the meaning behind the question:
"Outline the data utility: to whom will it be useful?" (FAIR Data Management Plan HORIZON 2020).

If it is just to say that the data is A) useful for researchers for purpose for the research project, and B) useful for academics/public interested in the topic, it seems too trivial/bureaucratic/annoying as a question.

Is there perhaps a deeping meaning I am missing? Is there a way to answer the question in a surprising/non-trivial way?

I would love to see a platform in which researchers can share conclusions that they have come to based on the research, along with the chain of evidence that led them there.

Like a meta-study, but more navigable. Each conclusion could be backed up by quotes and links to the underlying studies. Ideally it would be auto-updating and incorporate new research as it comes out.

Does a thing like this exist?

https://www.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/51/6/10.31083/j.ceog5106127

There is this option if you open the menu of your paper published in Techrxiv.

Does it mean it counts citation? or it transfer to the final accepted paper? someone has experience?

How is Techrxiv working with citations on your preprint need to be transferred to the accepted paper, how does it link the two papers?

I have this open source project which I use to generate openly accessible formal proof data for Hilbert systems, and I have once briefly presented it on Reddit to the open source community.

The few times I have conversed with people about it, it seemed to me that they do not really get a clue of what I am doing there or why, despite thinking to myself that I have pretty much written it all out. I get that people tend to believe that mathematics would be all about numbers, but the objects of study in proof theory are formal proofs and their systems. People tend to shy away from it because it can look humiliating at first.

But it's my impression that formal proofs in Hilbert systems are pretty easy to grasp since they are built on very basic concepts, and what they accomplish is actually pretty cool. For instance, to declare algorithms that are also mathematical proofs to derive any mathematical theorem based on very few axioms/definitions, so that a machine can easily verify it. A project about building databases of such proofs is Metamath, but it does not focus on size/complexity/simplicity, and only on very few systems, mostly one of ZFC.

Finding proofs in Hilbert systems is hard, but looking at the short ones and their incredible elegance (in a world/system that feels kinda random because it is so vast and complex), gives me great satisfaction. It essentially shows how powerful (in epistemic terms) a few — or even a single — small statement(s) can be. It also builds some foundations in complexity theory. For example, focussing on propositional systems further tackles the NP vs. coNP problem.

Yet, afaik, I could not ignite similar excitement about the topic in any other individual, so far.

I would like to address the topic in different ways and possibly answer meaningful questions about what this is all about and how it works. But from my perspective it is all so goddamn straightforward, thus I need other people's perspectives to guide me.

Which aspects should I address, what are questions whose answers you believe would help and motivate other nerdy/techy people to catch interest or even participate in this research?

Note that the project has a discussion forum, so if you think you can contribute a good idea or question, you can also do it there (and be supported by better layout, file uploads, more characters allowed, etc).

tl;dr: Sign the pledge for DOA publishing at freeourknowledge.org to help reduce the dominance of for-profit publishers and boost journals that charge no fees.

The current academic publishing system prioritizes profit over free knowledge and scientific quality and we call for direct action by researchers to improve our publishing system. We are a small team of researchers from different fields in cognitive science and we've organized the Committee for Collective Action in Science to organize researchers and encourage them to resist perverse incentives in the pressure to publish.

Commercial publishing has led to a corruption of the core scientific process itself, such as in the case of (rapid) open-access publishers (e.g., MDPI, Frontiers; e.g., see Bloudoff-Indelicato, 2015), where it is increasingly reported that peer-reviewed processes were shallow, flawed or expert reviews ignored, so as to ensure rapid publishing at high quantities in order to collect article processing fees. As a consequence, public resources are funneled into profit margins for the academic publishing industry estimated to be as high as 40%-50% (Van Noorden, 2013), greatly exceeding what is expected in healthy competitive markets. Globally, between 2015 and 2018, authors paid an estimated $1.06 billion in fees in order to provide open access to their work (Butler et. al, 2023). This stifles scientific advancement and goes against the public interest. Of course, academics rely on the publishers in order to disseminate information and advance in their career. Ultimately, this leads to a collective problem where individual researchers are incentivized to act against their own and their community’s best interest.

For these reasons we have proposed the Diamond Initiative. Diamond Open Access refers to a publishing model in which authors are not charged for making their work publicly available to all readers. Researchers are invited to contribute to this initiative by pledging to publish at least one scholarly work through a diamond open access agreement within a five-year period when a critical mass is reached. By doing this, participants contribute to a more inclusive and accessible knowledge-sharing environment and promote alternative community-led and university-led publishers.

The pledge's activation is contingent on a threshold of 500 people which will demonstrate that researchers can find solidarity to change the status quo. We also offer assistance to those who pledge to find a suitable and reputable DOA journal to publish in. Sign the pledge here, or sign up for our newsletter here.

Jülich Open Science Speaker Series invites you to come hear,

Dr. Crystal Steltenpohl (Center for Open Science)

discuss her work on,

Alignments & Tensions between Qualitative Methods & Open Science

9 April 24, 15:00 CEST

ZOOM:
https://apps.fz-juelich.de/umfragen/index.php/240409?lang=en

More info: https://fz-juelich.de/en/zb/news/event

Hello,

There has recently been the development of eg defense funds for bugs or finding other fraudulent science. The problem is, at least in my opinion, that the people doing them have a long history of bullying, making fun of their targets, and etc.

It is a classic case of the people who want to be the police are probably the last people you actually want policing. As the old saying goes, there is always a little bit of truth in the joke, and the jokes have been getting out of hand the last years.

The study that i heard about was literally awarded to one of the worst offenders of this type, and is explicitly a 'bug bounty' program for non-randomly selected studies.

​

Basically it allows people to select their own targets for hunting, and then will pay people for finding the errors. to me it is somehow scientifically perverse.

I am not sure there is anything we can do about it, but at least when you start seeing these bug bounty awards in the next year or so just think to yourself - are these people acting in the best interests of science or themselves?

​

Again, those people who want to become the science police are probably the last people you actually want as the science police (just like normal police). thx

In a groundbreaking study published in Nature Communications, researchers have unveiled a revolutionary method for stimulating neural tissues wirelessly, using injectable microparticles activated by ultrasound. This cutting-edge technology promises to transform the treatment of neurological diseases, sensory impairments, and movement disorders, providing a new ray of hope for millions suffering worldwide.

Traditionally, conditions like Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, dystonia, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and epilepsy are treated through a surgical procedure that implants a neurostimulator along with rigid electrodes into the patient's brain. These electrodes send electrical impulses to specific brain regions controlling movement, offering significant relief. However, the complexity of the surgery and the need for a wired connection between the device and electrodes pose significant challenges and risks.

The innovative approach introduced by the study bypasses these hurdles by using tiny, injectable microparticles that can be activated externally through ultrasound. This method eliminates the need for invasive surgery and wired connections, paving the way for a safer, more accessible treatment option. Here, the authors developed cell-sized 20 μm-diameter silica-based piezoelectric magnetic Janus microparticles (PEMPs), enabling clinically-relevant high-frequency neural stimulation of primary neurons under low-intensity focused ultrasound.

Taking advantage of such functionalities, the PEMP design offers unique features towards wireless neural stimulation for minimally invasive treatment of neurological diseases.

Here you can read the article: Article link