[OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations
Christian Willmes
c.willmes at uni-koeln.de
Wed Jul 25 01:53:08 PDT 2018
Hi Peter,
good point! And fair enough for your example on SQL which is an open
standard and thus reproducible in theory and practice. My Point is more
general, although it may not be 100% thought through yet, so comments
are welcome. My argumetation on this is as follows:
Scientific publications that deal for example with a GIS analysis on a
specific topic, should be published in a way, that any reader of that
study can practically reproduce its analysis and its results.
From my point of view, for > 90% of publications in the GIS domain,
this is not the case yet, either caused by constraints in data
availability or software availability, or mostly by just the lack of
precise documentation and citation of the data sources and the conduct
of the processing workflow of the study. Hardware constraints are also a
thing, but I think this should not be the concern of the scientist, to
ensure his/her research is open and transparent and in practice and
theory reproducible.
Software wise, it would be from my point of view plain unscientific, if
the results in the publication are produced with a proprietary ("point
and click" without detailed documentation of processing steps taken)
software, and additionally are not reproducible without a license of
that software. Thus I would demand, to be able to label something Open
Science or reproducible Science, access to the software (or at least
precise definitions of how it is implemented, for example the source
code) for reproducing the results must be a given. For example a script
executing all the commands for the analysis workflow conducted, would do
this precisely. If the script uses closed software, this would be less
open compared to a script that uses open software.
But in the end I am sure, that these kinds of reproducible research
publications, will end up using open source or at least open access
(free for scientific use) software, because it will just generate more
impact, if also Scientists with less access to expensive software can
also built upon this research results and cite it accordingly...
Think also about the positive feedback from science funding for
development of open software instead of paying for licenses, researchers
would pay programmers or companies that offer according programming
solutions to develop software for their scientific needs and interests.
The aspect that this open approach adheres also better to the
understanding of how science works or should work in general, is also an
important point.
Best regards,
Christian
Am 25.07.2018 um 09:57 schrieb Peter Baumann:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
>
> while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to
> disagree with:
>
>
> On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>>
>> Dear Suchith,
>>
>> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but
>> this is from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to
>> have it as an "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an
>> ICA and not so much an OSGeo issue, I think.
>>
>> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue
>> (UN SDG book published by esri), and also some personal background
>> (this should not matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend
>> you keep it from being personal and denouncing proprietary GIS
>> vendors. If a company plays by the rules of science, there is nothing
>> wrong about that company publishing a scientific book. I.e. almost
>> all book publishers are commercial companies with interests somehow
>> and somewhere.
>>
>> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular
>> company in conducting the editing and publication of that book.
>> Publishing books if done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor
>> with vested interests. But if you witness, for example, that
>> submissions using open source GIS solutions are disadvantaged against
>> the submissions using products of the proprietary GIS vendor
>> publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.
>>
>> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this
>> negative “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open
>> Science and Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and
>> transparency possible. We just need more transparency in science and
>> also in the whole process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book.
>> And this is where OSGeo can contribute. Basically, real reproducible
>> and open science is not possible without open source software. If you
>> can’t see how something is implemented, you can not really reproduce
>> the results.
>>
>
> No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different
> things. For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL it
> does not matter whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or from
> proprietary Oracle. Because the SQL language in its syntax and
> semantics is standardized, and it is assured thereby that both systems
> will deliver the same results. So standards actually are a
> prerequisite for science to be comparable, but surely not open source.
>
> my 2 cents,
> Peter
>
>>
>> Third, if you accuse someone of “Fake Science” please make sure to
>> offer evidence about this particular misconduct. If you fail to do
>> so, you are creating “fake news” yourself. Sorry, no offense at you
>> personally, but I think its not a good idea to publish this letter in
>> OSGeo's or GeoForAll's name. At least not with these accusations or
>> even notion of "Fake Science" in it.
>>
>>
>> To be clear, I share your view that it is bad, if esri would publish
>> a book written by scientists in the context of a United Nations
>> initiative to maybe only advertise its own product, but until any
>> misconduct is proven, you can't accuse esri or ICA of "Fake Science".
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Am 24.07.2018 um 11:53 schrieb Suchith Anand:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have prepared a draft letter with my ideas/suggestions .I am just
>>> a volunteer and I feel sad thatthat I have to raise this issue
>>> through an open letter. But if I remain silent on this , I will be
>>> indirectly supporting the degrading of independent peer review
>>> frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is the fundamental duty of all Officers of Scientific
>>> Associations/Organisationsto always take steps to guard and protect
>>> independent peer review frameworksfor Scholarly publications of
>>> Scientific Associations. I am hopeful and confident that that they
>>> all will do this for the future.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not a native English speaker, so please help refine thisletter
>>> correctly. I want us to look at the future not focus on mistakes
>>> made in past . Some mistakes have been made and I understand that
>>> this is corrected. We are all human , so we all make mistakes. So
>>> let us not focus on past mistakes but look at ideas on how we can
>>> strengthen the independent peer review frameworksfor Scholarly
>>> publications of Scientific Associations in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>> The International Cartographic Association (ICA) is my organisation
>>> for whichI have volunteered for the last 15 years and continuing . I
>>> have great respect for everyone in this great global community . The
>>> SDG book is a community effort (not any individual’s book project) .
>>> I have requested from the start (as soon as I came to know) for
>>> openness and transparency in decision making for selecting the
>>> publisher. esp. as this book is on UN SDG . I understand that ICA
>>> has now corrected the mistake . Everyone makes mistakes and it takes
>>> courage to acknowledge and correct the mistakes .Compassion and
>>> forgiveness are important values .I am very grateful that ICA has
>>> listened to my concerns and rectified this . So I don’t have any
>>> issues with ICA or any colleagues in ICA. We might have difference
>>> in opinions on some issues and having free and open discussions is
>>> in my humble opinion the best way to learn each others perspectives
>>> and find best solutions to move forward.
>>>
>>> _
>>> _
>>>
>>>
>>> Please send any updates/modifications needed to the draft by 30th
>>> July 2018. I am on family holidays ( with no internet ) in first
>>> week of August, so I will aim to send this before I go on holidays.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ===========================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent
>>> peer review frameworks**for Scholarly publications of Scientific
>>> Associations*
>>>
>>>
>>> Scholarly publications (edited books, journals etc) from scientific
>>> associations/organisations hascredibility and reputation because of
>>> strong independent peer review frameworks . We are very fortunate in
>>> the Geospatial domain to have many reputed Scientific Associations
>>> and organisations (ICA, IGU, ISPRS, IEEE-GRSS, IAG etc) who have
>>> over many decades provided strong leadership in advancement of geo
>>> science.
>>>
>>>
>>> In times of fake news, science is usually one of those areas that
>>> can give us orientation and we can rely on.Independent peer review
>>> frameworksfor Scholarly publications is among the foundations of
>>> good science. However, this isobviously at risk now. If a
>>> professional association takesagrees to publish scholarly
>>> publications (edited books etc)through a GIS vendor’s press then
>>> there is potential issues with independent peer review and ensuring
>>> scientific quality. It is only natural that any GIS vendor
>>> publication press to have vested interests in promoting their
>>> products andagenda. It also makes it easy for the vendor to get
>>> endorsement for theirproducts from scientific and professional
>>> organisations using this route. Independent peer review is the
>>> fundamental aspect of science and we need to ensure all steps to
>>> protect this.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are also now seeing a very disturbing trend withsome vendors even
>>> starting to trademark “ science” for marketing/sales of
>>> theirproducts and “science” is being misused for vendor
>>> marketing/sales! . I have raised this issue through an open letter
>>> [1] .Science is not a commodity to be marketed or sold by any vendor
>>> owners! I am very sad and disappointed to see this degrading of
>>> science happening. Scientific organisations should not endorse any
>>> specific vendor products etc as “Science” and take strong moral
>>> stand againstmarketing of products as “Science’ by any vendor owners!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am a volunteer for the ICA for the last 15 years and always done
>>> my best in my small way to support ICA . Around one year back, i/n
>>> the light of the //International Map Year (IMY)/
>>> <http://mapyear.org/>/, the /The International Cartographic
>>> Association (ICA) started an excellent initiative /forhighlighting
>>> the value of cartography by “mapping” the //UN sustainable
>>> development goals/
>>> <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/>/./Building upon this, The
>>> ICA community started work on a book on UN SDG Mappingbuilding upon
>>> the posters of the various commissions on this [2]. This is a great
>>> community initiative developed with inputs from all colleagues in
>>> commissions of the ICA. The Open Source Geospatial Commission
>>> colleagues also contributed our inputs for this. When the book
>>> project was announced, I did my best to contact colleagues to
>>> contribute to this in good faith. I didn’t have the faintest idea
>>> that it was being planned to be published through a properitary GIS
>>> vendor publication press! As soon as I came to know about this, I
>>> did contact Menno -Jan with my concerns and requested him that as
>>> this is a community book project to please allow open discussions
>>> and keep the community updated [3] . I was very surprised that there
>>> was no open and transparent discussions on selecting the book
>>> publisher was done.
>>>
>>>
>>> From an email from Anthony Robinson on 16th July 2018, I understand
>>> now that ICA is not proceeding with the vendor GIS publication press
>>> (Esri press)for the SDG book and I welcome this. But it
>>> isimportantwe need to be learn lessons from this mistake and not
>>> repeat this in future. We are all humans and make mistakes.
>>>
>>>
>>> I fully respect the right of individuals publishing their personal
>>> work [1] in any publication house that they wish. But as officers of
>>> Scientific Organisations, esp. in times of some vendor owners
>>> doing marketing/sales on “Science” , I request all colleagues to
>>> be careful not to do anything that will undermine independent peer
>>> review process.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am suggesting some initial ideas that we all can take as a
>>> community to help reduce this problem in the future
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * All Scientific Associations and organisations should ensure that
>>> there is full open and transparent discussions allowed before
>>> choosing any publishers of scholarly publications (Edited Books
>>> etc).
>>>
>>>
>>> * It is important that GIS scientific associations/organisations
>>> take strong moral stand against taking sponsorship/royalty etc
>>> for scholarly publications from all GIS vendors . Independent
>>> peer review system is the fundamental aspect of science. So I am
>>> humbly requesting all Scientific organisations tonot use any GIS
>>> vendor controlled press for publishing scholarly outputs (edited
>>> books etc).GIS scientific organisations should nottakeany
>>> sponsorship or royalty for scholarly publications (books,
>>> journals etc) from any GIS vendors . If a scientific association
>>> takesagrees to publish scholarly publications (edited books
>>> etc)through the vendor’s press then there is potential issues
>>> with independent peer review and ensuring scientific quality. It
>>> is only natural that any GIS vendor publication press to have
>>> vested interests in promoting their products and agenda. It
>>> also makes it easy for the vendor to get endorsement for their
>>> products from scientific and professional organisations using
>>> this route. Independent peer review is the fundamental aspect of
>>> science and we need to ensure all steps to protect this.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Officers of Scientific Organisations and Editors of all GIS
>>> journals declare any conflict of interest with any vendors
>>> (funding/sponsorship/royalties etc received from any GIS
>>> vendors currently or in the past) to ensure transparency and
>>> good practices.They should not support any vendors interest
>>> directly or indirectly. Scientific organisations should not
>>> endorse any specific vendor products etc as “Science” and take
>>> strong moral stand against marketing of products as “Science’
>>> by any vendor owners!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am concerned with the wider degradation of science and education
>>> happening in different sectors. This is a moral issue and needs all
>>> organisations globally in science and education working together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is the fundamental duty of all Officers of Scientific
>>> Organisationsto guard and protect independent peer review
>>> frameworksfor Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations. I
>>> am hopeful and confident that that they will do this for the future.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>> Suchith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/geospatial-ig/post/open-letter-importance-scientific-freedom-and-public-good
>>>
>>> [2] https://icaci.org/maps-and-sustainable-development-goals/
>>> <http://icaci.org/maps-and-sustainable-development-goals/>
>>>
>>> [3] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geoforall/2017-June/003790.html
>>>
>>> [4]
>>> https://esripress.esri.com/display/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&websiteID=254&moduleID=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>>> attachment.
>>>
>>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>>> where permitted by law.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GeoForAll mailing list
>>> GeoForAll at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Christian Willmes
>> AG GIS & Fernerkundung | GIS & RS Group
>> Geographisches Institut | Institute of Geography
>> Universität zu Köln | University of Cologne
>> Tel.: +49 (0)221 470 6234
>> http://www.geographie.uni-koeln.de/14126.html
>> http://www.sfb806.de
>> http://crc806db.uni-koeln.de
>> http://publons.com/a/1316706/
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5566-6542
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Baumann
> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
> mail:p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
> www.rasdaman.com, mail:baumann at rasdaman.com
> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>
>
--
Dr. Christian Willmes
AG GIS & Fernerkundung | GIS & RS Group
Geographisches Institut | Institute of Geography
Universität zu Köln | University of Cologne
Tel.: +49 (0)221 470 6234
http://www.geographie.uni-koeln.de/14126.html
http://www.sfb806.de
http://crc806db.uni-koeln.de
http://publons.com/a/1316706/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5566-6542
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20180725/1e96acef/attachment.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list