Some time ago UCLA Library launched a call for proposals to write lessons on open science for librarians. I submitted one called “Open science hardware: an introduction for librarians” and it got in.
If anyone has librarians around and would like to test this, leave a message here. It doesn’t have to be a super formal set up, can be an online call and 2-3 people joining.
However that says it’s for pilots for “beta” lessons, and mine is in pre-alpha. I just emailed the organizers asking what’s the best way to move forward, will come back once they reply.
Is the purpose of this that librarians curate open science hardware?
If so, then we need another item in the syllabus:
Qualifying (or validating) the open science hardware
In some topics in open hardware, there is a huge amount of “noise”. Many of the designs posted in some forums are simply ways to generate irreproducible results.
It seems to me that curation is a fantastically good idea. But it has to include review and validation, and that has to be by people with good credentials in the relevant science and the engineering.
Other scientists (or people) will actually invest in and use the equipment that we post or curate. They will put their reputations on the line when they publish the data.
So there is a very serious responsibility in creating and posting hardware. Curating will be a big help if that level of responsibility carries through the entire process; creation, review and validation, and then, curation.
I realize that is tough. But curation is such a good idea, and it would be so important, that it really should be done and done well.
Great points! Agree that it would be fantastic to get curation through librarians.
Thinking of the scope of the lesson was a tough process precisely because of that. I think we are OK with these contents as they are for a 101. They should be refined through testing, but IMHO it’s enough (and maybe too much).
Curation would be Unit 2, let’s say. And I’d love to start brainstorming what a table of contents for a lesson on curation of OScH would look like.
IMHO we can’t expect librarians to have all the skills to curate designs, but we could think of a process for them to gather input from in-house experts. And then publishing that, to have a library of validated designs. A girl can dream =D
As I think about this more, I realize this really what has been missing and there may be a very good opportunity for GOSH to lead the way in curating open hardware/software for science.
And, BTW, I think of both open science and underfunded scientists. Most of my designs aim at both and I have downloads from the US and Europe to Africa.
@DrM not necessarily agree that hardware validation should be considered a 101 if your audience is librarians who never heard about the concept of OScH.
That’s a different discussion though, in any case, I was trying to say that I can’t expand this particular lesson I shared in this post to include validation. It’s outside the scope of the original call. is too long, so it’s just a matter of creating a new one.
@solstag Update: the organizers of the UCLA open science lessons tell me that we should pilot and let them know afterwards what we learn/if we are modifying anything, through a form they have in their github repo. So we have green light to plan something.
I can work on some outreach materials to prepare a test lesson with 2-3 librarians. What do you think? Which language would it be in?