Browsing by Author "Nilsonne, Gustav"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemInternational transfers of personal data for health research following Schrems II: a problem in need of a solution(Basingstoke : Stockton Press, 2021) Hallinan, Dara; Bernier, Alexander; Cambon-Thomsen, Anne; Crawley, Francis P.; Dimitrova, Diana; Bauzer Medeiros, Claudia; Nilsonne, Gustav; Parker, Simon; Pickering, Brian; Rennes, StéphanieOn 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued their decision in the Schrems II case concerning Facebook's transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision may have significant effects on the legitimate transfer of personal data for health research purposes from the EU. This article aims: (i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, (ii) to consider certain options available to address the consequences of the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward.
- ItemA tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship(Charlottesville, VA : Center for Open Science, 2020) Tennant, Jonathan P.; Agrawal, Ritwik; Baždarić, Ksenija; Brassard, David; Crick, Tom; Dunleavy, Daniel J.; Evans, Thomas Rhys; Gardner, Nicholas; Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica; Graziotin, Daniel; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Gunnarson, Daniel; Havemann, Johanna; Hosseini, Mohammad; Katz, Daniel S.; Knöchelmann, Marcel; Lahti, Leo; Madan, Christopher R.; Manghi, Paolo; Marocchino, Alberto; Masuzzo, Paola; Murray-Rust, Peter; Narayanaswamy, Sanjay; Nilsonne, Gustav; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Penders, Bart; Pourret, Olivier; Rera, Michael; Samuel, John; Steiner, Tobias; Stojanovski, Jadranka; Uribe Tirado, Alejandro; Vos, Rutger; Worthington, Simon; Yarkoni, TalThere is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.