improvements and rearrangements

lectures/good-practice/slides.qmd

@@ -6,10 +6,15 @@ author: "Bjorn Stevens and Theresa Mieslinger"
 # Good Scientific Practice
 *Building trust in research. And in your own work.*
 
-## What is it?
+## What is it about?
 Principles fomulated by the research community that define ***proper research behaviour*** with the aim to ensure a high quality, robustness and reproducibility of results (publications, data, code, software).
 
-## Why should we care?
+:::notes
+* research aims to advance knowledge
+* research is carried out by many actors, collaboratively, and thus, needs some rules.
+:::
+
+## How does the topic relate to this lecture series?
 * guidlines for building software
 * using own and other software/data
 * communicating the usage of software/data
@@ -36,6 +41,10 @@ Principles fomulated by the research community that define ***proper research be
 
 # Reliability & Reproducibility
 
+:::notes
+It's hard to know that you are right, but we'd like to know as quickly as possible when we are wrong.
+:::
+
 ## What do we want to reproduce? {.special}
 
 ::: {.fragment}
@@ -43,8 +52,8 @@ Principles fomulated by the research community that define ***proper research be
 :::
 
 ::: {.notes}
-* example: you run ICON to model future climate scenario for 2050
-* example: calculate the orbit of EarthCARE
+draw a line plot at the board and ask whether we need to reproduce bit-for-bit the underlying data.
+Example: you run ICON to model future climate scenario for 2050
 :::
 
 ## What do we need to save and how? {.special}
@@ -75,6 +84,10 @@ Principles fomulated by the research community that define ***proper research be
 * Derived data is easy to reproduce from accessible sources.
 :::
 
+## Data Management
+* ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary
+* data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials is saved for a reasonable and clearly stated period (typically 10 years)
+
 ## (Meta)data and [FAIR principles](https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/)
 * **Findable**: unique identifiers, metadata registered in a searchable resource
 * **Accessible**: (meta)data retrievable via standardized communication protocol
@@ -109,6 +122,11 @@ Principles fomulated by the research community that define ***proper research be
 :::fragment
 *intent and usage*
 :::
+
+:::notes
+Next to source code and data, we need documentation to reproduce an argument.
+:::
+
 ## 
 ### Documentation
 
@@ -234,6 +252,10 @@ See also Python docstring conventions [PEP-257](https://peps.python.org/pep-0257
 
 ## Which tools shall we use? {.special}
 
+:::notes
+We have data and documentation, so which software tools shall we use?
+:::
+
 ## Open Source / Open Development
 *Open source is a decentralized software development model that encourages collaboration.*
 
@@ -269,7 +291,7 @@ See also Python docstring conventions [PEP-257](https://peps.python.org/pep-0257
 > To protect the integrity of authorship, only persons who have significantly contributed to the research and paper preparation should be listed as authors. [-- ACP](https://publications.copernicus.org/for_authors/obligations_for_authors.html)
 :::
 
-## Which contributions qualify for authorship? {.speical}
+## Which contributions qualify for authorship? {.special}
 
 ## Authorship
 :::leftalign
@@ -277,9 +299,7 @@ See also Python docstring conventions [PEP-257](https://peps.python.org/pep-0257
 
 * the conception or design of the work
 * the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
-:::
 
-:::fragment
 **Authorship implies responsibility and accountability for the published work.**
 :::
 
@@ -310,6 +330,16 @@ Typically used to acknowledge
 * The provision of data, model output, or the use of a model, that has been published in a previous study does not constitute a basis for authorship.
 :::
 
+## Does ChatGPT qualify for authorship? {.special}
+
+:::fragment
+*No, because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.*
+:::
+
+:::notes
+ChatGPT's answer: No. [...] AI systems like ChatGPT can provide immense help in information search, organization, and preliminary drafting, they don't possess the capability to understand, interpret, or conceptualize the results of a research study or to take responsibility for it.
+:::
+
 ## Using and declaring Artificial Intelligence (AI)
 :::leftalign
 The usage of AI needs to be declared in the respective section:
@@ -319,18 +349,8 @@ The usage of AI needs to be declared in the respective section:
 * if AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation -> methods section
 :::
 :::fragment
-**Humans / authors are still responsable for any published material, also if it includes AI-assisted technology**
-:::
-:::
-
-## Does ChatGPT qualify for authorship? {.special}
-
-:::fragment
-*No, because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.*
+**Authors are still responsible for any published material, also if it includes AI-assisted technology**
 :::
-
-:::notes
-ChatGPT's answer: No. [...] AI systems like ChatGPT can provide immense help in information search, organization, and preliminary drafting, they don't possess the capability to understand, interpret, or conceptualize the results of a research study or to take responsibility for it.
 :::
 
 ## Intellectual Property (IP) rights
@@ -377,7 +397,7 @@ Two main legal concepts relevant for software:
 
 ## Is AI-generated work protected by copyright? {.special}
 :::fragment
-*Many countries do not put AI-generated work under copyright. But the status is unclear.*
+*Unclear. Many countries do not put AI-generated work under copyright, but others do (e.g. China).*
 :::
 
 ## Summary on Authorship and Credit {.special}