Not yet the default setting - in 2020 open research remains a work in progress (original) (raw)
Related papers
Open science from the standpoint of the new wave of researchers: Views from the scholarly frontline1
Information Services & Use
Reports on the findings on the open science attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs) from the Harbingers research project, which sought to determine whether they are the agents of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from 7 countries were questioned, longitudinally over a period of three years. The ECR findings are run against the received wisdom on open science emanating from relevant European Union institutions and funders and it was found that some confusion reigns and that there is a significant disconnect between what the institutions promulgate and what ECRs say and do, and, this, is largely because of reputational concerns.
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge
ICAI, 2019
Digital transformation is changing communication in the academic community, breaking geographic barriers with facilities of communication between collaborators. However, countries and institutions are not in the same context about resources to build an open path for research production. For this reason, Open Access and Science are strategies of relevance that enable collaboration among researchers around the world and institutional areas. We do a systematic review with the aim of exploring the potentials, and limitations of Open Science (OS) and Open Access (OA) to scientific collaboration and production. We did an initial screening of an abstract of 1664 publications in Scopus to select 144 documents related. Finally, a detailed review of the articles presents 17 documents that deal specifically with the functionalities and barriers of OS and OA. The given arguments highlight the efficiency, and abilities to democratize the production of knowledge and to generate ideas and innovative solutions to current problems. Likewise, this article addresses the barriers found in the academic level. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the arguments treated by scientists in the dispute over whether to use it or not. Specifically, our objectives are to: (a) analyze the role of open science and open access in scientific production, (b) identify the barriers that authors experiment when opting for open access and open science. At last, we discuss the potential of OS to overcome the territorial, economic, and infrastructure barriers that certain researchers may experience in their production of scientific research collaboratively and equitably.
“Opening Science to Meet Future Challenges”
The way the modern research is being performed nowadays is greatly characterized by connecting individual researchers, institutions, disciplines and different stakeholder groups such as governments, citizens and industries. Such cross-linked scholarly ecosystem becomes even more critical when it comes to solving global issues like understanding climate change or ensuring stability of financial systems. Access to and joint efforts in analyzing scientific research data are therefore increasingly seen as a potential key to tackle future challenges. Along with growing expectations and funders requirements as f.i. recently announced Open Research Data Pilot in Horizon 2020 (European Commission, 2013) a number of higher education institutions (HEIs) are now starting to explore their role in promoting open access for research data in their respective communities. In the context of so-called "research data management (RDM) initiative" a dedicated job position was created at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU) and assigned with a task to develop an institutional concept for RDM. Instead of building yet-another-repository for archiving and publishing research data we decided to focus on organizational, sociocultural and legal aspects of RDM first. We started with conducting an university-wide survey on current research data holdings and researchers needs for supporting services. The results revealed some general issues for multidisciplinary HEIs like HU. For example, "the rules of good scientific practice" (passed by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in 1998 and characteristic for German HEIs landscape) committing researchers to preserve data underlying their publications for at least 10 years were only fulfilled by approx. half of respondents. Among over 100 free text comments very simple yet sound arguments were presented: prevalently shorter than the given period job contracts and research projects, keeping competitive advantage along with restricted access to research data or complicated applicability of these rules in arts and humanities research, just to name a few. In this talk we want to shed light on what role HEIs and other research institutions can play in promoting open access to research data as a means for "intelligent openness" and novel social dynamics in science as defined by the Royal Society (2012) and collectivelly preparing to meet future challenges.
[Click link below for Open Access version from Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society] This paper documents how biomedical researchers in the United Kingdom understand and enact the idea of “openness.” This is of particular interest to researchers and science policy worldwide in view of the recent adoption of pioneering policies on Open Science and Open Access by the UK government – policies whose impact on and implications for research practice are in need of urgent evaluation, so as to decide on their eventual implementation elsewhere. This study is based on 22 in-depth interviews with UK researchers in systems biology, synthetic biology and bioinformatics, which were conducted between September 2013 and February 2014. Through an analysis of the interview transcripts, we identify seven core themes that characterize researchers’ understanding of openness in science, and nine factors that shape the practice of openness in research. Our findings highlight the implications that Open Science policies can have for research processes and outcomes, and provide recommendations for enhancing their content, effectiveness and implementation.
Frontiers in Big Data, 2019
Open science will make science more efficient, reliable, and responsive to societal challenges. The European Commission has sought to advance open science policy from its inception in a holistic and integrated way, covering all aspects of the research cycle from scientific discovery and review to sharing knowledge, publishing, and outreach. We present the steps taken with a forward-looking perspective on the challenges laying ahead, in particular the necessary change of the rewards and incentives system for researchers (for which various actors are co-responsible and which goes beyond the mandate of the European Commission). Finally, we discuss the role of artificial intelligence (AI) within an open science perspective.
2013
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) – an intergovernmental framework supporting cooperation among scientists and researchers across Europe – recently supported an independent Strategic Initiative to better understand issues pertaining to open access publishing across a range of disciplines. Here COST Domain Committee members Marc Caball, Soulla Louca and Roland Pochet, Policy Officer for Open Access at the European Commission, Daniel Spichtinger, and Chair of the COST Strategic Initiative on Open Access, Barbara Prainsack emphasise that the best pathways to the goal of open access vary across disciplines and across countries and institutions. The individuals best placed to decide what is right for them are the researchers themselves. The European Commission also encourages this position through the adoption of the Horizon 2020 open access regulation which will present researchers with a range of Open Access options, rather than prescribing one narrow format.
2015
Openness is being invoked as a silver bullet to increase the productivity and cost-effectiveness of academic research. Sabina Leonelli and Barbara Prainsack argue that openness is more than just a blanket strategy to reduce costs. The failure to recognise neoliberal commodificaton and the false premise that open science will necessarily save money are two major misconceptions. Openness in science is not an end in itself, but it should always be in the service of something good.