Open Science, open issues (original) (raw)
Related papers
On sharing knowledge and fostering "open science
Ubiquity, 2021
The development of science and innovation involves different actors in society, each of which contributes in its way to the advancement of knowledge and thus to economic, social, and cultural development. These actors are of course scientists but also companies of all sizes, local authorities, cities, large national groups, and ultimately the largest possible number of citizens because science and innovation are everyone's business. The internet has sped up the dissemination of various types of information among this large group of actors and this inevitably obliges us to maintain an "open science," which allows us to quickly verify the validity of information that may be of importance to our wellbeing, safety, and health. The recent COVID-19 crisis has made it clear that crisis management and unfounded statements or pressure from public opinion are no substitute for the requirements of a scientific approach, peer review, or structured, objective, and transparent research. It has illustrated the absolute need for a shift toward open science.
2020
UNESCO is launching international consultations aimed at developing a Recommendation on Open Science for adoption by member states in 2021. Its Recommendation will include a common definition, a shared set of values, and proposals for action.<br> At the invitation of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, this paper aims to contribute to the consultation process by answering questions such as:<br> <br> • Why and how should science be "open"? For and with whom?<br> • Is it simply a matter of making scientific articles and data fully available to researchers around the world at the time of publication, so they do not miss important results that could contribute to or accelerate their work?<br> • Could this openness also enable citizens around the world to contribute to science with their capacities and expertise, such as through citizen science or participatory action research projects?<br> • Does science that is truly open include a pluralit...
Making Open Science Work for Science and Society
Environmental Health Perspectives, 2019
BACKGROUND: The open science movement is transforming scientific practice with the goal of enhancing the transparency, productivity, and reproducibility of research. Nevertheless, transparency is a complex concept, and efforts to promote some forms of transparency may do relatively little to advance other important forms of transparency. OBJECTIVES: Drawing from the literature in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, we aim to distinguish between different forms of scientific transparency. Our goal is to identify strategies for achieving forms of transparency that are relevant not only to scientists but also to decision makers and members of the public. DISCUSSION: We draw a distinction between "scientifically relevant transparency" and "socially relevant transparency." Most of the prominent strategies associated with the open science movement (e.g., making data publicly available and registering studies) are designed primarily to promote scientifically relevant transparency. To achieve socially relevant transparency, which is particularly important in fields like environmental health, further steps are needed to provide scientific information in ways that are relevant to decision makers and members of the public. CONCLUSIONS: Promoting socially relevant transparency will require a range of activities by many different individuals and institutions. We propose an array of strategies that can be pursued by scientists and other scholars, journals, universities, funders, government agencies, and members of the public.
From Science 2.0 to Open Science - Turning rhetoric into action?
Open Science is enjoying great popularity at the moment. The European Union has recently adopted the term Open Science in its research framework programme. However, at the same time being mainstreamed into policy and administration it runs the risk of remaining empty rhetoric. The article examines terminological and actual realms of Open Science. It aims to identify gaps in the current discourse on one hand, and on the other to draw upon the potential of Open Science practices and its precursors. Situating Open Science in a broader picture of cultures of sharing helps to understand its promising role as change maker in traditional academic settings if necessary appreciation, skills and infrastructures are developed timely.
Data Science Journal, 2022
Who can participate in Open Science and whose interests are served? Open Science in principle holds the potential to reduce inequality, but this is not going to happen unless it operates within a consistent framework and environment that supports this goal. Unequal power and opportunities from institutional to global level constitutes a major obstacle to human development, while we need to appreciate diversity as a key asset. How can we build an equitable global research ecosystem in accordance with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that recognises science as a global common good and an integral part of the shared cultural heritage of humankind? 2 Dominik et al.
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.
Almost everyone is enthusiastic that 'open science' is the wave of the future. Yet when one looks seriously at the flaws in modern science that the movement proposes to remedy, the prospect for improvement in at least four areas are unimpressive. This suggests that the agenda is effectively to re-engineer science along the lines of platform capitalism, under the misleading banner of opening up science to the masses.
NOVAtion, 2024
Answer to Von Schomberg's paper. In this article, I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs.
Open Science and Its Enemies: Challenges for a Sustainable Science-Society Social Contract
journal of open innovation, 2020
Science as a social institution has evolved as the most powerful, highly influential, and sought out institution after the conflicts between science and religion following Galileo. Knowledge as a public good, scientific peer review of science, the prominence of open publications, and the emphasis on professional recognition and scientific autonomy have been the hallmark of science in the past three centuries. According to this scientific spirit, the scientific social system and society formed a unique social contract. This social contract drew considerable institutional and state legitimacy for the openness and public good of science in the service of state and society, all through the postwar period. Openness and public good of science are recognized and legitimized by the scientific community and science agencies at the global level. This paradigm of open science, in varying forms and manifestations, contributed to the progress of systematic knowledge at the service of humankind o...
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.