scholarly journals Open Access—or Open Science?

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (24) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernd Pulverer
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus Pereira Lobo

A huge collaborative open science model is proposed. Many authors collaborating in a paper leads to a substantial reduction for the Article Processing Charges (APCs) in the Open Access Journals. This can significantly stimulate research within a healthier citizen and open science culture.


ABI-Technik ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-47
Author(s):  
Maike Neufend ◽  
Maxi Kindling
Keyword(s):  

Science ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 368 (6491) ◽  
pp. 574-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Aspesi ◽  
Amy Brand
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Angélica Conceição Dias Miranda ◽  
Milton Shintaku ◽  
Simone Machado Firme

Resumo: Os repositórios têm se tornado comum nas universidades e institutos de pesquisa, como forma de ofertar acesso à produção científica e, com isso, dar visibilidade à instituição. Entretanto, em muitos casos ainda estão restritos aos conceitos do movimento do arquivo aberto e acesso aberto, sendo que já se discute o Movimento da Ciência Aberta, revelando certo descompasso, requerendo estudos que apoiem a atualização dessa importante ferramenta. Nesse sentido, o presente estudo verifica os requisitos envolvidos nos movimentos abertos, de forma a apoiar a discussão técnica e tecnológica. Um estudo bibliográfico, que transforma as informações sobre os movimentos em critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para criação de repositórios, apresentando a implementação da interação como um novo desafio. Nas considerações procura-se contribuir com a discussão sobre a Ciência Aberta, de forma mais aplicada bem como o ajuste dos repositórios a esse movimento.Palavras-chave: Repositórios.  Critérios de avaliação. Arquivo aberto. Acesso aberto. Dados abertos. Ciência aberta.SURVEY OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF REPOSITORY TOOLS ACCORDING TO OPEN SCIENCE Abstract: Repositories have become common in universities and research institutes, as a way of offering access to scientific production, thereby giving visibility to the institution. Meanwhile, in many cases, repositories are restricted to the concepts of open movement and open access considering that the Open Science Movement is already being discussed. Regarding this matter, this study verifies the requirements involved in the open movements, in order to support a technical and technological discussion.  A bibliographic study that transforms information about movements into criteria to evaluate tools used to create repositories, presenting an implementation of interaction as a new challenge. In the considerations, we contribute with a discussion about an Open Science, in a more applied way, as well as the adjustment of the repositories to this movement.Keywords: Repositories. Evaluation Criteria. Open File. Open Access. Open Data. Open Science.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Kalandadze ◽  
Sara Ann Hart

The increasing adoption of open science practices in the last decade has been changing the scientific landscape across fields. However, developmental science has been relatively slow in adopting open science practices. To address this issue, we followed the format of Crüwell et al., (2019) and created summaries and an annotated list of informative and actionable resources discussing ten topics in developmental science: Open science; Reproducibility and replication; Open data, materials and code; Open access; Preregistration; Registered reports; Replication; Incentives; Collaborative developmental science.This article offers researchers and students in developmental science a starting point for understanding how open science intersects with developmental science. After getting familiarized with this article, the developmental scientist should understand the core tenets of open and reproducible developmental science, and feel motivated to start applying open science practices in their workflow.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Manco

<p>Open science policies are a much-discussed issue. This literature review aims to examine the approach given to open science policy in these studies. <b></b></p> The approach given to open science in the selected works has different aspects: policy framing and its geopolitical aspects are described as an asymmetries replication and epistemic governance tool. The main geopolitical aspects of open science policies described in the literature are the relations between international, regional and national policies. There are also different components of open science covered in the literature: open data seems much discussed in the English speaking works while open access is the main component discussed in the Portuguese and Spanish speaking papers. Finally, the relation between open science policies and the general science policy is framed by highlighting the innovation and transparency that open science can bring to it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine G. Akers ◽  
Kevin B. Read ◽  
Liz Amos ◽  
Lisa M. Federer ◽  
Ayaba Logan ◽  
...  

As librarians are generally advocates of open access and data sharing, it is a bit surprising that peer-reviewed journals in the field of librarianship have been slow to adopt data sharing policies. Starting October 1, 2019, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is taking a step forward and implementing a firm data sharing policy to increase the rigor and reproducibility of published research, enable data reuse, and promote open science. This editorial explains the data sharing policy, describes how compliance with the policy will fit into the journal’s workflow, and provides further guidance for preparing for data sharing.


Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Knöchelmann

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document