scholarly journals Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

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.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Wood ◽  
Elizabeth Moylan ◽  
Natasha White

Wiley has published the results of its Open Research Survey 2019. Earlier this year, over 2,600 researchers worldwide shared their thoughts and experiences of open research practices including: open access publication, data sharing, open peer review and open collaboration. For each of these areas we’ll present what motivates researchers to adopt these practices and the ways in which they do so, looking at how this varies by geography, subject area and career level. We’ll also look at the reasons why researchers might not be adopting these practices.   


eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C McKiernan ◽  
Philip E Bourne ◽  
C Titus Brown ◽  
Stuart Buck ◽  
Amye Kenall ◽  
...  

Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.


Author(s):  
Gimena del Rio Riande ◽  
Erzsébet Tóth-Czifra ◽  
Ulrike Wuttke ◽  
Yoann Moranville

The digital transformation has initiated a paradigm shift in research and scholarly communication practices towards a more open scholarly culture. Although this transformation is slowly happening in the Digital Humanities field, open is not yet default. The article introduces the OpenMethods metablog, a community platform that highlights open research methods, tools, and practices within the context of the Digital Humanities by republishing open access content around methods and tools in various formats and languages. It also describes the platform’s technical infrastructure based on its requirements and main functionalities, and especially the collaborative content sourcing and editorial workflows. The article concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the OpenMethods metablog to overcome barriers towards open practices by focusing on inclusive, community sourced information based around opening up research processes and the challenges that need to be overcome to achieve its goals.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Brennan ◽  
Shane Collins ◽  
Linda Doyle ◽  
Helen Shenton

‘The Open Science revolution will be led by early-career researchers.’  Professor Linda Doyle (Dean of Research, Trinity College Dublin). Major challenges in scholarly communication worldwide have occurred over the past twenty years, but real change has been slow. However, this generation of early career researchers looks likely to finally transform the culture. SOAPbox is a drive led by Trinity College Dublin students to rapidly transform their publishing culture and processes to open access, and in doing so, to fully integrate them into the dynamically-evolving open research environment. While student open access publishing is not new, SOAPbox is distinguished by its agility, its scale and its collective focus and ambition, sustained by its alignment with global and institutional policies and objectives. This has enabled SOAPbox to capture the imagination of a university and, more than any other single initiative, galvanise its community into positive engagement with open access. In this presentation, we outline SOAPbox, its rapid progress and the cultural factors that define it. We explore how this multidisciplinary, inter-generational Open Science community of practice works; we identify early learnings from the project and provide insights into the key issues facing early-career researchers engaged in Open Science publishing. Trinity College Dublin has a history of leadership and collaboration in Open Science, technically (e.g. early CRIS/IR integration; eDeposit Ireland) and from the policy perspective (e.g. EURAB Scholarly Publication Group (Chair, 2007); EC OSPP Board and Working Group representation; Ireland’s National Open Research Forum). In 2018, the Dean of Research and the College Librarian created the TCD Open Scholarship Taskforce which includes faculty deans, researchers, library & HR personal, IT professionals and students. Central to this initiative is an understanding that the successful transition to Open Science requires radical changes in how we approach and value the practice of research. The Taskforce supports projects like SOAPbox that have a transformative effect on research culture.   We will explore the SOAPbox Key Signifiers of Transformation: The Big Bang. Very rapid platform development with lightning-fast transformation of a significant number of journals (student-run alongside illustrious academic journals); Inclusiveness. A multi-disciplinary Open Science publishing community of practice across all disciplines and all research career stages (undergraduate and postgraduate students ­– alongside senior academics managing centuries-old journals); Ethical, Sustainable, Global Responsibility. Supporting positive societal, economic and cultural impact of research, with a specific emphasis on the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals; Cultural Change: an embedded, creative training and education strand, employing innovation expertise, a Certificate in Scholarly Communication (an additional extrinsic motivator) and periodic surveys to inform an understanding of the experience; Alignment: with the strategic goals of the University and with its graduate attributes, championed by the Dean of Research and supported by the Graduate Students’ Union. SOAPbox is a scholar-led, community-driven, inclusive publishing initiative which has embraced the spirit of ‘glocalisation’. It instills a life-time commitment to Open Science amongst its participants, changing the world, from one university out.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Bowering Mullen

Scholarly communication and open access practices in psychological science are rapidly evolving. However, most published works that focus on scholarly communication issues do not target the specific discipline, and instead take a more “one size fits all” approach. When it comes to scholarly communication, practices and traditions vary greatly across the disciplines. It is important to look at issues such as open access (of all types), reproducibility, research data management, citation metrics, the emergence of preprint options, the evolution of new peer review models, coauthorship conventions, and use of scholarly networking sites such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu from a disciplinary perspective. Important issues in scholarly publishing for psychology include uptake of authors’ use of open access megajournals, how open science is represented in psychology journals, challenges of interdisciplinarity, and how authors avail themselves of green and gold open access strategies. This overview presents a discipline-focused treatment of selected scholarly communication topics that will allow psychology researchers and others to get up to speed on this expansive topic. Further study into researcher behavior in terms of scholarly communication in psychology would create more understanding of existing culture as well as provide early career researchers with a more effective roadmap to the current landscape. As no other single work provides a study of scholarly communication and open access in psychology, this work aims to partially fill that niche.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant

Scholarly communication is in a perpetual state of disruption. Within this, peer review of research articles remains an essential part of the formal publication process, distinguishing it from virtually all other modes of communication. In the last several years, there has been an explosive wave of innovation in peer review research, platforms, discussions, tools, and services. This is largely coupled with the ongoing and parallel evolution of scholarly communication as it adapts to rapidly changing environments, within what is widely considered as the ‘open research’ or ‘open science’ movement. Here, we summarise the current ebb and flow around changes to peer review and consider its role in a modern digital research and communications infrastructure and discuss why uptake of new models of peer review appears to have been so low compared to what is often viewed as the ‘traditional’ method of peer review. Finally, we offer some insight into the potential futures of scholarly peer review and consider what impacts this might have on the broader scholarly research ecosystem.


2021 ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are protransparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall ◽  
Colin Strine

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are pro-transparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.


Author(s):  
Markus Wust

This qualitative study investigates how faculty gather information for teaching and research and their opinions on open access approaches to scholarly communication. Despite generally favorable reactions, a perceived lack of peer review and impact factors were among the most common reasons for not publishing through open-access forums.Cette étude qualitative examine comment les membres du corps professoral recueillent l’information pour l’enseignement et la recherche, et leurs opinions envers les approches de la communication scientifique à libre accès. Malgré des réactions généralement favorables, le manque perçu de révision par les pairs et les facteurs d’impact comptent parmi les motifs habituellement évoqués pour ne pas publier sur ces tribunes à libre accès. 


Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers` attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document