scholarly journals Responsible Open Science: Moving towards an Ethics of Environmental Sustainability

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Samuel ◽  
Federica Lucivero
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Science Ethics ◽  
Environmentally Sustainable ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Responsible Research

The integration of open science as a key pillar of responsible research and innovation has led it to become a hallmark of responsible research. However, ethical, social and regulatory challenges still remain about the implementation of an internationally- and multi-sector-recognised open science framework. In this Commentary, we discuss one important specific challenge that has received little ethical and sociological attention in the open science literature: the environmental impact of the digital infrastructure that enables open science. We start from the premise that a move towards an environmentally sustainable open science is a shared and valuable goal, and discuss two challenges that we foresee with relation to this. The first relates to questions about how to define what environmentally sustainable open science means and how to change current practices accordingly. The second relates to the infrastructure needed to enact environmentally sustainable open science ethical and social responsibilities through the open science ethics ecosystem. We argue that there are various ethical obstacles regarding how to responsibly balance any environmental impacts against the social value of open science, and how much one should be prioritised over the other. We call for all actors of the open science ethics ecosystem to engage in discussions about how to move towards open data and science initiatives that take into account the environmental impact of data and digital infrastructures. Furthermore, we call for ethics governance frameworks or policy-inscribed standards of practice to assist with this decision-making.

scholarly journals An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Richard Gold ◽  
Sarah E. Ali-Khan ◽  
Liz Allen ◽  
Lluis Ballell ◽  
Manoel Barral-Netto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Survey Form ◽  
The Impact

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

A REFLECTION OF PRESERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS' VIEWS OF OPEN ACCESS DIMENSION OF RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cagla Bulut ◽  
◽  
Bulent Cavas ◽  
Kadir Demir ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Science Teachers ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Process Research ◽  
Service Science ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Preservice Science Teachers ◽  
Responsible Research

European Union has recently begun placing emphasis on sharing of scientific process as well as knowledge with public as part of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approach. During RRI process, research results are required to be accessible to public for efficient scientific communication. It is hereby significant to evaluate pre-service science teachers’ views. Thus, this study focused on pre-service science teachers’ views of RRI using RRI-questionnaire. Preliminary results show that pre-service science teachers have positive views towards RRI-open science dimension. Keywords: open science, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), pre-service science teachers.

scholarly journals Offen, verantwortlich und verantwortlich offen

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 31-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Jakob Häußermann ◽  
Marie Heidingsfelder
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Forschung Und Entwicklung ◽  
Responsible Research

Sowohl Open Science als auch Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) zielen auf tiefgreifende Transformationen im Innovationssystem durch eine stärkere Öffnung von Forschung und Entwicklung für gesellschaftliche Akteure. Trotz dieser grundsätzlichen Nähe beider Konzepte wurde ihr Verhältnis bisher nicht eingehend analysiert. Dieser Beitrag möchte einen ersten Ansatz bieten, die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede von RRI und Open Science hinsichtlich des diskursiven Ursprungs der beiden Metakonzepte, ihrer jeweiligen Herausforderungen und Ziele sowie ihrer Akteure und der Rolle der Gesellschaft zu diskutieren. Darauf aufbauend werden Implikationen und Potenziale einer konzeptionellen Integration aufgezeigt. Der Artikel schließt mit einem Ausblick auf mögliche Ansätze einer Integration.

scholarly journals What Can Dietary Patterns Tell Us about the Nutrition Transition and Environmental Sustainability of Diets in Uganda?

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Auma ◽  
Rebecca Pradeilles ◽  
Megan Blake ◽  
Michelle Holdsworth
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Dietary Patterns ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Nutrition Transition ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
High Fat ◽  
Urban Residence ◽  
Environmentally Sustainable ◽  
Food Consumption Survey ◽  
Dietary Transition

Uganda is undergoing dietary transition, with possible environmental sustainability and health implications, particularly for women. To explore evidence for dietary transitions and identify how environmentally sustainable women’s dietary patterns are, principal component analysis was performed on dietary data collected using a 24 h recall during the Uganda Food Consumption Survey (n = 957). Four dietary patterns explained 23.6% of the variance. The “traditional, high-fat, medium environmental impact” pattern was characterized by high intakes of nuts/seeds, fats, oils and spreads, fish and boiled vegetables. High intakes of bread and buns, rice and pasta, tea and sugar characterized the “transitioning, processed, low environmental impact’ pattern. The ‘plant-based, low environmental impact” pattern was associated with high intakes of legumes, boiled roots/tubers, boiled traditional vegetables, fresh fruit and fried traditional cereals. High intakes of red/organ meats, chicken, and soups characterized the “animal-based high environmental impact” pattern. Urban residence was positively associated with “transitioning, processed, low environmental impact” (β = 1.19; 1.06, 1.32) and “animal-based high environmental impact” (β = 0.45; 0.28, 0.61) patterns; but negatively associated with the “plant-based low environmental impact” pattern (β= −0.49; −0.62, −0.37). A traditional, high-fat dietary pattern with medium environmental impact persists in both contexts. These findings provide some evidence that urban women’s diets are transitioning.

scholarly journals Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Sugarcane Industry Using Life Cycle Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-66
Author(s):  
Galuh Zuhria Kautzar ◽  
◽  
Ishardita Pambudi Tama ◽  
Yeni Sumantri ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Environmentally Sustainable ◽  
Damage Categories ◽  
Research Show ◽  
Sugarcane Industry

The sugarcane industry is one of the industries that generated negatives impact on the environment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the sugarcane industry is not environmentally sustainable. The results of this research show that the use of electricity from bagasse cogeneration becomes the main contributor to all of damage categories. Meanwhile, the highest contribution to damage categories is human health with a total score of 59%. The results of this research are expected to reduce the environmental impact produced by PT. X so that PT. X will be more environmentally sustainable.

scholarly journals An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Richard Gold ◽  
Sarah E. Ali-Khan ◽  
Liz Allen ◽  
Lluis Ballell ◽  
Manoel Barral-Netto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Survey Form ◽  
The Impact

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a subset of open practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

scholarly journals Sharing and organizing research products as R packages

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Vuorre ◽  
Matthew John Charles Crump
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
R Package ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Online Supplement ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
R Packages ◽  
Science Framework

A consensus on the importance of open data and reproducible code is emerging. How should data and code be shared to maximize the key desiderata of reproducibility, permanence, and accessibility? Research assets should be stored persistently in formats that are not software restrictive, and documented so that others can reproduce and extend the required computations. The sharing method should be easy to adopt by already busy researchers. We suggest the R package standard as a solution for creating, curating, and communicating research assets. The R package standard, with extensions discussed herein, provides a format for assets and metadata that satisfies the above desiderata, facilitates reproducibility, open access, and sharing of materials through online platforms like GitHub and Open Science Framework. We discuss a stack of R resources that help users create reproducible collections of research assets, from experiments to manuscripts, in the RStudio interface. We created an R package, vertical, to help researchers incorporate these tools into their workflows, and discuss its functionality at length in an online supplement. Together, these tools may increase the reproducibility and openness of psychological science.

scholarly journals Conducting a Meta-Analysis in the Age of Open Science: Tools, Tips, and Practical Recommendations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moreau ◽  
Beau Gamble
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Video Tutorials ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Psychology researchers are rapidly adopting open science practices, yet clear guidelines on how to apply these practices to meta-analysis remain lacking. In this tutorial, we describe why open science is important in the context of meta-analysis in psychology, and suggest how to adopt the three main components of open science: preregistration, open materials, and open data. We first describe how to make the preregistration as thorough as possible—and how to handle deviations from the plan. We then focus on creating easy-to-read materials (e.g., search syntax, R scripts) to facilitate reproducibility and bolster the impact of a meta-analysis. Finally, we suggest how to organize data (e.g., literature search results, data extracted from studies) that are easy to share, interpret, and update as new studies emerge. For each step of the meta-analysis, we provide example templates, accompanied by brief video tutorials, and show how to integrate these practices into the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q8stz/).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document