scholarly journals Caracterización de las publicaciones de España y Portugal sobre Open Science y análisis de su presencia en las redes sociales

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela De Filippo ◽  
Paulo Silva ◽  
María Manuel Borges
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Redes Sociales ◽  
Acceso Abierto

Se analizan las publicaciones sobre Ciencia Abierta de España y Portugal en la base de datos SCOPUS. A través de indicadores bibliométricos y altmétricos se estudia la repercusión de la producción en redes sociales. Entre 2000 y 2016 se detectaron 1273 documentos sobre el tema en ambos países, concentrados especialmente en el último quinquenio. Destacan las publicaciones sobre Open data y las temáticas de mayor producción han sido Computer Science y Social Science. Un tercio de las publicaciones con DOI ha tenido repercusión en las redes sociales siendo Twitter el medio que concentra mayor número de menciones. Si bien una tercera parte de los documentos se publicó en acceso abierto, no se detectó relación entre este indicador y la presencia en redes sociales.

Descubrir, leer, publicar, compartir y monitorizar el progreso: comportamiento de los investigadores junior españoles

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo ◽  
David Nicholas
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
International Survey ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Redes Sociales ◽  
Acceso Abierto ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Communication Habits

The scientific communication habits and practices of the new wave of Spanish researchers are analyzed based on the results of an international survey (2019). The results obtained from 100 participants support those previously obtained from interviews conducted between 2016 and 2018 in Spain under the Harbingers Project, and show similarities to and differences from those collected from the mentioned survey in other countries covered by the Project in its second phase. Spanish researchers have two contradictory faces: They are innovative in their perceptions but slightly less so in their practices regarding open access and the use of social media. However, these new attitudes and habits are motivated by a desire to promote their own work and gain recognition; In this sense, they are conservative. The competition in which they are immersed regarding the achievement of tenure and, therefore, the need to focus on their abilities that will be evaluated represent a limitation on enjoying the learning process and dedicating themselves to the practices of open science to which their generation is naturally prone. Resumen Se analizan los hábitos y prácticas de comunicación científica de la nueva ola de investigadores españoles a partir de los resultados de una encuesta de ámbito internacional (2019). Los resultados de un centenar de contribuciones confirman los obtenidos previamente en entrevistas realizadas entre 2016 y 2018 en España en el marco del Proyecto Harbingers, y ponen de manifiesto similitudes y diferencias con los resultados obtenidos de la encuesta mencionada en otros países cubiertos por el Proyecto en su segunda fase. Los investigadores españoles presentan dos caras contradictorias: Son innovadores en sus percepciones aunque no tanto en sus prácticas relativas al acceso abierto y al uso de las redes sociales. Sin embargo, sus actitudes y hábitos nuevos no son desinteresados, están motivados por promocionar el trabajo propio y conseguir el reconocimiento. En este sentido, se muestran conservadores. La competición en que se encuentran inmersos para conseguir un trabajo estable y, por tanto, la necesidad de focalizarse en los méritos que les van a ser evaluados les limita para poder disfrutar del proceso de aprendizaje y dedicarse a las prácticas de ciencia abierta a las que su generación se muestra proclive de forma natural.

scholarly journals Evidence on Research Transparency in Economics

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-214
Author(s):  
Edward Miguel
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Radar Screen ◽  
Rapid Transition ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Journal Policies ◽  
Economics Research

A decade ago, the term “research transparency” was not on economists' radar screen, but in a few short years a scholarly movement has emerged to bring new open science practices, tools and norms into the mainstream of our discipline. The goal of this article is to lay out the evidence on the adoption of these approaches – in three specific areas: open data, pre-registration and pre-analysis plans, and journal policies – and, more tentatively, begin to assess their impacts on the quality and credibility of economics research. The evidence to date indicates that economics (and related quantitative social science fields) are in a period of rapid transition toward new transparency-enhancing norms. While solid data on the benefits of these practices in economics is still limited, in part due to their relatively recent adoption, there is growing reason to believe that critics' worst fears regarding onerous adoption costs have not been realized. Finally, the article presents a set of frontier questions and potential innovations.

scholarly journals Ciencia abierta

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Abadal ◽  
Lluís Anglada
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Theoretical Research ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Acceso Abierto ◽  
Datos Abiertos

La ciencia abierta es un cambio de modelo en la manera de hacer ciencia que supone realizar con una visión “abierta” (open) todas las etapas o fases de la investigación científica (diseño, recolección de datos, revisión, publicación, etc.). El objetivo de nuestro texto es analizar la evolución del concepto y de la denominación de ciencia abierta desde sus inicios previos hasta el empuje que le ha dado la Unión Europea (e-ciencia, ciencia interconectada, ciencia 2.0, ciencia abierta). También se quiere determinar cuáles son los elementos fundamentales que componen la ciencia abierta. Para ello, se han seleccionado y analizado los principales textos teóricos que han tratado sobre la cuestión, que han sido localizados a partir de consultas bibliográficas en las bases de datos Scopus y GoogleScholar. Como resultados, se pone de manifiesto que las denominaciones han sufrido más variaciones que propiamente el concepto y, en lo que respecta a los componentes, la ciencia abierta partió de cuatro elementos básicos (acceso abierto, datos abiertos, software libre, reproducibilidad) que se han ido ampliando hasta los ocho que constituyen el modelo propuesto por las recomendaciones de OSPP, que se están adoptando de manera amplia. Open science represents a paradigm shift in the way science is conducted that involves performing all stages of scientific research (design, data collection, review, publication, etc.) with an “open” vision. Our aim is to analyze the evolution of the denomination and the concept of open science from its beginnings (e-science, interconnected science, science 2.0, open science). We also want to determine which are the fundamental elements that make up open science. This is a theoretical research based on the selection and analysis of the most important conceptual documents about open science, which have been found in the Scopus and GoogleScholar databases. As a result, it is shown that the denominations have undergone more variations than the concept itself. Regarding the components, open science started with four basic elements (open access, open data, open software, reproducibility) that have been extended to the eight that are considered in the model proposed by OSPP recommendations.

scholarly journals Gambling Researchers’ Use and Views of Open Science Principles and Practices: A Brief Report

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debi LaPlante ◽  
Eric R. Louderback ◽  
Brett Abarbanel
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Extensive Experience ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Psychology And Economics ◽  
Open Materials

Scientists across disciplines have begun to implement “open science” principles and practices, which are designed to enhance the quality, transparency, and replicability of scientific research. Yet, studies examining the use of open science practices in social science fields such as psychology and economics show that awareness and use of such practices often is low. In gambling studies research, no studies to date have empirically investigated knowledge of and use of open science practices. In the present study, we collected survey data about awareness and use of open science practices from 86 gambling studies research stakeholders who had attended a major international gambling studies conference in May 2019. We found that—as hypothesized—a minority of gambling research stakeholders reported: 1) either some or extensive experience using open science research practices in general, and 2) either some or regular experience using specific open science practices, including study pre-registration, open materials/code, open data, and pre-print archiving. Most respondents indicated that replication was important for all studies in gambling research, and that genetic, neuroscience, and lab-based game characteristic studies were areas most in need of replication. Our results have important implications for open science education initiatives and for contemporary research methodology in gambling studies.

scholarly journals Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Manh-Toan Ho ◽  
Manh-Tung Ho ◽  
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Central Idea ◽  
Retracted Article ◽  
Scientific Ideas

This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods. The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation. The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process.

scholarly journals The C-BIG Repository: an Institution-Level Open Science Platform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Das ◽  
Rida Abou-Haidar ◽  
Henri Rabalais ◽  
Sonia Denise Lai Wing Sun ◽  
Zaliqa Rosli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neurological Diseases ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Data Repository ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
Montreal Neurological Institute ◽  
Multimodal Data ◽  
Small Patient ◽  
Clinical Data Repository ◽  
Access Data

AbstractIn January 2016, the Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital (The Neuro) declared itself an Open Science organization. This vision extends beyond efforts by individual scientists seeking to release individual datasets, software tools, or building platforms that provide for the free dissemination of such information. It involves multiple stakeholders and an infrastructure that considers governance, ethics, computational resourcing, physical design, workflows, training, education, and intra-institutional reporting structures. The C-BIG repository was built in response as The Neuro’s institutional biospecimen and clinical data repository, and collects biospecimens as well as clinical, imaging, and genetic data from patients with neurological disease and healthy controls. It is aimed at helping scientific investigators, in both academia and industry, advance our understanding of neurological diseases and accelerate the development of treatments. As many neurological diseases are quite rare, they present several challenges to researchers due to their small patient populations. Overcoming these challenges required the aggregation of datasets from various projects and locations. The C-BIG repository achieves this goal and stands as a scalable working model for institutions to collect, track, curate, archive, and disseminate multimodal data from patients. In November 2020, a Registered Access layer was made available to the wider research community at https://cbigr-open.loris.ca, and in May 2021 fully open data will be released to complement the Registered Access data. This article outlines many of the aspects of The Neuro’s transition to Open Science by describing the data to be released, C-BIG’s full capabilities, and the design aspects that were implemented for effective data sharing.

scholarly journals Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-279
Author(s):  
Isabel Steinhardt
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Knowledge Society ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Bachelor's Degrees ◽  
Participatory Technologies ◽  
Digital Knowledge

Openness in science and education is increasing in importance within the digital knowledge society. So far, less attention has been paid to teaching Open Science in bachelor’s degrees or in qualitative methods. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use a seminar example to explore what Open Science practices can be taught in qualitative research and how digital tools can be involved. The seminar focused on the following practices: Open data practices, the practice of using the free and open source tool “Collaborative online Interpretation, the practice of participating, cooperating, collaborating and contributing through participatory technologies and in social (based) networks. To learn Open Science practices, the students were involved in a qualitative research project about “Use of digital technologies for the study and habitus of students”. The study shows the practices of Open Data are easy to teach, whereas the use of free and open source tools and participatory technologies for collaboration, participation, cooperation and contribution is more difficult. In addition, a cultural shift would have to take place within German universities to promote Open Science practices in general.

scholarly journals Comparing Social Science and Computer Science Workflow Processes for Studying Group Interactions

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 568-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Allen ◽  
Colin Fisher ◽  
Mohamed Chetouani ◽  
Ming Ming Chiu ◽  
Hatice Gunes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Group Interactions

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.

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para repositório conforme a Ciência Aberta

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angélica Conceição Dias Miranda ◽  
Milton Shintaku ◽  
Simone Machado Firme
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Open File ◽  
Research Institutes ◽  
Criteria For Evaluation ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Bibliographic Study

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document