Open science, philosophy and peer review

2021 ◽  
pp. 148-153
Author(s):  
Michael A. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Philosophy

scholarly journals Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
To Receive

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.

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

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Knöchelmann
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Do So

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.

scholarly journals Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Ebersole ◽  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Erica Baranski ◽  
Diane-Jo Bart-Plange ◽  
Nicholas R. Buttrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Science Collaboration

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).

scholarly journals Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 1033-1051
Author(s):  
Dietmar Wolfram ◽  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Adam Hembree ◽  
Hyoungjoo Park
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Early Adopters ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Different Levels

AbstractOpen peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers’ comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.

scholarly journals Open Science aus Perspektive der Technikfolgenabschätzung

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
Ulrich Riehm ◽  
Michael Nentwich
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Öffentliche Kommunikation

Dieser Beitrag nähert sich dem Thema Open Science aus der Perspektive der konzeptionellen Vorbereitung einer umfassenden Technikfolgenabschätzungsstudie. Es werden vier Dimensionen des Konzepts der Offenheit von Wissenschaft unterschieden: freier Zugang, öffentliche Kommunikation, offene Kooperation und die Überwindung gesellschaftlicher Subsysteme. Es wird des Weiteren eine sinnvolle Abgrenzung des Untersuchungsgegenstandes Open Science vorgeschlagen, die bei einer TA‑Studie berücksichtigt werden müsste. Nach einer kurzen Darstellung des Status Quo für drei typische Konkretisierungen von Open Science (Open Access, Open-Peer-Review, Wissenschaftsnetzwerke) werden vier Szenarien der zukünftigen Entwicklung von Open Science zur Diskussion gestellt.

scholarly journals Rechtsfragen bei Open Science - Ein Leitfaden

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till Kreutzer ◽  
Henning Lahmann ◽  
Ina Kaulen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science

Die Digitalisierung ermöglicht eine offene Wissenschaft (Open Science). Diese hat viele Aspekte, insbesondere den freien Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen und Materialien (Open Access), transparente Begutachtungsverfahren (Open Peer Review) oder quelloffene Technologien (Open Source). Das Programm Hamburg Open Science (Laufzeit 2018–2020) unterstützt unter anderem den Kulturwandel in der Wissenschaft. In diesem Kontext entstand der nun vorliegende Leitfaden, der das rechtliche Umfeld greifbar machen soll. Der Leitfaden erarbeitet die betroffenen Rechtsgebiete zunächst systematisch. Im zweiten Teil werden rechtliche Fragen zu Open Science beantwortet, die direkt aus den Universitäten und Bibliotheken kommen. So gelingt eine praxisnahe Aufbereitung und Vermittlung. Autoren des Leitfadens sind Dr. Till Kreutzer, Partner der Kanzlei iRights.Law, und deren wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Henning Lahmann. Die vorliegende zweite, vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage ist unter Mitarbeit von Dr. Ina Kaulen, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, entstanden. Nach seiner ersten Veröffentlichung im Jahr 2019 liegt der Band hiermit nun in einer 2., überarbeiteten und erweiterten Auflage vor.

scholarly journals Controvérsias sobre Redes Abertas de Produção de Conhecimento e de Comunicação Científica │ Controversies on Knowledge Production and Scientific Communication Open Networks

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiana Soares de Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Open Networks ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
Central Elements

RESUMO O objetivo do artigo é analisar questões centrais associadas ao conceito de ciência aberta na sociedade contemporânea, evidenciando características  de modos distintos de produção de conhecimento. Processos de comunicação científica  são discutidos, com foco em  temas como o sistema aberto de revisão por pares, direitos autorais e domínio público, concluindo com uma reflexão crítica a respeito das possibilidades de transformação das características tradicionais do campo de produção de conhecimento a partir da adoção de normas e práticas desenvolvidas em redes de ciência aberta.Palavras-chave: Ciência Aberta; Conhecimento Compartilhado; Processos de Avaliação; Direitos Autorais; Comunicação Científica.ABSTRACT This article aims at discussing central elements associated to the concept of  open science in contemporary societies, pointing out some characteristics that can be associated to distinct modes of knowledge production. Scientific communication processes are discussed, focusing on issues such as the open peer review system, copyright and public domain, concluding with critical considerations about the possibilities of transforming traditional characteristics of the knowledge production field through the adoption of norms and practices developed in open science networks.Keywords: Open Science; Knowledge Sharing; Evaluation Processes; Copyright; Scientific Communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document