scholarly journals Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?

First Monday ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Scheliga ◽  
Sascha Friesike
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Social Dilemma ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Individual Scientist ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Opening Up

Digital technologies carry the promise of transforming science and opening up the research process. We interviewed researchers from a variety of backgrounds about their attitudes towards and experiences with openness in their research practices. We observe a considerable discrepancy between the concept of open science and scholarly reality. While many researchers support open science in theory, the individual researcher is confronted with various difficulties when putting open science into practice. We analyse the major obstacles to open science and group them into two main categories: individual obstacles and systemic obstacles. We argue that the phenomenon of open science can be seen through the prism of a social dilemma: what is in the collective best interest of the scientific community is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual scientist. We discuss the possibilities of transferring theoretical solutions to social dilemma problems to the realm of open science.

scholarly journals Opening doors to discovery: Partnerships are key to advancing open science

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Frank Vrancken Peeters
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Community Partnerships ◽  
Research System ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Opening Up

The evolution of scholarly communications has accelerated in recent years, and 2020 for obvious reasons put even more pressure on the sector to evolve and adapt. By opening up access to research publications, by simplifying or customising the digital experience, or by improving the speed of publishing – the focus is firmly placed on the need for publishers to work more in partnership with each other, with institutions, funders, and new players in the market to develop solutions that meet the evolving needs of researchers and the wider community. Partnerships between different actors in the research process address challenges in practice and help advance open science, publishing, and the research system as a whole.

scholarly journals Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices

2021 ◽  
pp. 155626462110189
Author(s):  
Joeri K. Tijdink ◽  
Serge P.J.M. Horbach ◽  
Michèle B. Nuijten ◽  
Gareth O’Neill
Keyword(s):  
Research Agenda ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Opinion Piece ◽  
Funding Programs ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Scientific System ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
And Training

This opinion piece aims to inform future research funding programs on responsible research practices (RRP) based on three specific objectives: (1) to give a sketch of the current international discussion on responsible research practices (RRPs); (2) to give an overview of current initiatives and already obtained results regarding RRP; and (3) to give an overview of potential future needs for research on RRP. In this opinion piece, we have used seven iterative methodological steps (including literature review, ranking, and sorting exercises) to create the proposed research agenda. We identified six main themes that we believe need attention in future research: (1) responsible evaluation of research and researchers, (2) the influence of open science and transparency on RRP, (3) research on responsible mentoring, supervision, and role modeling, (4) the effect of education and training on RRP, (5) checking for reproducibility, and (6) responsible and fair peer review. These themes have in common that they address aspects of research that are mostly on the level of the scientific system, more than on the level of the individual researcher. Some current initiatives are already gathering substantial empirical evidence to start filling these gaps. We believe that with sufficient support from all relevant stakeholders, more progress can be made.

scholarly journals How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Levin ◽  
Sabina Leonelli
Keyword(s):  
Life Sciences ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biological Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Key Questions ◽  
Science Policies

Open Science policies encourage researchers to disclose a wide range of outputs from their work, thus codifying openness as a specific set of research practices and guidelines that can be interpreted and applied consistently across disciplines and geographical settings. In this paper, we argue that this “one-size-fits-all” view of openness sidesteps key questions about the forms, implications, and goals of openness for research practice. We propose instead to interpret openness as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical, and social considerations. This interpretation creates a critical space for moving beyond the economic definitions of value embedded in the contemporary biosciences landscape and Open Science policies, and examining the diversity of interests and commitments that affect research practices in the life sciences. To illustrate these claims, we use three case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how––and how best––to make things open. These cases, drawn from ethnographic engagement with Open Science debates and semistructured interviews carried out with UK-based biologists and bioinformaticians between 2013 and 2014, show how the enactment of openness reveals judgments about what constitutes a legitimate intellectual contribution, for whom, and with what implications.

scholarly journals Psychology and open science in Africa: Why is it needed and how can we implement it?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soufian Azouaghe ◽  
Adeyemi Adetula ◽  
Patrick S. Forscher ◽  
Dana Basnight-Brown ◽  
Nihal Ouherrou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Western World ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Replication Crisis

The quality of scientific research is assessed not only by its positive impact on socio-economic development and human well-being, but also by its contribution to the development of valid and reliable scientific knowledge. Thus, researchers regardless of their scientific discipline, are supposed to adopt research practices based on transparency and rigor. However, the history of science and the scientific literature teach us that a part of scientific results is not systematically reproducible (Ioannidis, 2005). This is what is commonly known as the "replication crisis" which concerns the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, of which psychology is no exception.Firstly, we aim to address some aspects of the replication crisis and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). Secondly, we discuss how we can involve more labs in Africa to take part in the global research process, especially the Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA). For these goals, we will develop a tutorial for the labs in Africa, by highlighting the open science practices. In addition, we emphasize that it is substantial to identify African labs needs and factors that hinder their participating in the PSA, and the support needed from the Western world. Finally, we discuss how to make psychological science more participatory and inclusive.

scholarly journals Are we ready for Open Science?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerit Pfuhl
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
The Individual

Scientists are curious, skeptical and critical. They try out new avenues, including open access publishing, but they might remain skeptical in adopting Open Science fully. There is thus conservatism in the publishing process itself that is independent of who pays for the article. But who to blame for a reluctance to provide open data, transparent experimental methods, or open peer review? I will argue that the culprit is the culture of academia which includes us researchers. The culture of academia is one of illusory freedom and full of traditions. It is also everything but immune of human biases and fallacies. Familiarity and fame influence where we publish, but also how we review and edit articles. As reviewers, our explorative nature lets us request fishing expeditions. As editors, being highly skeptical and critical, we may still misunderstand that a research hypothesis can lead to various statistical hypotheses. As authors, we may feel ownership of our data, confusing source with raw data. I have experienced – as an author of a pre-registered study with open data – the request to perform dubious additional statistical tests. As reviewer, I have more than once experienced that my request for more transparency and open data got rejected by editors. And as a journal editor, I have mixed experiences with authors making their data open, but also reviewers signing their peer review. Yes, it is often true that open data practices during the publishing process take time. But time is saved if appropriate data management practices are implemented before data is collected. However, the culture of academia fosters permanent time constraints preventing learning new techniques and tools, and as such supporting bad habits. Incentives to mitigate the bad habits need to address the entire research process. Incentives should aim at saving time for the individual, not reshuffling who pays what and when. In sum, there is willingness for Open Science, but not sufficient action.

scholarly journals A reform of science

Revy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 10-13
Author(s):  
Asger Væring Larsen
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Individual Scientist ◽  
The World ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Access To Knowledge

Open Science concerns both the individual scientist, science in general and the access to knowledge all over the world. And the reform of science concerns libraries. Meet Jon Tennant – the only Englishman who doesn’t drink tea.

Openness in geoscience - a quantitative assessment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Bosman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Publication Data ◽  
Science Application ◽  
Data Requirements ◽  
Opening Up

<p>There is growing consensus that making our research process and outputs more open is necessary to increase transparency, efficiency, reproducibility and relevance of research. With that we should be better able to contribute to answering important questions and overcoming grand challenges. Despite considerable attention for open science, including citizen science, there is no overall baseline showing the current state of openness in our field. This presentation shows results from research that quantitatively charts the adoption of open practices across the geosciences, mostly globally and across the full research workflow. They range from setting research priorities, collaboration with global south researchers and researchers in other disciplines, sharing code and data, sharing posters online, sharing early versions of papers as preprints, publishing open access, opening up peer review, using open licenses when sharing, to engaging with potential stakeholders of research outcomes and reaching out to the wider public. The assessment uses scientometric data, publication data, data from sharing platforms and journals, altmetrics data, and mining of abstracts and other outputs, aiming to address the breadth of open science practices. The resulting images show that open science application is not marginal anymore, but at the same time certainly not mainstream. It also shows that limited sharing, limited use of open licenses and limited use of permanent IDs makes this type of assessment very hard. Insights derived from the study are relevant inputs in science policy discussions on data requirements, open access, researcher training and involvement of societal partners.</p>

scholarly journals Be the Change You Seek in Science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Milham ◽  
Arno Klein
Keyword(s):  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Generational Change ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
Imaging Research ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Be The Change

Ongoing debates regarding the virtues and challenges of implementing open science for brain imaging research mirror those of the larger scientific community. The present commentary acknowledges the merits of arguments on both sides, as well as the underlying realities that have forced so many to feel the need to resist the implementation of an ideal. Potential sources of top-down reform are discussed, along with the factors that threaten to slow their progress. The potential roles of generational change and the individual are discussed, and a starter list of actionable steps that any researcher can take, big or small, is provided.

scholarly journals Conceptualising Open Science in the 21st Century

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
Mercy Gloria Ashepet ◽  
Ignace Bossuyt ◽  
Hein Brookhuis ◽  
Cristian Constantin ◽  
Marta Fedele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Systems Perspective

Open Science that is adaptive to the complexity of the 21st century is emerging in transdisciplinary institutions outside of academia. Despite its growing popularity and plurality as a movement, the scope in which Open Science is practiced and discussed inside academia is still mostly restricted to the scientific community and fragmented between disciplinary silos. Researchers and policymakers promoting Open Science often focus on knowledge translation and still recognise experts and academia as the main producers of knowledge, essentially closing the research process to non-researchers and preventing other perspectives from being integrated into knowledge production. Our aim with this project was to adopt a systems perspective to understand how Open Science can address the challenges in the current knowledge production system. Open discussions among the team members revealed distinct understandings of what constitutes Open Science. Thus, during our process we collated these many defi nitions of Open Science and extracted the dimensions that underlie such definitions and mapped how these dimensions could be interconnected in a more comprehensive conceptualisation of Open Science. Future iterations of the challenge could build on our reflections and explore how these Open Science dimensions translate into scientific practice and how researchers can be encouraged to reflect on Open Science in a more systems-oriented way. Our findings have been summarised in a small video.

scholarly journals Be the Change You Seek in Science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Milham ◽  
Arno Klein
Keyword(s):  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Generational Change ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
Imaging Research ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Be The Change

Ongoing debates regarding the virtues and challenges of implementing open science for brain imaging research mirror those of the larger scientific community. The present commentary acknowledges the merits of arguments on both sides, as well as the underlying realities that have forced so many to feel the need to resist the implementation of an ideal. Potential sources of top-down reform are discussed, along with the factors that threaten to slow their progress. The potential roles of generational change and the individual are discussed, and a starter list of actionable steps that any researcher can take, big or small, is provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document