OPEN SCIENCE OPENNESS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Dorota Marciniak, Pedro Jacobetty & Gustavo Cardoso

“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”

Isaac Newton (1663 – 1727)

DEFINITION(S) OF OPEN SCIENCE

"Open Science broadly describes science carried out and communicated in a manner which allows others to

contribute, collaborate and add to the research effort,

with all kinds of data, results and protocols made freely available at different stages of the research process."

http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/data-management-and-curation/open-science-case-studies

Institutional imperatives of modern Science(Robert K. Merton)

Communalism - knowledge is a common property of the community

Universalism - all scientists can contribute

Disinterestedness - personal beliefs or preferences should be excluded

Originality - work must contribute something new

Skepticism - claims should be scrutinized

AMBIVALENCE IN SCIENCEBut Merton also noticed how the coexistence of conflicting norms leads to

ambivalence in scientists' behavior

In the 70's Mitroff identified counter-norms that conflicted with the mertonian ethos

Secrecy - property rights and pre-publication withholding

Particularism - prioritization of the work by some scientists

Interestedness - personal interest behind scientific claims

Dogmatism - believing in the scientist's own findings while doubtingthose of others

In the post-war period, the relation between industry and science is intensified

scientific knowledge is regarded as a generator of value under the knowledge economy paradigm

Intellectual property rights ensure control over knowledge and market incentives to investment in R&D. These rights have undergone a qualitative transformation, starting to incorporate basic research elements.

Open Science advocates can be seen as a movement which seeks to promote an

alternative to the intellectual property strategy for knowledge production and

distribution

Their advocates state that the privatization of data and informationleads to an artificial scarcity that hinders scientific advancement,as well as social and economic progress

Communicational innovation produces emergent and unregulated socialspaces. Open Science advocates are actors that try to institutionalizetheir ideals in these new spaces.

The growing amount of scientific knowledge available on the Internetcreated a new information context for science.

“Models” of Science

“Closed” model of Science

&

“Open” model of Science

Science... “closed model of Science”

Image of Science

Science = Research + Communication (Publishing in Journals)

Doing research..., 1+1=2 2+2=4 ... e.t.c...

restrictions = copyrights©, access to journals...

redundancy

©

Image of Science==Science iS Fun ! :-)

Science is Creative and Fun !!! :-)... 1+1= 0.5 +1.5=...

...many correct solutions...

...many interesting perspectives...

...many approaches...

Science = Research + Communication Theorem:

If

Science = Research + Communication + .....

That implies that

Open Science = Open Research + Open Communication + ...

Question: What is Open Research ?

Definition: Open research = Open collaboration + Open Access to published results + Open access to “raw data” + ...

Publishing Science

“Open” & “Closed”Traditional publishing & “Open” models

Science Policy

• Closed model = “Closed” Policy = (Copyrights) ©

(Author gives the copyrights to the Journal)

• “Open Policy” = (Creative Commons License) (Author has the rights to distribute the work)

Creative Commons licenses

Open Research & Open Communication

The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge. The details of each of these licenses depends on the version, and comprises a selection of four conditions:

Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.

Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.

No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.

Share-alike (sa) Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

Copyright © Traditionally, the author of an article was

required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher. Publishers claimed this was necessary in order to protect author's rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use. However, many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory, and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the author(s) retain the other rights themselves.

Even if they retain the copyright to an article, most journals allow certain rights to their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow him to distribute a limited number of copies. In the print format, such copies are called reprints; in the electronic format, they are called postprints. Some publishers, also grant the author the right to post and update the article on the author's or employer's website and on free e-print servers, to grant permission to others to use or reuse figures, and even to reprint the article as long as no fee is charged. The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns.

Copyright ©

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Scientific_journal

MOTIVATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN “OPEN”&”CLOSED” SCIENCE

SCIENCE POLICY CREATES THE MOTIVATIONS AND STRATEGIES TO PERFORM AND COMMUNICATE RESEARCH

“CLOSED” SCIENCE PROMOTES COMPETITION (PUBLISHING MORE, KEEPING NEW RESULTS SECRET UNTIL THEY ARE PUBLISHES, LONG TIME OF WAITING FOR COMMUNICATING RESULTS, LONG PEER-REVIEW PROCESS)

“OPEN” SCIENCE PROMOTES COLLABORATION (EARLY SHARING RESULTS, COLLABORATIVE REVIEWING AND IMPROVING THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION )

THE BEST STRATEGY IN “RESEARCH GAME”: PLAY “CLOSED”, ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO PLAY “OPEN”.

THE BENEFITS OF OPENNESS 1 efficiency,

2 accessible information about research process,3 results which could not be published in a regular journal,

4 less duplications,5 access to (raw) data6 results in progress

7 new collaborations8 approaching questions from different perspectives9 stating new questions and solving collaboratively

10 more creative and open research 11 quicker feedback12 promoting dialog

13 noticing and correcting errors14 collaborative dynamic peer-review

15 updating work ...

Motivations for Open Research

The Nature of Benefits of Openness are more for the Whole Research Community than for individual researcher. The progress of Science benefits from Openness but the gratification of individual researcher does not increase from ‘opening’ his/her research.

This status quo is because of evaluation system in Research, the current “Scientometrics”, Impact Factor, etc...

the “score” in research = publications * A + citations * B + ...

?

Survey

Online survey to COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) members

Nonprobability sampling (purposive sampling) -Might overweight population subgroups that are more easily accessible

Invitation was sent to 4847 individual scientist’ e-mail address,which were gathered at the COST website.

642 valid responses (13.2% response rate)

n=642

n=642

n=642

n=642

n=642

n=642

n=642

n=642

Results:

Their major stated concerns are sharing data and materials, as well as access to their work. Half the COST researchers state they are concerned with promoting

innovation within private entities. The same proportion of researchers are concerned about open (CC) licenses for research materials, data and results.

One third of researchers make data publicly available without any usage restrictions, while only a fifth do not disclose data.

Another fifth of the researchers made their data publicly available under an editable format.

Half the researchers would chose to publish in an OA journal over a closed access one with equal reputation, while only 14% would chose the latter over the former. One third or researchers submitted a paper to an OA journal in the last

two years.

THANK YOU***

Dorota.Address@gmail.com; Pedro.Jacobetty@gmail.com

Questions?Comments?