Science is facing a fundamental turning point of its history. Never as in this historical moment it appears giant and powerful, but at the same time it shows high fragility: the concentration of information control power in the hands of few commercial groups, the iniquity of a system that benefits developed countries, the restriction of academic autonomy by political and economic power, the precariousness of working conditions of young researchers, the increase in the number of cases of scientific fraud and misconduct, the questioning of its authority by a portion of the public. Can openness be understood as a system capable of strengthening science and treating the diseases that afflict it?
La scienza vive un tornante fondamentale della sua storia. Mai come in questo momento storico essa appare gigantesca e potente, ma allo stesso tempo manifesta profonde fragilità: la concentrazione del potere di controllo dell'informazione in capo a pochi gruppi commerciali, l'iniquità di un sistema che avvantaggia i Paesi sviluppati, la compressione dell'autonomia da parte del potere politico ed economico, la precarizzazione dei giovani ricercatori, la crescita dei casi di frode e di violazione dell'etica, la messa in discussione della sua autorevolezza da parte di una porzione del pubblico. L'apertura può essere intesa come un sistema idoneo a irrobustire la scienza e curare i mali che la affliggono? Il saggio è destinato a rispondere a questa domanda.
Zielsetzung— Der Beitrag diskutiert, inwiefern es genügt, Open Science, die offene Wissenschaft, auf die rein entgeltfreie Verfügbarkeit von Objekten, z.B. wissenschaftlichen Publikationen im Open Access zu kaprizieren, und welche Rolle Impact-Informationen, die Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftler reaktiv steuern, zukommt sowie, ob diese ebenfalls im Sinne der offenen Wissenschaft neu modelliert werden müssen.Forschungsmethoden— Altbekannte, zitationsbasierte Impact-Metriken und neue, alternative Metriken werden anhand folgender Kriterien daraufhin überprüft, ob sie offene Metriken sind: Wissenschaftliche Überprüfbarkeit und Modellierung, Transparenz in ihrem Zustandekommen und ihrer Methodik, Übereinstimmung mit den Prinzipien des offenen Wissens.Ergebnisse— Weder Zitationsmetriken noch alternative Metriken verdienen das Etikett offen. Es fehlt ihnen allen an wissenschaftlichem Gehalt, meist aber auch an Transparenz und Überprüfbarkeit. Insbesondere können die alternativen Metriken die von ihnen teils erwartete Demokratisierung der Wissenschaftsbewertung nicht bewirken.Schlussfolgerungen— Da weder Zitationsmetriken noch alternative Metriken als offen zu bezeichnen sind, erscheint es notwendig, einen Kriterienkatalog offener Metriken zu erarbeiten. Dieser Katalog umfasst Aspekte wie Begründungen und Dokumentationen bei Auswahl an Datenquellen, offene Bereitstellung der Daten, die der Berechnung der Impact-Scores zugrunde liegen, Möglichkeiten, die Daten und die daraus ermittelten Werte automatisiert abzufragen, logische, wissenschaftliche unddokumentierte Begründungen, anhand welcher Formel oder Parameter die Werte berechnet wurden. Archiviert in E-LIS ; Objective — The article discusses if it is sufficient to scale down Open Science to a free availability of objects, for example scientific publications (open access), or whether impact metrics that steer science and scientists must also be re-modeled under open science principles.Methods — Well-known, citation-based impact metrics and new, alternative metrics are reviewed using the following criteria to assess whether they are open metrics: Scientific verifiability and modeling, transparency in their construction and methodology, consistency with the principles of open knowledge.Results — Neither citation-based impact metrics nor alternative metrics can be labeled open metrics. They all lack scientific foundation, transparency and verifiability.Conclusions — Since neither citation-based impact metrics nor alternative metrics can be considered open, it seems necessary to draw up a list of criteria for open metrics. This catalog includes aspects such as justifications and documentation for the selection of data sources, open availability of the data underlying the calculation of the impact scores, options to retrieve the data automatically via software interfaces, logical, scientific and documented justifications about the formula or parameters used to calculate impact values. Archived in E-LIS
Zielsetzung: Der Beitrag diskutiert, inwiefern es genügt, Open Science, die offene Wissenschaft, auf die rein entgeltfreie Verfügbarkeit von Objekten, z.B. wissenschaftlichen Publikationen im Open Access zu kaprizieren, und welche Rolle Impact-Informationen, die Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftler reaktiv steuern, zukommt sowie, ob diese ebenfalls im Sinne der offenen Wissenschaft neu modelliert werden müssen. Forschungsmethoden: Atbekannte, zitationsbasierte Impact-Metriken und neue, alternative Metriken werden anhand folgender Kriterien daraufhin überprüft, ob sie offene Metriken sind: Wissenschaftliche Überprüfbarkeit und Modellierung, Transparenz in ihrem Zustandekommen und ihrer Methodik, Übereinstimmung mit den Prinzipien des offenen Wissens. Ergebnisse: Weder Zitationsmetriken noch alternative Metriken verdienen das Etikett offen. Es fehlt ihnen allen an wissenschaftlichem Gehalt, meist aber auch an Transparenz und Überprüfbarkeit. Insbesondere können die alternativen Metriken die von ihnen teils erwartete Demokratisierung der Wissenschaftsbewertung nicht bewirken. Schlussfolgerungen: Da weder Zitationsmetriken noch alternative Metriken als offen zu bezeichnen sind, erscheint es notwendig, einen Kriterienkatalog offener Metriken zu erarbeiten. Dieser Katalog umfasst Aspekte wie Begründungen und Dokumentationen bei Auswahl an Datenquellen, offene Bereitstellung der Daten, die der Berechnung der Impact-Scores zugrunde liegen, Möglichkeiten, die Daten und die daraus ermittelten Werte automatisiert abzufragen, logische, wissenschaftliche und dokumentierte Begründungen, anhand welcher Formel oder Parameter die Werte berechnet wurden. ; Objective: The article discusses if it is sufficient to scale down Open Science to a free availability of objects, for example scientific publications (open access), or whether impact metrics that steer science and scientists must also be re-modeled under open science principles. Methods: Well-known, citation-based impact metrics and new, alternative metrics are reviewed using the ...
Following the call for 'open science, open innovation, and open to the world' by the EU Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation Carlos Moedas in 2015, the S4D4C case study looks for applications and implications of open science in science diplomacy. Presentation at the S4D4C Webinar 17 Dec 2020
The Open Science Observatory presents a collection of indicators and visualizations that help interested stakeholders (policy makers and research administrators among others) better understand the Open Science landscape in Europe across countries. The platform assists the monitoring, and consequently the enhancing, of open science policy uptake across different dimensions of interest, revealing weak spots and hidden potential. Based on the OpenAIRE Research Graph, following open science principles and an evidence-based approach, the indicators can be used to provide timely and reliable insights on the evolution of open science in Europe and assist in promoting good practices. The Open Science Observatory is available at https://osobservatory.openaire.eu
Scientific reproducibility and Open Science may seem like a "new" approach to Science, but these concepts are in fact fundamental principles of the Scientific Method, established a thousand years ago. By definition, scientists want to follow the Scientific Method. Then why have different studies demonstrated that researchers have difficulties reproducing even their own methods? Clues can be found in a system where science is being drowned by numerical ranking, favouring productivity over discovery. Given the current epoch of economic crisis, where researchers are forced into a competitive game of pandering to panelists in quests for funds, it seems to be a good time for deep reflection on the entire scientific system, and on how to support good ideas versus good marketing. The challenge will be harder when facilities like the Square Kilometre Array Observatory start generating data volumes reaching the exa-scale. Not only will computing, networking or storage resources reach their limits, but the biggest challenge will be scientific: Extracting knowledge will become an impossible task without a fundamental change in methodology and policies in the short-term. Computing facilities enabling science in Big Data oriented facilities should be key in supporting astronomers to build reproducible methods. I will discuss how different research communities (such as individual researchers, large collaborations, data centres, journals and their referees) as well as policy makers, view the challenges/barriers and rewards of reproducibility. For scientific facilities, adoption of Open Science is both a need and a duty. Open Science not only enhances scientific collaboration and knowledge interchange in a transparent way. It also brings a wider impact in other areas, by encouraging the democratisation of science, contributing to achieving UN's Sustainable Development Goals. With this talk I aim to provoke extra critical thinking among the different actors involved in our system (applicants for jobs/grants, referees, or ...
Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterised by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralising and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how these impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science. ; Trento LawTech Research Paper nr. 27
Open Science is a topic currently being discussed in different research policy fora. It is also a priority of the Dutch Presidency of the Council in the first half of 2016. Open science is based on the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process. This policy brief on Open Science by Katja Mayer (University of Vienna) describes the current situation and the challenges ahead for the national and EU research system and actors.
Die Präsentation im Rahmen der Veranstaltung European Pathways to Open Science widmet sich den unterschiedlichen Erwartungshaltungen zu Offenheit in Wissenschaft und Innovation, vorallem in Forschung und Politik. Neben einer Liste an dringlichen Aufgaben für die Wissenschaftspolitik und Administration werden die Vienna Principles for Scholarly Communication vorgestellt, welche als Kriterienkatalog für individuelle Open Science Strategien fungieren können.
Canada's 2018-2020 National Action Plan on Open Government includes a milestone (milestone 5.5) that tasks Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), with support from the Science-based Departments and Agencies (SBDAs), to develop and publish indicators for measuring the benefits of open science for Canadians by June 2019. Herein is a list of proposed benefit indicators currently under consideration by the SBDA Open Science Metrics Working Group. Section 1 presents proposed core benefit indicators for implementation by every SBDA. Section 2 includes proposed supplementary indicators for implementation by interested SBDAs. The indicators included in Sections 1 and 2 allow measuring benefits that open science can provide to academics and researchers, industry, governments, and the public in general. These and other proposed indicators will undergo further development as part of the process to implement the final set of indicators to be used to measure the benefits of open science for Canadians. Therefore, the inclusion of an indicator at this stage does not guarantee its selection in the final set of indicators to be reported on. Additionally, it is possible that elements identified as core indicators could be changed to supplementary indicators. By June 2020, an indicators report on the benefits of open science for Canadians will be published and will present the final set of indicators along with first year results.
Openness and transparency are closely linked to the scientific method. But how open can and should research be? The lecture would like to invite you to participate in the current discussion about open science in its different facets by providing a broad overview - from open access over the FAIR data principles and citizen science to the European Open Science Cloud. The presentation took place on 8 November 2021 and was part of the event series "Open for you! An introduction series to open science" organized by the 4EU+ University Alliance. ; Co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.
Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterized by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralizing and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how this impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.
Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterized by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralizing and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how this impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.
