We show that this process can be divided into six descriptive categories: Data donor, research organization, research community, norms, data infrastructure, and data recipients. Drawing from our findings, we discuss theoretical implications regarding knowledge creation and dissemination as well as research policy measures to foster academic collaboration. We conclude that research data cannot be regarded as knowledge commons, but research policies that better incentivise data sharing are needed to improve the quality of research results and foster scientific progress.
The results for 1564 valid responses show that researchers across disciplines recognise the benefit of secondary research data for their own work and for scientific progress as a whole—still they only practice it in moderation. An explanation for this evidence could be an academic system that is not driven by monetary incentives, nor the desire for scientific progress, but by individual reputation—expressed in (high ranked journal) publications. We label this system a Reputation Economy. This special economy explains our findings that show that researchers have a nuanced idea how to provide adequate formal recognition for making data available to others—namely data citations. We conclude that data sharing will only be widely adopted among research professionals if sharing pays in form of reputation. Thus, policy measures that intend to foster research collaboration need to understand academia as a reputation economy. Successful measures must value intermediate products, such as research data, more highly than it is the case now.
Most scientific research is publicly funded, and yet we have to pay to access it. This absurd situation should not be allowed to continue.
The point is not to end copyright. This is about ending dumb copyright- SARA RODRÍGUEZ MARÍN
“Sharing is caring“! This is probably a good way to describe what Open Science really means: a new approach to science to share ideas, research results, research data, and publications with the rest of the world, through the newly available network technologies. The YEAR Annual Conference is a two-day event for young researchers, which offers a platform for exchange and training focused on key aspects of EU projects. For the 2015 edition, co-funded by FOSTER, YEAR chooses to focus the conference on Open Science in Horizon 2020.
Digitale Technologien bringen eine neue Dimension in den Wissensschaffungsprozess. Wissenschaftlerinnen können über Grenzen und Zeitzonen hinweg zusammenarbeiten. Wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse können online zugänglich gemacht werden. Die Grenzen zwischen Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft, und Gesellschaft sind nicht mehr starr. Aber was passiert wenn Wissenschaft transparent wird? Was sind die Potenziale und wo sind die Grenzen?
This is a resource designed to equip people with the terminology that is used within discussions about the general field of open scholarship. Additionally, it possesses numerous external resources that may be of use. Jon Tennant
The Institute of Medicine (IOM), a venerable American institution that seeks to provide authoritative recommendations to decision makers and the public, released a report last month on Sharing Clinical Trial Data.1 The report is a welcome codification of guiding principles and frameworks. It reinforces many arguments for data sharing and urges that stakeholders “should foster a culture in which data sharing is the expected norm.” The IOM joins many other organizations, including drug companies, the European Medicines Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in making clear that study reporting and data sharing in medical research are imperative and the questions ahead are how, not whether.
Introduction to Open Science: Why data versioning and data care practices are key for science and social science. Carly Strasser has put together a useful guide to embracing open science, pitched largely at graduate students. But the tips shared will be of interest far beyond the completion of a PhD. If time is spent up front thinking about file organization, sample naming schemes, backup plans, and quality control measures, many hours of heartache can be averted.
The epistemological aspect that interests me most, however, is even more fundamental. Given the central role of data in making scientific research into a distinctive, legitimate and non-dogmatic source of knowledge, I view the study of data-intensive science as offering the opportunity to raise foundational questions about the nature of knowledge and knowledge-making activities and interventions. Scientific research is often presented as the most systematic set of efforts in the contemporary world aimed to critically explore and debate what constitutes acceptable and sufficient evidence for any given belief about reality.
Why (or why aren’t) scientists engaging in social media?; Are scientists using social media well?; and Will social media benefit a scientist’s career? Craig McClain, Liz Neeley
The journal First Monday just published a paper by Kaja Scheliga and Sascha Friesike from the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. The article is titled “Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?” What follows is an abstract of the paper.
Open science is a movement that seeks to ensure that the results and the data of scientific research are, and continue to be, available to all. One way in which reproducibility issues can be tackled is through the use of open-science and open-data practices. As attendees of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop, we discussed how the problem of keeping science transparent and reproducible in an increasingly technology-driven, and specialised, domain could be addressed. One route, at the heart of scientific endeavour, is through the peer-review process.
Holtzbrinck Publishing announces agreement to merge majority of Macmillan Science and Education with Springer Science+Business Media.
This is a strategic transaction by Holtzbrinck and BCP aimed at securing the long-term growth of both businesses. It will create a leading global science and education publishing house with the opportunity to better serve its authors, the research community, academic institutions, learned societies and corporate research departments, as well as to extend its reach within the education and learning markets.
And while the citizen scientists could clearly save the working scientists some money, the authors suggest that this shouldn't really be the only goal. "Involving the crowd may enable researchers to pursue different kinds of research questions and approaches, rather than simply replacing one type of labor (e.g., graduate students) with another (volunteers)."
Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results
The widespread reluctance to share published research data is often hypothesized to be due to the authors' fear that reanalysis may expose errors in their work or may produce conclusions that contradict their own. - Jelte M. Wicherts, Marjan Bakker, Dylan Molenaar
The implications for community participation in science and conservation are far-reaching. Imagine communities throughout the world gathering data, from remote villages in the Kalahari, the Congo, Australia and Mongolia, to school children in New York’s Central Park, London, Paris, Tokyo, New Delhi and Beijing. Citizens gathering data on birds, animals and plants. Millions of people all over the world sharing their data in the cloud, creating a worldwide network to monitor the global ecosystem in real time.
I genuinely do not know of any researcher that asked specifically for an additional new Elsevier journal.
Digital technologies change how scientists access and process information and consequently impact publication forms in science. Even though the core of scientific publications has remained the same, established publication formats, such as the scientific paper or book, are succumbing to the transitions caused by digital technologies. At the same time, new online tools enable new publication forms, such as blogs, microblogs or wikis, to emerge. This article explores the changing and emerging publications forms in science and also reflects upon the changing role of libraries. The transformations of publishing forms are discussed in the context of open science.
Open science is fostered on a top-down level by various initiatives of the European Commission and on a bottom-up level by passionate individuals. Nevertheless, on a large scale, the concept of open science is rarely reflected in scholarly reality.