G8 science ministers endorse open access
Science ministers from the G8 group of the world’s richest countries have jointly endorsed the need to increase access to publicly-funded research.
Science ministers from the G8 group of the world’s richest countries have jointly endorsed the need to increase access to publicly-funded research.
The scientific journal Nature argues that open access costs by analyzing the Royal Society Report and the Finch Report, both published recently (see posts June 19th and June 21st).
Two reports highlight key aspects of the global trend towards open access to research results: who will pay, and how much, to supply what to whom?
John Naughton, The Observer, says that the Royal Society has overlooked the fact that for more open access, scientists should not only publish or make accessible data but also homemade software used by the scientists to get data needs to be published.
The Guardian / The Observer.
“Open Science - I welcome the Royal Society’s report” says Neelie Kroes, European Commission, responding to the (UK) Royal Society’s website about “Science as an Open Enterprise”.
Undertaken on the behalf of the Research Councils UK in partnership with JISC, the Royal Society and Sciencewise-ERC1, this public dialogue explored views on open data, data reuse and data management policies within research.
Key Findings are:
1. The principal arguments for open data – around catalysing innovation and building trust – were contested.
2. Open data was an abstract issue for participants to engage with.
3. Main concerns around open data relate to promoting the public interest and protecting personal data.
4. Current practices around open data seen as mixed and contingent on the interests of researchers.
5. The public identified 8 key principles that could be used to promote more effective open data policies. Defining the public interest was key in this context.
6. There was a series of social and ethical issues associated with rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders around open data. These were sometimes in conflict.
7. Different governance structures emerged around open data, which are contingent on how public interest is defined and protected.
8. There were two broad views on what constitutes the public interest around data reuse that emerged from the dialogue, which have distinct and potentially conflicting implications for data governance.
9. Opening data in the public interest can involve direct trade offs for the public – in terms of individual rights around consent and confidentiality and the greater good.
10. There are a number of implications emerging from the dialogue about who gets to define public interest.
11. There is an opportunity to directly build public principles around openness directly into the policies of research funders.
12. Different open data governance structures could be considered by the research councils.
13. Open data, though not unimportant, is unlikely to be a highly significant public issue around the governance of research.
Download to the final report as pdf here.
Six key areas for action are highlighted in the report:
- Scientists need to be more open among themselves and with the public and media.
- Greater recognition needs to be given to the value of data gathering, analysis and communication.
- Common standards for sharing information are required to make it widely usable.
- Publishing data in a reusable form to support findings must be mandatory.
- More experts in managing and supporting the use of digital data are required.
- New software tools need to be developed to analyse the growing amount of data being gathered.