A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices

Bowman, Nicholas David; Keene, Justin Robert

doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273

Cited by 51 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the present way it is being discussed and often implemented, it could paradoxically lead to a more enclosed, monopolistic scholarly system dominated by 'siloes'. It seems that Open Scholarship, if based more on morality around freedom, would align itself more closely with Mertonian norms (Bowman and Keene 2018). In this way, Open…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These all flew in the face of the subscription model, which, even in digital environments, relied on resource-based constraints by creating the illusion of scarcity in production and dissemination. Fundamental in the origins of OA were the unconditional free public availability for reading, as well as unconstrained re-use so long as original sources were attributed; often equated with the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (Suber 2007b;Tennant et al 2016 research practices, and more efficient or rigorous research workflows (Watson 2015;Levin et al 2016;Crick, Hall, and Ishtiaq 2017;Masuzzo and Martens 2017;McKiernan 2017;Bowman and Keene 2018;Fraser et al 2018). This includes a diverse range of practices such as pre-registration and registered reports (Nosek and Lakens 2014;Nosek et al 2018), sharing of code and data (Barnes 2010;Levin 2015;Mons 2018), and opening up the peer review process in different ways (Morey et al 2016;Ross-Hellauer 2017;Tennant et al 2017).…”

Section: Systems Of Valuation In Openness 31mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Agrawal¹,

Baždarić²,

Brassard³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Systems Of Valuation In Openness 31mentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Agrawal¹,

Baždarić²,

Brassard³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of measures can be taken towards this objective, including posting results to preprint servers, preregistration of studies, open peer review, and other open science practices [56,67,68]. In many of these initiatives, however, the role of gatekeeping remains prominent, as if a necessary feature of all scholarly communication.…”

Section: Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emerging new wave of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly debated topics. Evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. This article aims to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices, and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. These arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and will inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

show abstract

“…A number of measures can be taken towards this objective, including posting results to preprint servers, preregistration of studies, open peer review, and other open science practices (Munafò et al 2017b;Bowman and Keene 2018;McKiernan et al 2016). In all these initiatives, however, the role of gatekeeping remains prominent, as if a necessary feature of all scholarly communication.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Crane

Crick

Dávila

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of 'Open Science' or 'Open Research' has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of 'global' databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system. PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27580v1 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec

show abstract

A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices

Cited by 51 publications

References 17 publications

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About