Étiquette : open science

Catégories
FR

Ouverture et partage des résultats de la recherche dans l’économie de la connaissance européenne : Quelle(s) liberté(s) de circulation pour l’IST?

Auteur/Author : Hans Dillaerts

Au cours de ces dix dernières années, il y a un engagement croissant de l’Union européenne en faveur de l’innovation ouverte, le libre accès et la science ouverte. Notre objectif au sein de cet article est de s’interroger sur les origines de ces politiques et d’en retracer les évolutions et les limites.

L’objectif de cette analyse est également de mettre en avant les injonctions contradictoires que subissent aujourd’hui les chercheurs en matière de publication et de diffusion de l’information scientifique et technique à travers entre autres les problématiques et questionnements liés à la brevetabilité des résultats de recherche financés sur des fonds publics.

URL : https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_01716543

Catégories
EN

Reproducible research and GIScience: an evaluation using AGILE conference papers

Authors : Daniel Nüst​, Carlos Granell, Barbara Hofer, Markus Konkol, Frank O Ostermann, Rusne Sileryte, Valentina Cerutti

The demand for reproducibility of research is on the rise in disciplines concerned with data analysis and computational methods. In this work existing recommendations for reproducible research are reviewed and translated into criteria for assessing reproducibility of articles in the field of geographic information science (GIScience).

Using a sample of GIScience research from the Association of Geographic Information Laboratories in Europe (AGILE) conference series, we assess the current state of reproducibility of publications in this field. Feedback on the assessment was collected by surveying the authors of the sample papers.

The results show the reproducibility levels are low. Although authors support the ideals, the incentives are too small. Therefore we propose concrete actions for individual researchers and the AGILE conference series to improve transparency and reproducibility, such as imparting data and software skills, an award, paper badges, author guidelines for computational research, and Open Access publications.

URL : Reproducible research and GIScience: an evaluation using AGILE conference papers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26561v1

Catégories
EN

Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review

Authors : María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya,  Francisco-José García-Peñalvo

Open science, as a common good, opens possibilities for the development of nations, through innovations and collaborative constructions, which help to democratize knowledge. Advances in this area are still emerging, and the open science, cocreation of knowledge and open innovation triangle, is presented as an opportunity to generate an original contribution from research to open educational theory and practices.

The study analyzed the articles that addressed this triangle, in order to identify the contexts and challenges that arise in open innovation and the cocreation of knowledge to promote open science.

The method was a systematic literature review (SLR) of 168 articles published in open access format, from January 2014 to May 2017 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases.

In the validation process, the York University criteria were used: inclusion and exclusion, relevance of the pertinent studies, evaluation of the quality / validity of included studies and description of data / basic studies.

The findings showed that the mostwidely publicized contexts were in the United States and Brazil, in the business and academic sectors (closely followed by the social sector), and the challenges were open to innovation, opening and research.

The research concludes that the context and practices of collaboration are substantial elements for innovation and open science.

URL :  Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review

Alternative location : http://eprints.rclis.org/32168/

Catégories
EN

Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science

Authors : Stefan Stürmer, Aileen Oeberst, Roman Trötschel, Oliver Decker

Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution.

While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures.

A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324

 

Catégories
EN

Make researchers revisit past publications to improve reproducibility

Authors : Clare Fiala, Eleftherios P. Diamandis

Scientific irreproducibility is a major issue that has recently increased attention from publishers, authors, funders and other players in the scientific arena. Published literature suggests that 50-80% of all science performed is irreproducible. While various solutions to this problem have been proposed, none of them are quick and/or cheap.

Here, we propose one way of reducing scientific irreproducibility by asking authors to revisit their previous publications and provide a commentary after five years. We believe that this measure will alert authors not to over sell their results and will help with better planning and execution of their experiments.

We invite scientific journals to adapt this proposal immediately as a prerequisite for publishing.

URL : Make researchers revisit past publications to improve reproducibility

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12715.1

 

Catégories
FR

La notion de Science Ouverte dans l’Espace européen de la recherche. Entre tendances à l’« exotérisation » et à la « gestionnarisation » de la recherche scientifique

Auteur/Author : Marc Vanholsbeeck

Cet article analyse les prescriptions européennes en matière d’Open Science et évalue la mesure dans laquelle celles-ci contribuent à résoudre la contradiction qui leur préexiste entre les prescrits qui, au sein de l’Espace européen de la recherche, encouragent les chercheurs à ouvrir la démarche scientifique et les produits de la recherche à des parties prenantes extérieures, et ceux qui incitent à fonder les indicateurs de performance en matière de recherche sur les articles de revue savante internationale.

A cet égard, la combinaison de la publication en OA avec l’archivage d’une diversité de produits de la recherche sur des répertoires OA s’avère préférable au basculement unilatéral dans la voie dorée de l’OA, par le biais de « big deals » avec les Majors.

URL : https://rfsic.revues.org/3241

Catégories
EN

Open notebook science as an emerging epistemic culture within the Open Science movement

Authors : Anne Clinio, Sarita Albagli

The paper addresses the concepts and practices of “open notebook science” (Bradley, 2006) as an innovation within the contemporary Open Science movement. Our research points out that open notebook science is not an incremental improvement, but it is a new “literary technology” (Shapin, Shaffer, 1985) and main element of a complex open collaboration ecosystem that fosters a new epistemic culture (Knorr-Cetina, 1999).

This innovation aimed to move from a “science based on trust” to a science based on transparency and data provenance – a shift that recognizes the ability of scientists in performing experiments, but mostly, values their capacity of documenting properly what they say they have done. The theoretical framework was built with the notion of epistemic culture (Knorr-Cetina, 1999) and the “three technologies” perspective used by Shapin and Shaffer (1985) to describe the construction by natural philosophers of “matter of fact” as “variety of knowledge” so powerful that became synonymous of science itself.

Empirically, we entered the “open lab” through a netnography that led us to understand that the epistemic culture being engendered by its practitioners is based on a “matter of proof”.

URL : https://rfsic.revues.org/3186