Today is not that day: Struggles in #openscience advocacy – Sparkinson

“Over the past year, I’ve been trying to convince researchers to retrospectively publish their articles (for free!) as green open access in the university repository (or a general repository such as Zenodo). I thought that:

If they’d knew this option exists …
If only I would tell them they could republish their closed access papers in open access, without extra cost for them ..

they would all come running and do ‘the right thing’. Some did, but for others, the timing of my question never seems right. Priorities lie elsewhere.

So today I’m not only sad. I’m also afraid.

What I’m really afraid of is that some scientists don’t truly see the value of letting patients in on their work. Just as men once didn’t see the value of women taking a vote;
What I’m really afraid of is that people are not willing to consider how they have a role in shaping the things they say they don’t want;
What I’m really afraid of is that it’s not in ‘not knowing’ how to change the system, but in ‘not caring’ enough;
What I’m really afraid of is that I’m as naive as I’ve been told over and over again in all my efforts to make the world – my world – a bit better.

 

Don’t worry. I know myself. I will get back on my feet, no matter what people tell me.”

Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science – Mary A. Majumder, Amy L. McGuire, 2020

“As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.

 

Covid-19 Can’t Stop Citizen Science

“As the Covid-19 pandemic has forced people to stay inside, citizen scientists have increasingly turned to online projects. Although crowdsourcing data analysis isn’t always perfect, the move is a boon for some scientists, since it’s helping process backlogs of information during what would otherwise be a time of doldrums for their research. Other researchers are using citizen science to go after Covid-19 directly, crowdsourcing data to form insights on the rapidly developing global emergency. Their message: everyone has something to contribute….”

Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research

“How we communicate research is changing because of new (especially digital) possibilities. This article sets out 10 easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and engaging ways, and hence increase the impact of their research on science and society….”

 

Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research

“How we communicate research is changing because of new (especially digital) possibilities. This article sets out 10 easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and engaging ways, and hence increase the impact of their research on science and society….”

 

Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political | Impact of Social Sciences

“Preprints servers have become a vital medium for the rapid sharing of scientific findings. This has been made clear by the speed with which researchers have developed new knowledge about the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this speed and openness has also contributed to the ability of low quality preprints to derail public debate and feed conspiracy theories. Maximilian Heimstädt argues that as preprints begin to play a more central role in the communication of research, it is up to policy makers, journalists and civil society to better understand the knowledge they offer….”

Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political | Impact of Social Sciences

“Preprints servers have become a vital medium for the rapid sharing of scientific findings. This has been made clear by the speed with which researchers have developed new knowledge about the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this speed and openness has also contributed to the ability of low quality preprints to derail public debate and feed conspiracy theories. Maximilian Heimstädt argues that as preprints begin to play a more central role in the communication of research, it is up to policy makers, journalists and civil society to better understand the knowledge they offer….”

Volunteers Flock To Sign Up As Citizen Scientists | Here & Now

“Since the coronavirus crisis began, they’ve seen a huge increase in participation, Trouille says. There’s typically about a hundred thousand classifications a day across all the research projects worldwide. But last week, the participation rate shot up by about a third, according to Trouille. She thinks it’s because more people are home and looking for ways to connect and have an impact.

Each project has a forum where the research team and volunteers can chat with each other about the science, unusual objects they’re seeing in the data or just their lives in general….”

Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals

Abstract:  In this study, the authors examine attitudes of researchers toward open access (OA) scholarly journals. Using two-step cluster analysis to explore survey data from faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at large North American research institutions, two different cluster types emerge: Those with a positive attitude toward OA and a desire to reach the nonscholarly audience groups who would most benefit from OA (“pro-OA”), and those with a more negative, skeptical attitude and less interest in reaching nonscholarly readers (“non-OA”). The article explores these cluster identities in terms of position type, subject discipline, and productivity, as well as implications for policy and practice.

 

Exploring complexity: the two sides of Open Science

“One may see Open Science (which some prefer to call Open Research) as an altruistic movement towards opening up research methods and especially its outputs for the sake of their visibility and open availability to the wider society. The legitimate right for any citizen to read research outputs resulting from public funding is regularly raised by every Open Access advocate – including yours truly – when explaining the rationale for Open Science. Patients, schoolteachers, doctors are highlighted as the sort of citizens that may need to access scientific literature and may be forced to pay for such access unless we succeed in our push towards Open Science. And SMEs. Yes, one always mentions SMEs here as well. In fact anyone who happens to be outside the institutional subscription bubbles.

There is another take to Open Science though, a far more pragmatic and hence more likely to succeed approach. This other take, although not unconcerned with access to research results by the average citizen, is mostly about the possibility of exploiting the synergies between research and industry by making not only research results but other areas such as research facilities or expertise as openly available to industry (and the wider outside world) as possible. This is the approach driven by innovation that sees research and its commercial application as a continuum and understands the value of openness for the purpose of realising that continuum….”