Tag: Open data

100458170 Todos , , , ,

Open Science: the revolution in the socialization of science

A few years ago, when I began to study and research Open Science, most authors relied on the concept that it was an umbrella that recognized the value of open science as accessible, collaborative, and reproducible. This idea shown in the following image continues to have prominence when it comes to explaining Open Science. I share this perspective of Open Science and at this point after everything that has been addressed in the Ticket course to Open Science I consider that Open Science is a true revolution in the socialization of science.

Representation of Open Science by Eva Méndez

From experience I have also been able to verify the benefits of Open Science. I come from Cuba where access to information is restricted by factors inherent to the United States blockade of the island and the Cuban government’s own decisions and this bias interferes with the quality and transparency of science, so in one of the issues of the course, when we were asked if Open Science also involved differences between geographical regions, I took a position in saying that there are indeed differences. Hence, it is one of my motivations to delve into this topic. It is not about competing in “impact factors”, it is about advancing a little more every day in raising awareness and in the daily practices of the academy; democratizing knowledge will depend on the sustainability of Open Science. Although, I am concerned that Data Management Plans, for example, are not common practice and that literacy on these topics is often reduced to theoretical approaches or at least prioritized.

What unites us

We agree that access to information is a universal human right, and the Open Science model constitutes an opportunity to fulfill and guarantee that right in the long term. Currently, there is a greater institutional will to promote processes covered by Open Science. Government structures have been legislated that reinforce work for the common good of access to information and open knowledge. We are aware that everyone must do their part by developing data management plans, participating in groups promoting Open Science, using open tools and software, sharing the results and data of our research, collaborating on projects. research. In this sense, this course brings us closer to tools that I was unaware of and from now on I intend to continue using. The use of data and information repositories, Virtual Learning Environments, the willingness to publish in Open Access journals and advisory services are examples of good practice. On this last point, I am grateful for the meeting that a group had with Raúl Aguilera Ortega, from the UC3M library service, and he told us about policies when publishing in open access journals, as well as databases and repositories, which can be opportunities. in our development as researchers.

Reclaim the common

The progress of science rests on the generation of scientific knowledge as a social-collective process. Strategies from now on must focus on teaching offers, audiences, tools and methods with data intensive science and open science. It is never enough to raise your voice and investigate Open Science; courses like this must be diversified as spaces for debate and with the participation of various specialists who share their knowledge and experiences.

100286790 Todos ,

Open science (OS) and rewarding system (motivators of will)

Ever since I worked as the director of the Sciences library in the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina), I’ve been interested in the practice of OS, due to the fact that open access was a very relevant concept at the time.
Firstly, it is important to define the concept of OS. I find the definition given by Draft UNESCO to be very accurate, OS is described “as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community.” (When highlighting the practices of OS, the concept of FOSTER project comes up) Highlighting the practices of OS, like the definition of FOSTER project, “OS as the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute”.
Based on this idea, I personally believe Open Science is the “paradigm” that should have an impact and guide the behaviour of researchers nowadays. We should focus on imposing this model on the researchers’ attitude, to consequently direct the outputs of researchers in the public sector and institutions where their main objective is to produce knowledge.
Therefore, if we are able to shift from closed science to OS, we would need to work towards fixing the main flaw within this practice. For a better understanding of this “flaw” we should focus on the highlighted roots in the OS mushroom graphics by Eva Mendez. In my opinion and as reinforced by (as shown in the drawing below) the fundamental concept that needs to be worked on is how the evaluation system functions related to the rewarding system, taking into account the characteristics of OS throughout the process. By working on this we will be able to shift towards a total OS model in the academic world.

Open Science

On this blog I will  particularly discuss reward systems like motivators of will. When discussing this aspect of OS, it is necessary to consider: the various existing obstacles, as well as the different kinds of incentives, and the revision of institutional policies. To deal with the aspects I previously mentioned, we should work on this process by creating different stages. More specifically in the case of Universities I would consider the following plan of action relevant:

  • The institution can review their internal policies regarding students and teachers’  grants, provision of additional funding, etc. In summary, analyzing all the institutional policies to find the interstices/breaches in the OS principles.
  • Recognize the most important needs of the research community to release knowledge (with surveys), and organize training accordingly with the library. 
  • Offer the course regularly for doctoral students, as well as divide the course into independent components according to the needs of students / teachers and researchers. 
  • Build a MOOC with an evaluation that is separated into independent modules: data management plan, access practices and open data, data repositories, metadata, etc.
  • Evaluate the compliance with OS of teachers, researchers, PhD and postdoc students, according to the following list:
  • Generate an entity to control OS compliance with those policies to boost the OS system.

I particularly enjoyed the session by Sabina Leoneli and her practical approach about Plan S. Sabina understands this concept as an intermediate and necessary step towards a more advanced and new model of an open publishing system. She shows us that we need work together in this sense, to achieve the results we are looking for. Nevertheless, the evaluation system of the science nowadays, is based on the traditional publishing system, meaning that Plan S is a gateaway to “free” articles within developing countries. We should consider the Plan S as a possibility inside the actual publishing system, however, it is an expensive option.

I believe that the course was excellent and extremely helpful. It updated my knowledge and understanding of OS, as much as it allowed me to learn how to manage many tools that directly boost my abilities on how to manage OS as a PHD student. The different perspectives and topics discussed by the keynote speakers from the Science Cafe, such as OpenAire, Plan S, Citizen Science allowed me to achieve a more global vision on the topic.