Difference between revisions of "Open science"
From Testiwiki
(→See also) |
(Open access survey results from Taylor & Francis) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{encyclopedia|moderator=Jouni|stub=Yes}} | {{encyclopedia|moderator=Jouni|stub=Yes}} | ||
'''Open science''' is a way of making scientific research. The idea is to immediately share everything that is not secret due to e.g. privacy issues, and in a collaborative manner develop [[shared understanding]] about the topic at hand. | '''Open science''' is a way of making scientific research. The idea is to immediately share everything that is not secret due to e.g. privacy issues, and in a collaborative manner develop [[shared understanding]] about the topic at hand. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Current situation and attitudes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Taylor & Francis has published an [http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014 online survey on open access] in 2014. They asked researchers worldwide about their views and attitudes about open access. Some of the key findings were: | ||
| + | * Researchers are willing to give their their articles for further use provided that the use is non-commercial (Q5). | ||
| + | * The most important property of peer review is to evaluate novelty and merit, even if it takes a lot of time. In contrast, post-publication peer review is seen important or very important by less than 25 % of respondents. It seems that speed is not important for researchers. Also, it seems that researchers want their work to be evaluated novel and worth merit by peers rather than by actual usage. (Maybe they know that there is no merit-producing system related to usage.) (Q8) | ||
| + | * Vast majority of researchers (89 %) believe that journal articles will remain the main outputs of research also after ten years. (Q15) | ||
| + | * A majority (63 %) believe that academic journals will remain the main publishing forum for research. However, a growing minority (21 %) believes that institutional or subject-based repositories will grow in importance and co-exist with journals. (Q18) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Overall, it seems that researchers are very conservative and see neither need for nor tendency toward a system where publishing data and publishing interpretations from data would be separated. Maybe this idea is so novel that researchers do not even recognise the possibility. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| + | * [http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014 online survey on open access] by Taylor & Francis, 2014. | ||
* Thomas Lin: Cracking open the scientific process. The New Your Times, Jan 16, 2012 [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html]. | * Thomas Lin: Cracking open the scientific process. The New Your Times, Jan 16, 2012 [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html]. | ||
* [https://peerj.com/about/publications/#PeerJ-PrePrints PeerJ], an online Peer-reviewed journal and a preprint server. | * [https://peerj.com/about/publications/#PeerJ-PrePrints PeerJ], an online Peer-reviewed journal and a preprint server. | ||
Revision as of 09:09, 9 July 2014
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en5471 |
|---|
| Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
| This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here. |
| Upload data
|
Open science is a way of making scientific research. The idea is to immediately share everything that is not secret due to e.g. privacy issues, and in a collaborative manner develop shared understanding about the topic at hand.
Current situation and attitudes
Taylor & Francis has published an online survey on open access in 2014. They asked researchers worldwide about their views and attitudes about open access. Some of the key findings were:
- Researchers are willing to give their their articles for further use provided that the use is non-commercial (Q5).
- The most important property of peer review is to evaluate novelty and merit, even if it takes a lot of time. In contrast, post-publication peer review is seen important or very important by less than 25 % of respondents. It seems that speed is not important for researchers. Also, it seems that researchers want their work to be evaluated novel and worth merit by peers rather than by actual usage. (Maybe they know that there is no merit-producing system related to usage.) (Q8)
- Vast majority of researchers (89 %) believe that journal articles will remain the main outputs of research also after ten years. (Q15)
- A majority (63 %) believe that academic journals will remain the main publishing forum for research. However, a growing minority (21 %) believes that institutional or subject-based repositories will grow in importance and co-exist with journals. (Q18)
Overall, it seems that researchers are very conservative and see neither need for nor tendency toward a system where publishing data and publishing interpretations from data would be separated. Maybe this idea is so novel that researchers do not even recognise the possibility.
See also
- online survey on open access by Taylor & Francis, 2014.
- Thomas Lin: Cracking open the scientific process. The New Your Times, Jan 16, 2012 [1].
- PeerJ, an online Peer-reviewed journal and a preprint server.
- BioRxiv, a preprint server for life sciences. ScienceInsider article about BioRxiv.
- F1000Research, an open access journal for the life sciences. Publishes manuscripts before peer review.
- Interview of Vitek Tracz in Science.
- The Economist: Trouble at the lab. Unreliable research: Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not.
