{"id":545,"date":"2019-07-17T15:14:43","date_gmt":"2019-07-17T13:14:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/?p=545"},"modified":"2019-07-17T15:14:45","modified_gmt":"2019-07-17T13:14:45","slug":"open-science-the-delayed-future-of-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/todos\/open-science-the-delayed-future-of-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Science, the \u00abdelayed\u00bb future of research"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

 What is Open Science?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First of all, I first heard about\nOpen Science (OS) at the workshop and before then, I had never heard about it. It\nsuffices to say that the Open Science forum needs to do more in making sure\nthat all Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are on-board with Open Science, motivation,\nbenefits and best practices. To this end, I think higher education institutions\ne.g. Universities and research centers should have Open Science guiding\nprinciples shared with each PhD student & researchers. And of course, more\nworkshops like this one could really help spread the word. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, my current understanding of\nOpen Science if I could paraphrase from Dr. Rebecca Lawrence\u2019s presentation is;\nincrease research quality, boost collaboration, speed up the research process,\ntransparent research assessment, \u201ccitizen science\u201d, and inspire more people\ninto research. When I read through all these objectives of OS, I am intrigued\nand inspired though at the same time I have this gut feeling that all these\nobjectives are more ideal than realistic in my simple opinion. Here is why; To create\nreally quality research and have collaboration with other disciplines, you need\ntime and yet most funders want the research outputs as soon as possible. And without\nthe funders\u2019 money, the researchers can\u2019t survive in the first place. So, in\nshort something has to give which in most cases is the research quality\/outputs.\nThe researchers and the funders find a common ground in terms of research\noutputs. In terms of transparent research assessment, in my opinion I think by\nvirtue of us being human we are already biased and have our limited identifications\nin terms of higher institutions and research centers we prefer. Though, there\nis hope for this objective because in the near future machines will be doing\nthe research assessment on our behalf. These are not only problems of OS but\nthe research community as a whole. When it comes to inspiring more people to join\nresearch, I think that\u2019s up to the incentives accorded to researchers. In\nsummary, I think OS is a great initiative though I think it needs to move from\nbeing an idea to the actual granular details on how each of these objectives\ncan actually be achieved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 What did you learn in the\nworkshop?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I really had a great time listening\nto all the presenters at the workshop. It was really eye-opening for me and I\nknow for sure this is the future of research. The workshop actually got me\nthinking about the current research infrastructure and how insane it is!!!. This\nis the current scenario; we as researchers struggle to have our work published\nin these journals for a fee, review for free and later our own universities and\nresearch centers are charged a fee for us to have access to our own research.\nThis is crazy to say the least. So, there is a need for OS however as a PhD student\nI am going to be evaluated based on the journals\u2019 impact factors where I\npublished my work. Which brings me to my first question, where is the motivation\nfor me as a PhD student to make my research OS? Because there is a higher chance\nof my work reaching a wider audience if I publish in a high impact journal than\nan OS platform which currently maybe accessed by a few people. My second question,\nin case I was really interested in publishing my work based on OS principles,\nwhere is the platform that I can use to publish my work and what is its impact\nfactor? Of course, in the workshop there was the argument that impact factor is\ninversely proportional to applicability however the PhD committee that is going\nto evaluate my research findings isn\u2019t interested in that fact but rather the journal\nimpact factor. Lastly, what are the recommended OS practices and where are they\npublished for reference? I could probably google this but am still looking for\na motivation that is in line with my academic progress evaluation as a PhD\nstudent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What do you think About sharing data and\npublications from publicly funded Research?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of sharing data and\npublications from publicly funded research, am all for it. As Prof. Dr. Barend\nMons said \u201cWe get paid for our hobbies and it\u2019s our responsibility to be accountable\nto the public\u201d. I know for certain that this is true for me, I love doing research\nand the fact that am getting paid for it is an added bonus.  So, whatever I need to do to give back to the\npublic, am OK with doing that. However, the process of making my research\npublic shouldn\u2019t necessitate more work on my end than is absolutely necessary,\nso minimal requirements and highest interoperability and am pretty sure all\nresearchers will be up for it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How would you like to be EVALUATED in your academic\ncareer and \/ or your contribution Research?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe my research work should\nbe evaluated based on transparency and fairness. Also, I notice there is the current\ntrend where research is evaluated mainly on the \u201cbig\u201d outputs rather than the small\nmilestones i.e. we are more interested in the consequences rather than the\nprocess which I think is one of the limitations to current research. Because we\nknow we need to have outputs in the shortest time possible, we can\u2019t focus on taking\non really challenging tasks that would have a much higher impact in the future.\nIn short, we need to give researchers time without them having to worry about\ntheir funding. You see, some might argue that having research goals at the end\nof every 6 months to a year keeps researchers accountable to their funders\nthough at the same time it limits their thinking. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who do you think is the responsible \/ s to change\nthe system?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do think everyone is responsible for\nchanging the current system. However, for people to be responsible they need to\nhave the information and be able to process it. And I think up to this point,\nthis information hasn\u2019t been circulated fairly well to the lower layers i.e.\nresearchers who are the people expected to publish their research in accordance\nto OS principles. As Silvia said in the workshop and of course am paraphrasing,\n\u201cWe all need to take little actions every day that bring us closer to our goal\nof OS-based kind of research\u201d. The more we wait for all the multi-stakeholders\nand institutions to come onboard, the more time is wasted. And as the saying\ngoes, \u201cA journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step<\/em>\u201d. That\nsaid, the only way in my opinion that researchers are going to fully embrace OS\nis if it\u2019s in line with their reward systems and career progression. Otherwise,\nit will be nearly impossible to make great strides in this arena without a\nchange in ways that research is evaluated and incentived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Have you ever thought About using\ncitizen science in your research?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, I also had never heard\nabout citizen science though I have seen it in action several times. I just wasn\u2019t\nfamiliar with the terminology. I most definitely would use citizen science in\nmy research because we now know that all research disciplines are related, and\nthe most impactful research involves outputs from several disciplines. For me a\nwin in my research would be when the public are used as active research participants\nfrom the beginning to the end. We should all work together and to really progress,\nwe need to give the public access to our research and let them critique it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Could you do for Open Science?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My commitment to Open Science is first\nof all to get to know more about it and then try to find ways to use it in my\nresearch. I strongly believe that this is the ultimate future of research. I\nmean we could try to delay it like what\u2019s happening now, but the evolution is coming\nand those who aren\u2019t ready to change will definitely be thrown off the bus. We\nowe it ourselves to change and ACT NOW. At the end, change is the only thing we\ncan really count on. So am all for Open Science despite my few reservations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#IamAnOpenScientistBecauseIBelieveThisIsTheUltimateFutureOfReserach<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 What is Open Science? First of all, I first heard about Open Science (OS) at the workshop and before then, I had never heard about it. It suffices to say that the Open Science forum needs to do more in making sure that all Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are on-board with Open Science, motivation, benefits […]<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"author":77,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-todos"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/77"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=545"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":546,"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545\/revisions\/546"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.curatore.es\/focusopenscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}