Month: June 2024

100466020 Todos

Elementor #2077

Bridging Gaps: My Journey from Limited Access to Open Science Excellence

When I graduated in engineering in Cuba in 2016, access to scientific information was incredibly limited. Our research on optical and biomechanical models of the human eye, in collaboration with the National Ophthalmology Institute, faced many challenges due to these limitations. Lack of internet access, connectivity, access to publications, code licenses, etc., prevented us from collaborating and keeping up with global advances. However, thanks to a course on open science taught by Eva Mendez, my perspective on research has changed radically. This course has revolutionized the way I approach, share and seek knowledge.

Recently, I have participated in the course “Ticket to Open Science” organized by UC3M and led by Prof. Dr. Eva Méndez and Pablo Sánchez. As a researcher and PhD candidate, this course has profoundly influenced my views on open science practices. this course covered a wide range of topics, including data management plans (DMPs), open access publishing, FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) data principles and responsible research evaluation. We also explored various digital tools and platforms, such as GitHub, Zenodo and OpenAIRE, that facilitate the sharing and accessibility of research data and publications. The course emphasized the importance of transparency, collaboration and accessibility in scientific research, providing practical guidance on the application of these principles in our daily work.

The course emphasized the importance of open science. This improves the reproducibility of my work and facilitates collaboration. In my NEREIDA project, I applied FAIR principles to data generated from neutron simulations and experimental measurements. By ensuring that the data were well documented, properly indexed and stored in accessible repositories such as GitHub, I will make it easier for other researchers to find and reuse the information, thereby boosting collaborative efforts and improving the overall impact of our work.

One of the main obstacles to research is the accessibility of publications. The course reinforced my commitment to open access publishing, using platforms such as OpenAIRE to democratize knowledge. This not only fosters an inclusive research environment, but also accelerates scientific progress. All these features of open science will be incorporated into the NEREIDA Project during my doctoral training. This integration will facilitate collaboration with other institutions, increasing the reach and impact of the project. Open science also promotes collaboration and partnerships with institutions such as the National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) in Argentina, the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN), the Latin American Giant Observatory (LAGO) with its wide distribution throughout Latin American countries, and the Bariloche Atomic Center. These collaborations increase the reach and impact of my research, fostering a more interconnected scientific community with more resources.

Responsible evaluation of research was another crucial issue. Advocating for new evaluation policies at my institution is essential to creating a system that values transparency, accessibility, and collaboration.

My experience in the Ticket to Open Science course has been enlightening. Open science is not just a fad; it is a necessity for the advancement and democratization of scientific knowledge. As researchers, we must embrace these practices and lead the shift to a more collaborative and accessible future. A gap of limitations has been filled in my life, I would have liked to apply these principles and tools in my past research in Cuba.

I thank UC3M, Professor Dr. Eva Mendez, Pablo Sanchez and all the course participants for this enriching experience. I look forward to applying these principles in my work and contributing to a more open and equitable future in science.

Forward to Open Science!

Osiris Núñez

100425804 Todos

Wake up call: science has to be open.

In the last weeks , I have been part of the course Ticket to Open Science led by Eva Méndez. During the first weeks I thought I knew about open science, and making research accessible, but those notions could not have been so wrong.

Before this course I though having public access on your research was the best way to create Open science. However this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many responsibilities fall on the researcher shoulders when conducting his research. The pillars of open science, like the FAIR principles for data management, ensure that all research is not corrupted by greediness and publications stay impactul.

The tools taught during the course are already being of use for my research, and having an impact on how i design the experiments, I have started creating DMP using argos Openaire. Open source is of great interest to me and goes hand with hand with open science, ensuring science is reproducible. Even things that I thought that may have not been of use to my research field (engineering), like citizen science, can have an impact, and will consider to apply them for better results.

Knowing on which journal to publish is very important when designing your research, and the notions given on how to select them, where excellent. I also wonder when publishers enable notebooks or markup languages assuring the reproducibility of research and easing the share of ideas.

The speakers selected for the “cafés”, have been very insightful in their respective areas, and where a great kick of to all afternoons.

All in all, my conclusion is that science is not when one steps forward, but when everyone step on that direction, and open science ensures that everybody knows which direction to take.

Finally my congratulations to all the staff, specially Eva Méndez and Pablo Sánchez, who made this course possible and great.

expanding brain meme with the following three stages: I don't share my research data because others will scoop it. I share my research data on a messy drive folder linked from my website. My research data is FAIR and I share it on an open data repository.
JM Vega-Cebrián Todos

A Change in Perspective

The Ticket to Open Science course led by Eva Méndez and Pablo Sánchez changed my perspective on science for the better: now I feel very motivated to continue doing research applying the principles we studied during the course.

When I signed up for the course I thought that Open Science only meant Open Access. I was all in for it, but I didn’t know why we needed 10 two-hour long sessions, plus several Open Science Cafés, to discuss it. I saw the course program and although some concepts seemed familiar to me, I didn’t know what to expect. But then, after each one of the sessions I got more and more intrigued and motivated: Open Science is what I was expecting science to be when I embarked on my PhD journey!

For me, the Open Science movement resonated with what I was used to in the contexts of Free/Libre and Open Source Software and Free/Libre Culture: creating and dedicating meaningful work to the commons, working in the open, sharing the creative processes and being receptive to feedback and collaboration, and allowing and encouraging remixes and reinterpretations. These values are important to me, but during my first two years in the PhD I let “the flow of how things are normally done here” to guide my way of working, and therefore I didn’t embrace them fully. Now that I know that there is another way of doing research, more in line with these values, I’ll attempt to steer towards it. Fortunately, I have the support of my advisors.

In practice, what would embracing Open Science mean for me at this point in my research project?

Right now, the main study and design process that we are conducting in collaboration with Hospital Universitario de Getafe is basically unknown to people other that the collaborators and close friends. And we have been working on it, from planning it to carrying it out, for almost two years! We are close to publishing about it, so this is about to change soon. But still, now I know that there is another possibility for working on this project or something similar in the future, in a way that people are aware of it and can provide their inputs as it unfolds!

For instance, I consider that the OSF (Open Science Framework) platform would be great for sharing our research plan in general, protocols for the workshops we run, custom-made materials such as documentation sheets and body maps, some of the data we collect (according to our Data Management Plan / DMP), and the changes that the study undergoes due its very designery nature. We wrote the study plan and protocol along with the DMP, and that took a big deal of work and iteration cycles. We learned a lot from creating those documents, but these lessons have not been shared. Now I see that it is important and could be valuable that we share them all!

Regarding sharing the outcomes of our research, so far publications and source code, I started to use Zenodo as a public online repository. Before, I thought that the only “academic” options for sharing these types of outcomes were either publishers websites (having to go through the process of peer-review) or projects’ or personal websites (which might be unreliable due to how the web works, e.g. domains that have to be renewed). Now I know that there are platforms such as Zenodo that allow for “academic” sharing, even providing Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for the software, texts and data in general, and allowing to group them as part of specific research projects. Additionally, I’m now also interested in using repositories for “pre-prints”, although I have to explore them further.

In our participatory design work, we collaborate with members of “the public” in defining what to design and why. To some degree, we might be doing Citizen Science. However, after the course I felt enlightened regarding the possibilities that full citizen science engagement could entail: personalization and appropriation of the designs we (all) create, research focused on the most important needs, support of already-existing design initiatives, and so on. For this, I also realized the importance of a stronger dissemination practice: papers are very valuable but they are not enough to communicate what is it that one does as a scientist, and how it can help someone or be the basis for collaborations. Blog and social media posts like this one, tutorials and explainer videos, among others, seem attractive to me again.

Finally, I feel very grateful for the efforts to reform Research Assessment. I’m basically new to academia and therefore I don’t care too much about playing the game and publishing in journals with high “impact factors” to “secure” my “career” (however, now I know that I do care about NOT publishing in predatory journals). Still, it warms my heart and allows me to look forward into my professional future to know that Open Science is being embraced as the desired way of doing research, thanks to people that are advocating and pushing for the change. From my humble position as a PhD candidate, and without a lot of experience in the field, I would like to join that movement of advocacy.

Now, all of this is very exciting but it is also a lot. I’m very grateful and motivated, but I’ll be implementing these changes slowly in ongoing projects, as I advocate for not overworking. The good thing is that for new projects I now have a framework to embrace.

Go Open Science!

– Sejo (José M.) Vega-Cebrián

100426903 Todos

From Closed Doors to Open Access: My Evolution in Scientific Research

The first time I heard the term “Open Science” was at the beginning of my career as a researcher in a small Digital Humanities group in Information Science. Although the term seemed easy to pronounce, I needed to understand its complexity and importance within a much broader ecosystem then. Open Science challenges traditional research standards and promotes a working philosophy that has become a fundamental pillar of modern research.

Over time, I realized that the “Open” universe was much more serious and complex, going beyond merely sharing or promoting accessibility, collaboration, and transparency. It wasn’t just about speaking at conferences and events about the need to open research results for reuse, nor about publishing data in PDF format in a repository. I understood that Open Science is a daily practice, a necessary habit that must be integrated into my development both as a researcher and as a person passionate about data and science.

The “Ticket to Open Science” course has been a fundamental part of my growth. This course is exhaustive in all aspects and approaches to Open Science. While I could mention several topics, it is difficult to say that one is more important than another. However, Open Access publications and FAIR data are the ones I will apply the most at this stage of my PhD studies.

The research industry and scientific journals are in a moment of transformation. Criticism of the business model and editorial practices of many paywalled journals has generated a growing clamor for greater transparency, fairness, and accessibility in research publications. In many universities and academic libraries, accessing paywalled journals is challenging for readers and researchers wishing to publish in them. However, open-access publishing presents an optimal alternative, as it breaks down the traditional barriers that have limited access to scientific information, regardless of location or resources.

Data Management Plans (DMPs) have become a standard practice in many research projects. DMPs help plan how to collect, organize, protect, and share data throughout a project’s lifecycle. This planning meets institutional and funding requirements and ensures that data are correctly preserved and available for future research. This process is precious because a researcher’s life is hectic, and proper planning regarding data, its use, and its purpose is often neglected. Effective data management is essential for transparency and reproducibility, fundamental pillars of Open Science.

On more than one occasion, I have experienced the consequences of other research not being open access, preventing me from using their datasets or finding quality data in manageable formats. The research process is beautiful, but sometimes it encounters obstacles and stagnates due to issues with data, software, or formats. However, the more we unite as an Open community, the more comfortable the process will be in the future. The value of Open Science, as I’ve personally experienced, lies in its ability to democratize knowledge and overcome these obstacles.

100464308 Todos

Open Science: My journey and expectatives as a PhD candidate

Source: https://openaccess.be/2018/09/13/online-event-everyone-on-the-road-to-open-science-22nd-26th-october-2018

Firstly, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the creators and organizers of the Open Science course: Professor Dr. Eva Méndez and Pablo Sánchez. Their dedication and passion to this course have profoundly inspired me. The insights and knowledge gained from this course have been invaluable, opening my eyes to the importance and practicalities of Open Science. 

Participating in this course has motivated me to promote Open Science within my research field, robotics. The course gives useful tools and knowledge to deal with several challenges present in this field, such as the private storage of data, restrictive code licenses, and the dominance of non-open access journals. These barriers often harm collaboration and slow down the progress of innovation. Moreover, the discussions and resources provided during the course made me realize the significant benefits that Open Science practices can bring, not only in terms of advancing knowledge but also to a more collaborative and inclusive research environment.

As I am starting my PhD, I think I am ready to become an Open Scientist. During my thesis, I plan to share my research data and code openly on platforms like GitHub and Zenodo, ensuring that my work is reproducible and accessible to others. To this end, I have personally committed myself to follow the Data Management Plan (DMP) that we were taught to do in the course. In addition, I will publish my findings in open access journals to reach a broader audience and contribute to the collective knowledge pool. Also, I will document my research process meticulously, providing comprehensive explanations and guides to maintain transparency and foster collaboration with other researchers. By adopting these practices, I hope to encourage my colleagues to embrace Open Science.

In conclusion, my journey into Open Science has just begun, but the impact of this course has been remarkable. I believe that by embracing openness and transparency in my works, I am not only contributing to the advancement of my research field but also to the movement towards a more open scientific community. Because I think that the landscape of research is changing, and Open Science is one of the main objectives of this transformation. Moreover, despite the current challenges, it is up to us, the new generation of scientists, to lead this change and pave the way for a broader extension and adoption of open science. Together, we can overcome these challenges and create a future where knowledge is freely shared, and collaboration knows no bounds.

100456878 Todos

Notes from an Open Science skeptic

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientist as “a person who conducts scientific research or investigation; an expert in science, esp. one or more of the natural or physical sciences.” I disagree with this definition. Since we are born, humans have questioned their existence and environment. This natural curiosity and necessity to explain the world were initially discussed through oral communication. Over the years, professionals from many fields—not only the natural and physical sciences—have made advances in economics, medicine, and technology, among others, making it a public good crucial to human survival [1]. The foundations of modern science were laid with the creation of societies dedicated to discussing and publishing discoveries. This led to the establishment of the first peer-reviewed scientific journals [2]. After that, the scientific advances are examined, reviewed, and evaluated before they are released, with the possibility of further invalidation or confirmation. This history should define scientists as critical thinkers, communicators, and investigators, not just as expert conductors of research.

My science journey began similarly to most of my colleagues’—we’re all fascinated by the unknown and have a lot of patience and resilience. Becoming an expert takes years to develop since it demands multiple technical skills, open-mindedness, organization, critical thinking and problem solving, detail-orientedness, and communication skills. However, it is the ethical work and rigorous research that establish the delicate structure of unwritten rules, endowing scientists with public trust. Every time I present my work, teach young scientists, or support STEM interests, I remember why I came here. My passion for science has never faded. For these reasons, I hated the argument that science is rotten and we need to become open scientists; therefore, I started the Open Science (OS) course with skepticism and a desire to understand it. 

The European Commission says OS leverages digital and collaborative technology to share knowledge as soon as it is available [3]. This remark revolutionizes scientific communication by disrupting the actual evaluation process. Firstly, the definition OS is challenging, leading to the use of numerous adjectives to define its principles [4]. From there, the Ticket to Open Science course covered the conceptualization and application of OS principles.

Since planning is essential for OS, we learned about data management plans as well as the public and institutional platforms and methods available (UC3M library). This tool aims to support open research. These tools ensure reproducibility, transparency, and ethics from the outset. Another cornerstone of OS is open access (OA) publication. During the sessions and open cafes, we discussed the OA models, the benefits of open research publications, and ways to overcome typical barriers. Discussing this topic, which I consider important to tackle soon, demonstrated that we all agree on the necessity of OA publication, which ensures that research findings are accessible to a broader audience. We agreed on the implications of unfair science, as well as its economic limitations and costs. This topic is well discussed in the documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship,” recommended by Eva in one of the sessions.

Data sharing is key to OS, making data open and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). We examined data management and sharing approaches that promote utility, accessibility, transparency, and collaboration using international and local sharing platforms. I am hesitant on this topic, but I agree that sharing is one of the principles for advancing knowledge, and I have benefited from researchers who, under request, even with publications not in the open, have shared their protocols and solved questions freely. However, I believe that immediate science publication requires verification and evaluation to ensure quality and assurance. We’ve seen fake news and corporations misusing public information to profit and gain control over the internet. This problem is already there; we must not worsen it.

We discussed a controversial topic: how research evaluation affects OS. This session advocated for Responsible Research Assessment (RRA), recognizing metrics and evaluation practices that align with OS principles. A more inclusive and transparent research culture requires reassessing assessment standards to favor openness and cooperation over impact factors. I must admit that this session alleviated the tension and “confrontations” that arise from not being a fully open scientist. We get enough from researching, publishing [4], teaching, learning, pursuing positions, finding funds, and surviving the bureaucratic pressure of getting things done on time and on budget, so adding the potential negative effects of being “out of the system” is overwhelming. Knowing there are changes and new politics that aim to promote the values we support is a big relief. I was glad to learn that Spain is making a big effort to change research assessments, and I look forward to universities changing their student and researcher evaluations to produce higher-quality knowledge that restores public trust in science.

Later, we addressed the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) associated with open research. We explored intellectual property rights, data privacy, and ethics to ensure our work meets standards and rules. Pre-registration and other reproducibility procedures yield more robust and credible research outputs when addressing “trust issues,” reducing bias, and promoting transparency. However, the “road” to OS goes beyond academia. Citizen science and research engagement taught us that non-experts may improve data collection, build public trust in science, and democratize research.

I began this blog post by saying, “I hated the initial statement that science is rotten and we need to become open scientists.” I do not believe that science is rotten; rather, I believe that it is the system of evaluation, editorial business, and commercial interests that are harming science. “Open scientist” cannot be a label you have; I consider OS to be a set of good practices to advance science. As Eva and Pablo wrote, “to transform the way scientific research is conducted, facilitating collaboration and innovation among researchers“ [5]. There is still much to be done, and KOLs and policymakers must address the multifaceted aspects of open research in order to change existing malpractices. This gives me hope and confidence that good practices will boost research credibility and scientific impact, democratize knowledge, and make it a powerful force for social progress.

Finally, I want to thank the course organizers, speakers, and participants. I enjoyed it and learned a lot about OS. Thanks to UC3M support for answering our discipline-specific questions and providing us with resources and support mechanisms as we transition to better OS practices.

AM 2024

 

 [1] S. C. McCluskey, D. C. Lindberg, and M. H. Shank, “Natural Knowledge in the Early Middle Ages,” in The Cambridge History of Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 286–301

[2] J. A. Chaldecott, “A history of scientific and technical periodicals: The origins and development of the scientific and Technological Press 1665–1790. by David A. Kronick. pp. 274; tables. New York: The Scarecrow Press, 1962. $6.50.,” The British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 360–361, Dec. 1965. doi:10.1017/s0007087400002557

[3] Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, “Open science,” Research and innovation, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en (accessed Jun. 9, 2024).

[4] R. Hare, “A student’s introduction to academic publishing,” The Biochemist, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 44–46, Jan. 2020. doi:10.1042/bio04201044

[5] E. Méndez and P. Sánchez-Núñez, “Navigating the future and overcoming challenges to unlock open science,” Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice, pp. 203–223, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33177-0_13

 

100415100 Todos

OPEN SCIENCE:

A CHANGE IN RESEARCH THAT CHANGES US

When I was notified by UC3M that I was part of the Ticket to Open Science 2024, I was very interested in the idea. In my kind of research (PhD in Law), such practical and useful courses are rare, especially in a legal world where open science is not as prevalent as in other areas of Social Sciences.

My knowledge of Open Science was basic, but through this course, I have learned a lot about its composition, elements, development, and how it applies to the world of scientific research. The course left a great impression on me; it is very well designed by its creators, Professor Dr. Eva Mendez and Pablo Sánchez, who were always willing to answer questions and doubts on the subject.

I want to highlight, for obvious reasons related to my field of knowledge, Professor Luca Schirru’s presentation on Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) of Open Science, and especially the knowledge gained about the Directive EU 2019/1024, European Parliament and Council, 20 June 2019, on Open Data and Re-Use of Public Sector Information.

Other things I learned during this course included the use of various websites and Artificial Intelligence as tools for research, some easier to use than others. For example, I can highlight R MarkDown, Quarto, Argos, Consensus, Kumu, etc. The one I found most useful and easy to use was Argos, which is a digital tool for creating Data Management Plans.

Finally, I can comment that I will always remember the first class, where I understood that Open Science was not just about open publications, but a complex and broad system that underpins transparency, equity, collaboration, visibility, reproducibility, speed, horizontality, inclusivity in Science, among many other characteristics. In any case, it is clear to me that its components include: Open methodology, source, access, infrastructures, educational resources, data, labs, open crowd funding, design, and Citizen Science.

I thank Professor Eva and Professor Pablo, as well as the rest of the speakers during the course and the Open Science Café, for this opportunity and for the learning experience.

I recommend the course to those who want to be part of a change within research in Science.

Sebastián Retamal Julio

Lawyer (UAH, Chile)

PhD Candidate in Law (UC3M, Spain)

100508661 Todos , , ,

Embracing Open Science: What I learned so far

Image by storyset on Freepik

When I first started the Ticket to Open Science course at UC3M, I had already been exposed to the Open Science concept and was familiar with some of its tools. After all, I’m working on a research project funded by the European Union that has to comply with several Open Science standards. I was familiar with the FAIR principles and the importance of a data management plan and platforms like Zenodo. Yet, this course offered so much more. It made me realize how much I still had to learn and introduced me to many platforms and tools essential for conducting and sharing research effectively.

The course emphasized the importance of transparency, accessibility, and collaboration not only when disseminating research but also throughout the research process (as a new researcher, I confess that I had been focusing more on the finish line rather than the entire research process). It highlighted that each researcher is responsible for embracing these changes. It also made me realize the substantial effort involved in adhering to open science principles throughout the research process. This is not to say that progress hasn’t been made. Indeed, there are many tools and platforms available to facilitate or at least assist researchers in their Open Science journey. From platforms that help create data management plans based on standard templates, such as Argos or the Spanish version from Consorcio Madroño, to open data platforms like the Open Science Framework (OSF) and collaborative tools like GitHub or Overleaf, there is a wealth of support available in the Open Science universe (you just need to know where to look).

Reflecting on the concept of Open Science, it’s challenging to understand why any researcher would oppose it. The idea of promoting open, transparent, and inclusive research that enhances the reproducibility and reliability of researchers’ work, fosters greater collaboration across disciplines, and contributes to a more inclusive and equitable scientific community seems aligned with why most people become researchers in the first place. Yet, Open Science is still met with suspicion by many academics. Some are concerned about intellectual property and potential misuse when sharing data or methodologies, while others are more focused on individual achievements and publishing in high-impact journals. On top of that, it is undeniable that Open Science practices are resource-intensive, requiring time, funding, and technical skills that many researchers still lack.

The main issue, however, seems to be the lack of incentives. The current academic system rarely acknowledges or rewards efforts to share data or engage in Open Science practices. Researchers who invest time and effort in making their work open often do so without formal recognition or career advancement benefits. While some steps have been taken to address this, we still have a long way to go. As a PhD student, I believe young researchers are under more pressure to adopt Open Science practices while their work is still mostly evaluated based on their paper outputs.

I know there are no easy answers here, but I can see that building an Open Science network, like the one Eva Mendes is attempting with this course, can provide support, resources, and collaborative opportunities that make adopting open practices more feasible for researchers. It also helps promote awareness, educating other researchers on the value of Open Science and the available tools, hopefully shifting the academic culture towards Open Science. From my part, what I can do is lead by example, incorporate Open Science practices in my research, and hopefully inspire others to follow suit. After all, I believe in Open Science principles, but I can’t deny that it would be nice to be rewarded for it too.

100526261 Todos

Open Science is the way to go

I had the privilege of attending the Ticket to Open Science (OS) course at UC3M. Throughout the sessions and OS Cafes, we thoroughly explored both the principles and practical aspects of OS across various fields. Many topics, such as open peer review, citizen science, and FAIR data, were new to me. I was particularly pleased with the extensive range of OS infrastructures, tools, and repositories introduced in this course, all of which are invaluable for a PhD student’s scientific journey.

The OS course motivated me to become an open and responsible scientist. It equipped me with practical skills and tools essential for research practices. For instance, I learned to use RMarkdown to enhance reproducibility, Argos to build comprehensive data management plans (DMPs), and AI to create narrative CVs. I gained a thorough understanding of the FAIR and CARE principles and learned about the critical importance of DMPs, metadata, repositories, and ORCID identifiers. Furthermore, I recognized the benefits of using open licenses and the significance of publishing research results and relevant materials on open science platforms.

Ultimately, this course broadened my knowledge of best practices to follow throughout the life cycle of my thesis and highlighted the critical role of OS in my research process. The course underscored that the more open we are, the greater the benefits for both ourselves and the broader community. I am deeply grateful to the expert team for their exceptional organization of the sessions and for generously sharing their knowledge. This experience has undoubtedly set a strong foundation for my future endeavors in scientific research.

100442463 Todos

Open Science: just an idea or an actual alternative?

From the start, I will say that I entered the course “Ticket to Open Science” because it was 3 necessary transversal credits for my PhD, and it was an online course. So Eva actually nailed the “make Open Science enticing” from the get-go. However, it is also true that during the course I encountered a new science paradigm which, if it works, would greatly improve the quality of research, and maybe also improve the lives of researchers. The question then is IF it works, and how it works. Please note that this is just an opinion that looks for reflection on the Open Science community. I do not intent on portraying my thoughts as the truth, but I want to give my honest opinion.

I feel like most of the researchers I know would agree with most of the prospects that Open Science is trying to push. The open access to publications and data; the lesser the necessity of publishing as much as possible, as fast as possible, and as positive as possible; the outrageous capital benefits that publishing companies are getting from the scientific community knowledge, etc. But we need to understand that, in their path to become professors and to access grants, they have adapted to what the institutions and funding agencies expected from them.  And that was to have a high h-index, to publish in high-impact factor journals, and to publish as much as possible. In extreme cases, this has lead to the creation of “hyperprolific” authors, who can publish hundreds of papers annually and, in some cases, recognize that they haven’t even read their own publications. How come someone who hasn’t even read (not to say contributed) to a publication is an author in it? The grant system and universities have created these monsters by rewarding this behaviour, and not questioning whether the scientist did participate in the study, nor the real impact of the study. It only cared about the metrics of the subject.

The Open Science community seems to agree that a reform of the current evaluation system is necessary to prevent this situation. It is one of the funding ideas of CoARA. For me, its presentation during the course filled a very big question regarding the Open Science movement. Having said so, I have my concerns regarding one of their commitments, specifically reviewing research based on qualitative evaluation. Nowadays, I think it is very difficult to evaluate a paper if you are not an expert on the subject. Grant committees have typically a number of researchers with experience in the subject the grant is trying to fund, but they can’t be experts regarding all possible research proposals they are going to receive for funding. Whether we like it or not, journal metrics are an “objective” parameter that can be referred to check the viability of the funding having publishable results. I would say that, based on what I commented previously on “hyperprolific” authors, using just the current journal metrics to evaluate the research is probably not a great way to provide funding. Nevertheless, I wonder if the qualitative evaluation of the research results can lead to more biasing when granting funding. If there are no “numbers” to check, how do you guarantee that a committee is giving grants based on what they truly believe the best proposals are instead of what they think will be positive for them? And what happens when results are misinterpreted because there are no experts to evaluate them in the committee? Metrics are an easy way to evaluate grants. They are hugely imperfect and are promoting practices that are, in my opinion, anti-scientific, but they could be a way to minimize the bias of the jury, as well as remove the non-expert factor. I think there is a lot of work to be done in order to properly assess research, and probably some qualitative assessment is necessary, but metrics can’t be discarded. Maybe we need to find new ones.

I am being very critical with the assessment of Open Science because I think that it is the most important aspect it has to tackle. Researchers are now publishing in the open more and more, but only in gold or green journals because they need to publish in high IF journals for funding and career advancement. Universities are paying not only subscriptions to be able to read the journals, not only APCs to publish the articles, but additional  APCs to be able to publish in the open. This is only engrossing the benefits of the private publishers. If the research evaluation is going to still promote the use of metrics like JIF and JCI, then we need competitive diamond/platinum open-access journals in which we can publish and not be penalized because of low values in the metrics. If other metrics are used in the research evaluation, these OA journals need to adapt to them so that scientists are attracted to publish there. What cannot be expected is that researchers send articles to diamond/platinum OA journals, but then they are penalized in grant committees or university promotions because of their criteria.

Maybe another aspect that needs to be tackled by the Open Science movement is the research evaluation of other outcomes that are not articles. This has been reflected in the course on several occasions, and I agree with most of what was commented. I really liked the video Eva sent us regarding this topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1cw8IfnOAY). I think that, as it is said in the video, if you document in the open all the steps required to go from a hypothesis to an experimental conclusion, the possibility of falsifying results becomes lesser, and the reproducibility of those results is higher. There is also a prove that you have been using the grant money towards the goals redacted in the proposal, and that those results may be negative, but that they are documented. Furthermore, collaboration between peers may be strengthened to look for possible failures during the research, which may help advance when you are stuck. Maybe publishing negative results is not feasible at the moment, but at least having a repository in which you can check the previous failures is helpful. The expertise in a topic not only comes from the positive results, it also comes from the negative ones. Even if not in article form, it has to be documented and taken into consideration.

In general, I am really thankful for the 3 credits (I’m joking :D). I am thankful for the course. It opened my eyes regarding how the Open Access movement is trying to improve the current situation of researchers, while also increasing public accessibility of science advancements. It also provided me with some useful tools (OpenAIRE, Zenodo, Argos) to be used in my research career. It has made me question, from now on, whether to try to publish in the open. For the advancement of science.