Author: 100456878

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