Author: 100290864

I signed up for this course with the idea that I was already a fully compliant Open Science researcher, so the content of the schedule would somehow ‘validate’ my prior ideas and procedures. To be honest, I didn’t expect great revelations. I could use the course just as a reinforcement of my already ‘accurate’ practices and perhaps with fortune I would get to know a few tools with which my life as a researcher would be easier. But the various sessions and speakers of the course have proved me completely wrong. It is well documented that we often evaluate experiences as a function of our initial expectations, and mines were moderate. In fact, I had attended several courses of similar duration and they were sometimes interesting but most of them barely scraped the surface. Truth is I am impressed with the breadth and depth that this course has brought to me on various domains.

First, from an ethic standpoint: I’ve learnt that following real OS guidelines is not a zero-sum game. On the contrary, by following Platinum OS path only one ‘stakeholder’ can be worse off: big (for profit) publishers. All the other relevant players (researchers, universities and society as a whole) are clearly benefited. Obviously, this is more ideological than anything, but it seems to me that it is no longer bearable to have a scenario in which all the detrimental impact comes to the side of the research community. Moreover, following real OS procedures also can bring about motivation: researchers collaborate as to build stronger networks, better resources and accessible knowledge at every step of the process.

Second, a resource perspective. I’m quite impressed with the amount of OS tools, platforms and repositories that are available. And this leads me to think that practicing OS nowadays is even easier and more efficient than ‘traditional publishing’, if I may. As a result, I already created my own ORCID account (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4119-2232) and checked on Sherpa Romeo whether the Journal to which I submitted my latest piece of research had an Embargo Policy. Given that it doesn’t have it, I’m now discussing with my coauthors to which preprint repository(/ies) we can upload our research outcomes. Personally, I’ve gotten to know the project OSF by the Center For Open Science and I’m keen on making our work available there.

And thirdly, a resource management viewpoint. I already believed that research pre-registration was a essential practice in order to avoid fraud. For instance, by creating ad hoc hypotheses that matched the final results. That wouldn’t be science/knowledge, but a sophisticated sort of storytelling. However, an OS approach such as carefully designing & implementing a Data Management Plan (DMP) and making it available helps with the aforementioned potential pitfall. In fact, I’m now working on making a more complete DMP myself.

Finally, aside from the materials and resources that we have been offered, I wanted to encourage UC3M to keep investing in OS initiatives (as explained by the head librarian in our final session) and make an effort to advert this UC3M Ticket to Open Science course also for undergrad students too. I firmly consider that this course is going to have an impact on my research career. Hopefully it will have it on others too.