Tag: open science

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.

100286790 Todos ,

Open science (OS) and rewarding system (motivators of will)

Ever since I worked as the director of the Sciences library in the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina), I’ve been interested in the practice of OS, due to the fact that open access was a very relevant concept at the time.
Firstly, it is important to define the concept of OS. I find the definition given by Draft UNESCO to be very accurate, OS is described “as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community.” (When highlighting the practices of OS, the concept of FOSTER project comes up) Highlighting the practices of OS, like the definition of FOSTER project, “OS as the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute”.
Based on this idea, I personally believe Open Science is the “paradigm” that should have an impact and guide the behaviour of researchers nowadays. We should focus on imposing this model on the researchers’ attitude, to consequently direct the outputs of researchers in the public sector and institutions where their main objective is to produce knowledge.
Therefore, if we are able to shift from closed science to OS, we would need to work towards fixing the main flaw within this practice. For a better understanding of this “flaw” we should focus on the highlighted roots in the OS mushroom graphics by Eva Mendez. In my opinion and as reinforced by (as shown in the drawing below) the fundamental concept that needs to be worked on is how the evaluation system functions related to the rewarding system, taking into account the characteristics of OS throughout the process. By working on this we will be able to shift towards a total OS model in the academic world.

Open Science

On this blog I will  particularly discuss reward systems like motivators of will. When discussing this aspect of OS, it is necessary to consider: the various existing obstacles, as well as the different kinds of incentives, and the revision of institutional policies. To deal with the aspects I previously mentioned, we should work on this process by creating different stages. More specifically in the case of Universities I would consider the following plan of action relevant:

  • The institution can review their internal policies regarding students and teachers’  grants, provision of additional funding, etc. In summary, analyzing all the institutional policies to find the interstices/breaches in the OS principles.
  • Recognize the most important needs of the research community to release knowledge (with surveys), and organize training accordingly with the library. 
  • Offer the course regularly for doctoral students, as well as divide the course into independent components according to the needs of students / teachers and researchers. 
  • Build a MOOC with an evaluation that is separated into independent modules: data management plan, access practices and open data, data repositories, metadata, etc.
  • Evaluate the compliance with OS of teachers, researchers, PhD and postdoc students, according to the following list:
  • Generate an entity to control OS compliance with those policies to boost the OS system.

I particularly enjoyed the session by Sabina Leoneli and her practical approach about Plan S. Sabina understands this concept as an intermediate and necessary step towards a more advanced and new model of an open publishing system. She shows us that we need work together in this sense, to achieve the results we are looking for. Nevertheless, the evaluation system of the science nowadays, is based on the traditional publishing system, meaning that Plan S is a gateaway to “free” articles within developing countries. We should consider the Plan S as a possibility inside the actual publishing system, however, it is an expensive option.

I believe that the course was excellent and extremely helpful. It updated my knowledge and understanding of OS, as much as it allowed me to learn how to manage many tools that directly boost my abilities on how to manage OS as a PHD student. The different perspectives and topics discussed by the keynote speakers from the Science Cafe, such as OpenAire, Plan S, Citizen Science allowed me to achieve a more global vision on the topic.