Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Beyond Open Access: Open Science and Research Integrity

456 views

Published on

Presentation given at the 2015 Academic Mindtrek Conference at the workshop "Beyond Open Access: The changing culture of producing and disseminating scientific knowledge". Workshop was organised by the Open Knowledge Foundation Finland Open Science Working Group.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Beyond Open Access: Open Science and Research Integrity

  1. 1. Open Science and Research Integrity Beyond Open Access: The Changing Culture of Producing and Disseminating Scientific Knowledge Heidi Laine Academic Mindtrek 2015
  2. 2. About me Doctoral candidate at the University of Helsinki Background in Social Science History (Economic and Social History) Previously worked f.e. at Council of Finnish Academies, Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and Centre for Scientific Computing - CSC Open Knowledge Finland Open Science Working Group core person
  3. 3. Open Science Science in Society Citizen Science Open Data Open Access Open Methods Open Notebook Science Science Journalism Open Collaboration Digital Humanities Computational Social Science MOOCs Open SourceOPEN EDUCATION Fact checking Popular Science Multidisciplinarity Open GLAM Science Diplomacy Evidence based decision making
  4. 4. “In general terms, responsible conduct in research is simply good citizenship applied to professional life.” The ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf
  5. 5. Falsification Fabrication Plagiarism
  6. 6. The grey area “In addition to fabrication, falsification and plagiarism many other forms of objectionable practices in scientific research deserve attention. Some of them have serious moral or legal consequences, others may create nuisance, discontent or procedural dissension. Many of them may undermine public trust in science same as basic infringements of scientific integrity, and should therefore be taken seriously by the scientific community. [...] the dividing line between acceptable and not acceptable practices is somewhat vague, and may vary over nations, regions or disciplines. But there is also a thin borderline between some violations of these practices and the serious types of misconduct, as discussed in section 2.2.4. Unjustified claimed authorship and ghost authorship are forms of falsification, purloining ideas as an editor or reviewer is plagiarism, causing pain or stress to research participants or to expose them to hazards without informed consent is certainly ethically unacceptable behaviour.” - The European Code for Research Integrity http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf
  7. 7. 1 in 50 The number of researchers that have admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once. Link to the article by Daniele Fanelli (2009): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
  8. 8. Impact Factor The impact factor (IF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impa ct_factor “ “I am a scientist. Mine is a professional world that achieves great things for humanity. But it is disfigured by inappropriate incentives. The prevailing structures of personal reputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest work, not the best. Those of us who follow these incentives are being entirely rational – I have followed them myself – but we do not always best serve our profession's interests, let alone those of humanity and society. We all know what distorting incentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals.” - Randy Schekman http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals- nature-science-cell-damage-science
  9. 9. “Stapel did not deny that his deceit was driven by ambition. But it was more complicated than that, he told me. He insisted that he loved social psychology but had been frustrated by the messiness of experimental data, which rarely led to clear conclusions. His lifelong obsession with elegance and order, he said, led him to concoct sexy results that journals found attractive. “It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth,” he said. He described his behavior as an addiction that drove him to carry out acts of increasingly daring fraud, like a junkie seeking a bigger and better high.” From the New York Times story “The Mind of a Con Man” by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic- fraud.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
  10. 10. “Maximum access to data supports pre-eminently scientific methods in which researchers check one another's findings and build critically on one another's work. In recent years, advances in information and communication technology (ICT) have been a major contributing factor in the free movement of data and results.” https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific- misconduct
  11. 11. 5. Research Findings: Researchers should share data and findings openly and promptly, as soon as they have had an opportunity to establish priority and ownership claims. http://www.singaporestatement.org/ Singapore Statement
  12. 12. Objectivity requires facts capable of proof, and transparency in the handling of data. Researchers should be independent and impartial and communication with other researchers and with the public should be open and honest. [...] 1. Data: All primary and secondary data should be stored in secure and accessible form, documented and archived for a substantial period. It should be placed at the disposal of colleagues. The freedom of researchers to work with and talk to others should be guaranteed. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
  13. 13. 2. The methods applied for data acquisition as well as for research and evaluation, conform to scientific criteria and are ethically sustainable. When publishing the research results, the results are communicated in an open and responsible fashion that is intrinsic to the dissemination of scientific knowledge. [...] 4. The researcher complies with the standards set for scientific knowledge in planning and conducting the research, in reporting the research results and in recording the data obtained during the research.” In addition there is the following mention under the headline “Disregard for the responsible conduct of research”: “inadequate record-keeping and storage of results and research data”. http://www.tenk.fi/en/resposible-conduct-research-guidelines Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland
  14. 14. Defining Responsible Conduct of Research: the Finnish RCR Guideline in the Changing Landscape of Research Three different perspectives to the Finnish RCR guideline: 1) the defining and negotiating of the content, 2) the practical application of the values and the handling process described in the guideline and 3) the standing against changing trends of research practices. My research
  15. 15. Open Science has the potential to reduce research misconduct through added transparency.
  16. 16. Open Science is in line with existing RCR principles.
  17. 17. Open Science is responsible science.
  18. 18. Thank you Contact: heidi.k.laine @ gmail.com @ heidiklaine thehonestbrokerblog.org

×