Sains Terbuka: From Psychology with Love in Science
Materi paparan #SainsTerbuka di Program Studi Psikologi, FISIP, Universitas Brawijaya, 2019. Beberapa pemantik ke depan:
1. Open Science (atau: Science): membiarkan semua pihak mengetahui dan terlibat dalam proses sains manapun, termasuk tinjauan sejawat pada saat menulis proposal riset. Aneh jika kita tidak tahu tetangga kita mengerjakan riset apa, dan ternyata satu topik dengan kita.
2. Beberapa insentif tingkat institusional: memberikan sabuk untuk jurnal yang menerapkan preregistrasi, atau perguruan tinggi memberikan kriteria angka kredit bagi kenaikan jabatan akademik/jabatan fungsional bagi dosen/peneliti yang melakukan praktik open science.
3. Akses terbuka memungkinkan dilakukannya penggunaan kembali (lihat lisensinya) bahkan meta-analisis, bukan hanya bebas membaca. Stigma terhadap kualitas jurnal dengan akses terbuka, disebabkan karena ulah sejumlah penerbit predator yang juga menampilkan tampang akses terbuka.
4. Open peer review bukan hanya soal 'open'-nya, tetapi juga soal menyeimbangkan sentimen reviewer tertentu. Semua hasil review tidak bisa tidak mesti dipertanggungjawabkan kepada publik, bukan hanya kepada editor jurnal secara single-blind atau double-blind. Manajemen impresi reviewer dapat mendorong review yang lebih konstruktif. Di samping itu, manajemen pengetahuan hasil-hasil open review merupakan 'modal sosial', di samping 'kapital pengetahuan', yang luar biasa. Kualitas open peer review memiliki variasi tingkatan; ScienceOpen menerapkan moderasi dan filter kualifikasi reviewer, misalnya. Lokus open peer review bisa di dalam atau di luar artikel itu sendiri.
5. Falsifikasi tabel atau gambar dapat diperkecil dengan open data.
6. Sudah saatnya bukan hanya publikasi yang dapat dianggap memberikan kontribusi kepada sains, tetapi juga deposisi data dalam depositori dan juga open data serta penerbitan data (lihat juga: data in brief).
7. Gerakan yang lebih 'radikal' adalah open notebook yang berlangsung secara 'real time' juntuk setiap fase dan faset kegiatan penelitian.
Sains Terbuka: From Psychology with Love in Science
Dr. Juneman Abraham, S.Psi.
Universitas Bina Nusantara
Dipresentasikan di: Universitas Brawijaya,Malang,November 2019
Sebagian dari materi ini dipresentasikan juga di OpenCon 2018 Jakarta
SCIENCE AS AN
▪ In May 2016 the EU Competitiveness
Council issued a mission statement that
all scientific articles should be ‘freely
accessible’ by 2020 (Enserink, 2016).
▪ ‘The time for talking about Open Access
is now past.With these agreements, we
are going to achieve it in practice’, the
Dutch state secretary for education,
culture, and science, Sander Dekker,
added in a statement.
Open access to existing scientific publications
a different format for future scientific publication
open provision of scientific data
open peer review
openness purports to welcome the participation of
non-scientists into the research process (citizen
▪ Distrust of science is rampant in the general
▪ tobacco science,global warming (climate change),
vaccination resistance,drug efficacy,human
cloning,and a host of other disputes
▪ The opportunities for transparency,
authenticity and timeliness of the record
created by open science could both reveal the
scientific process in real time and allow claims to
be viewed within the context of their underlying
▪ Open science thus has the potential to contribute
to the substantiation of the relationships which
are central both to people’s trust in science and
to science’s trust in people. (Grand et al., 2012)
▪ ‘Blogging is also a way to demythologize science.
Unlike laws and sausages, the public should see
science during its manufacture’ (J.S.Wilkins,
quoted in Ritson, 2016: 3).
▪ Science suffers a democracy deficit
▪ The science/industry partnership so
spurned by Dewey had become a
science/military cartel instead; and the
pragmatic logic of inquiry Dewey saw
became a foreign ‘language of science’
consisting of formal logic and
axiomatization at the hands of the logical
▪ The ‘freedom’ of scientists had been won at
the cost of the ‘freedom’ of the public to
have any say in science.
The slowdown in scientific
The explosion of retractions
• RetractionWatch reports that it currently logs
between 600-700 retractions per year; this
suggests a substantial rate of growth in the
first decade and a half of the new millennium.
• A second major revelation of the blog was
that, once the motives for retractions were
evoked from recalcitrant journal editors, they
were quite diverse, ranging from honest
errors to image manipulation to outright
Fang, FC, Casadevall, A, Morrison, R (2011) Retracted science and the retraction
index. Infection and Immunity 79(10): 3855–3859.
Baker, M, Penny, D (2016) Is there a reproducibility
crisis? Nature 533: 452–453.
HARGAI REPLIKASIYANG SUNGGUH
Smiling will make you feel happier
Self-control is a limited resource
Cleaning your hands will wash away your guilt
Being reminded of money makes us selfish
▪1. Collaborative / cooperative way of working
▪2. Citizen science, participatory research, research-
▪3. Free and open software and licences
▪4. Alternative organizations aiming to bring closer
research and society (Fablabs, makerspaces, science
▪5. Open access to scientific resources
encourages students and
researchers to work
closely together instead
of being isolated from
fear of being robbed
papers, findings, data
Mutually criticize texts
Use web tools to write
and think together
Use social media Zotero,
Framapad (Free version
of Google drive),Trello,
2ND PILLAR :
In citizen science, non-scientists are invited
to participate in research projects (without
being paid) for the sake of science.
Very popular in environmental surveys and
Numerous projects on sci-starter website
In Participatory research-action in social
science, research subjects are invited to
participate in the design and the
interpretation of the project.
▪ Analisa statistik, analisa numerik, visualisasi: Microsoft R Open, RStudio, Shiny
▪ Reference manager: Zotero, Mendeley, dll. Mendeley termasuk pengguna terbanyak
di Indonesia.Walaupun sebenarnya gratis, tapi M e n d e l e y t i d a k o p e n s o u r
▪ Pengembangannya akan sangat bergantung kepada tim internalnya. Pengolah kata
dan tabel: LibreOffice, OpenOffice, atau bagi peneliti bidang tertentu penggunaan
LATEX dan Markdown sangat tinggi.
▪Fablabs, makerspaces, living lab, co-working
spaces : where scientists, entrepreneurs,
students, teachers, etc. can come in the same
place and try ideas, concepts, machines.
▪Science shops : a mediation service within a
university linking civil society organization
▪Thanks to the web, more and more scientific publications
are on the web
▪● Some of these documents are accessible only by
subscription or by payment with a credit card: they are «
▪● Some documents are accessible without any barrier :
they are in open access.
▪ There are 2 ways authors can provide open access to their work:
One way is to publish an article and then self-archive it in a repository where it can be accessed for free, such as their
institutional repository, this is known as Green Open Access or Green Model.The repository allows search engines
such as Google to crawl their content so the articles are accessible on the Internet. Most publishers (called green
publishers) allow their authors to self-archive their publications in this way, though most only allow archiving of the
“accepted version” of the article.This version is the final manuscript that has been peer reviewed, not the final
formatted version published by the journal. Some publishers require delays, or a 6-12 embargo, before the article can
be available in the open repository. NTU supports this route.
Gold Open Access
A second way authors can make their work open access is by publishing it in either a pure open access journal, or a
hybrid open access journal.This is known as Gold Open Access or Gold Model. Pure open access journals do not
charge subscription fees, however, many do charge an article processing charge (APC) before it proceeds to publish it.
The latter is a journal whose business model is at least partially based on subscriptions, and only provide Gold open
access for those individual articles for which their authors (or their author's institution or funder) pay an APC. The APC
varies but can go as high as US$3000-4000. Some publishers say they will waive this fee in certain circumstances. If you
wish to go this model, you need to use your own source of funding (e.g. research funds, school funds, etc.) to pay for the
APC.The Library does not provide funding for this so it is recommended that Principal Investigators factor in this cost
into their grant proposals.
“Publishers continue to make money
even though they no longer charge
readers to access their journals…..
More altruistic publishers could
even donate vouchers to
universities in the developing
Another possible solution is
pressuring open access
journals to waive charges for
researchers in developing
Academics could also be
encouraged to write first for
journals that are affiliated to
societies. Profits from these
kinds of journals go back into
supporting science through
research grants, travel grants
and meeting support.
Another interesting new point is: cOAlition S expects every
grant receiving institution to subscribe to DORA Assessment,
i.e. to promise not to evaluate researchers based on journal
impact factor or other journal metrics.
▪A geopolitical issue (competition, ratings, etc.)
▪An economic issue : For-profit publishers (Elsevier, Sage,
Nature PG, etc.) make a lot of profit in publishing (online)
and selling articles that scientists funded by public money
give them voluntarily at no cost
▪A professional issue : quantity of publications is essential to
academic careers (quality??)
▪An industrial issue : how to combine industrial secret and
OF OPEN ACCESS
▪ Improve the productivity of research and
▪ Eysenbach (2006) : Since open access
maximises the number of quotations, it « is likely
to benefit science by accelerating dissemination
and uptake of research findings ».
▪ The quicker the results are disseminated, the
quicker research advances, the more scientists
publish and the morer their career prosper
▪ Journals are (now) managers of this incessant
flux of results and papers.
A mainly economic purpose : « Open
Access to science and data = cash and
economic bonanza », according to Neelie
Kroes (2013),Vice-president of the
European community en 2013
OECD is for open access since it
increases the potentialities for innovation
: « avoiding duplication while facilitating
replication, accelerating discovery, and
driving innovation ».
Innovation that can be tranformed into
Democratization of access to
scientific knowledge for people
without an affiliation to a
Non-professional science lovers
Civil society organizations
Graduates wishing to continue to learn and
From a fiscal justice
viewpoint, open access
gives back to tax-payers
what they funded
through their tax.
▪Two possibilities for researchers:
▪Publish in an open access journal (Gold way)
▪Archive one’s papers in an institutional repository
(website) (green way)
▪Researchers must commit themselves to open access
▪They must not fear journals
▪They must have electricity and web access
▪They must have a basic digital literacy, not considering
that what is on the web is of less quality than what is
▪ Our roots in innovation run deep; from mobilizing scientists’ desire for free
and Open Access to the literature and building PLOS ONE to the journal it is
today, to pioneering Article-Level Metrics as an alternative to journal
▪ One of our top priorities this coming year is to improve the author
experience since our authors are at the center of everything we do. Among
their top concerns are ‘time to first decision’ and ‘time to publication’.We
share their concerns and are committed to reducing this time as much as
possible across all our journals.
▪ The progress made with Aperta will not be wasted effort: we are currently
exploring how to best leverage its unique strengths and capabilities to
support core PLOS priorities like preprints and innovation in peer review.
▪Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing
that was launched by Science Europe on 4 September
2018. It is an initiative of "cOAlition S", a consortium
launched by the European Research Council and major
national research agencies and funders from twelve
European countries.The plan requires scientists and
researchers who benefit from state-funded research
organisations and institutions to publish their work in open
repositories or in journals that are available to all by
▪ authors should retain copyright on their publications, which must be published under
an open license such as Creative Commons;
▪ the members of the coalition should establish robust criteria and requirements for
compliant open access journals and platforms;
▪ they should also provide incentives for the creation of compliant open access journals
and platforms if they do not yet exist;
▪ publication fees should be covered by the funders or universities, not individual
▪ such publication fees should be standardized and capped;
▪ universities, research organizations, and libraries should align their policies and
▪ for books and monographs, the timeline may be extended beyond 2020;
▪ open archives and repositories are acknowledged for their importance;
▪ hybrid open-access journals are not compliant with the key principle;
▪ members of the coalition should monitor and sanction compliance.
PRAKTIK OS BAGI
▪ current ‘academic freedoms’ are somewhat of a myth,
because the existing entrenched system of deciding on
funding, promotions and tenure depends more
on where you publish, than on what you publish and how
your work has value to others. Hence, authors have to try
to publish their work in the small subset of journals that
are most likely to help their careers.
▪ This scramble to publish the ‘best’ results in the ‘best’
journals causes many problems, including the high cost of
such a selective process in these ‘high-impact’ journals,
the repeated cost (both actual and time cost) of multiple
resubmissions trying to find the ‘right place’ for the
publication in the journal hierarchy, and the high
▪ What we should do, instead, is actually read the article.We
should also reward academics for publishing in venues
that are most likely to reach and impact their intended
audiences and for writing in ways that are clearly
understandable to non-specialists, when those non-
specialists are the intended audience. Instead, we are
often too quick to dismiss such publications as non-
▪ First, I want a tool that will allow me to compare h-indexes across different fields. I
understand that several researchers have discussed ways to make such
comparisons. Although they undoubtedly understand the math, what I (a
philosopher) want is a button I can press so that I can fairly compare my h-index
with those of scientists and engineers at the same career stage. Ideally, I’d be able
to use it on Scopus,Web of Science, and Google Scholar citation databases. And
please make it free.
▪ The same applies to other members of society, who could make good use of tools
developed for them to make academic research more accessible. Here, I mean
something that goes beyond an open-access repository. Maybe someone might be
interested in a ‘de-jargon’ tool, or a search engine that makes it easy for someone
without extensive technical knowledge to find articles related to their problems.
How could they use their own words, rather than unfamiliar technical academic
terms to find what they are looking for?
▪Kudos points out that explaining your research in non-
technical language increases accessibility to non-experts
and helps you get that plain-language explanation out into
the world. Kudos is also free, and its terms and conditions
are simple and friendly to academics.
▪ Even when sources exist on-line, external hyperlinks offer only data access, not
analytic or process transparency.We learn what a scholar cited but not why or how.
▪ A new and innovative approach is required. Scholars are converging to the view
that the most promising and practical default standard for enhancing qualitative
transparency is Active Citation (AC): a system of digitally-enabled citations linked
to annotated excerpts from original sources.
▪ In the AC format, any citation to a contestable empirical claim is hyperlinked to an
entry in an appendix appended to the scholarly work (the “Transparency
Appendix” (TRAX)).[xviii] Each TRAX entry contains four elements, the first three
required and the last one optionally:
▪ a short excerpt from the source (presumptively 50-100 words long);
▪ an annotation explaining how the source supports the underlying claim in the main text
(of a length at the author’s discretion);
▪ the full citation;
▪ optionally,a scan of or link to the full source.
OBLIGES SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
TO PUBLICIZE THE EVIDENCE
ON WHICH THEIR RESEARCH
OBLIGES SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
TO PUBLICIZE HOW THEY
MEASURE, CODE, INTERPRET,
AND ANALYZE THAT DATA.
OBLIGES SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
TO PUBLICIZE THE BROADER
SET OF RESEARCH DESIGN
CHOICES THAT GAVE RISE TO
COMBINATION OF DATA,
THEORIES, AND METHODS
▪ Open Science (atau: Science): membiarkan semua pihak mengetahui dan terlibat
dalam proses sains manapun, termasuk tinjauan sejawat pada saat menulis
proposal riset. Aneh jika kita tidak tahu tetangga kita mengerjakan riset apa, dan
ternyata satu topik dengan kita.
▪ Beberapa insentif tingkat institusional: memberikan sabuk untuk jurnal yang
menerapkan preregistrasi, atau perguruan tinggi memberikan kriteria angka
kredit bagi kenaikan jabatan akademik/jabatan fungsional bagi
dosen/peneliti yang melakukan praktik open science.
▪ Akses terbuka memungkinkan dilakukannya penggunaan kembali (lihat
lisensinya) bahkan meta-analisis, bukan hanya bebas membaca. Stigma terhadap
kualitas jurnal dengan akses terbuka, disebabkan karena ulah sejumlah penerbit
predator yang juga menampilkan tampang akses terbuka.
▪ Open peer review bukan hanya soal 'open'-nya, tetapi juga soal menyeimbangkan
sentimen reviewer tertentu. Semua hasil review tidak bisa tidak mesti
dipertanggungjawabkan kepada publik, bukan hanya kepada editor jurnal secara
single-blind atau double-blind. Manajemen impresi reviewer dapat mendorong review
yang lebih konstruktif. Di samping itu, manajemen pengetahuan hasil-hasil open review
merupakan 'modal sosial', di samping 'kapital pengetahuan', yang luar biasa. Kualitas
open peer review memiliki variasi tingkatan; ScienceOpen menerapkan moderasi dan
filter kualifikasi reviewer, misalnya. Lokus open peer review bisa di dalam atau di
luar artikel itu sendiri.
▪ Falsifikasi tabel atau gambar dapat diperkecil dengan open data.
▪ Sudah saatnya bukan hanya publikasi yang dapat dianggap memberikan kontribusi
kepada sains, tetapi juga deposisi data dalam depositori dan juga open data serta
penerbitan data (lihat juga: data in brief).
▪ Gerakan yang lebih 'radikal' adalah open notebook yang berlangsung secara 'real time'
juntuk setiap fase dan faset kegiatan penelitian.