1. OPEN SCIENCE
OPENNESS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Dorota Marciniak, Pedro Jacobetty
& Gustavo Cardoso

2. “If I have seen a little further it is by
standing on the shoulders of Giants”
Isaac Newton (1663 – 1727)

3. DEFINITION(S) OF
OPEN SCIENCE
"Open Science broadly describes science carried out and
communicated in a manner which allows others to
contribute, collaborate and add to the research effort,
with all kinds of data, results and protocols made freely
available at different stages of the research process."
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/data-management-and-curation/open-science-case-studies

4. Institutional imperatives of modern Science
(Robert K. Merton)
Communalism - knowledge is a common property of the community
Universalism - all scientists can contribute
Disinterestedness - personal beliefs or preferences should be excluded
Originality - work must contribute something new
Skepticism - claims should be scrutinized

5. AMBIVALENCE IN
SCIENCE
But Merton also noticed how the coexistence of conflicting norms leads to
ambivalence in scientists' behavior
In the 70's Mitroff identified counter-norms that conflicted with the
mertonian ethos
Secrecy - property rights and pre-publication withholding
Particularism - prioritization of the work by some scientists
Interestedness - personal interest behind scientific claims
Dogmatism - believing in the scientist's own findings while doubting
those of others

6. In the post-war period, the relation between industry and science
is intensified
scientific knowledge is regarded as a generator
of value under the knowledge economy paradigm
Intellectual property rights ensure control over knowledge and market
incentives to investment in R&D. These rights have undergone a qualitative
transformation, starting to incorporate basic research elements.

7. Open Science advocates can be seen as a movement which seeks to promote an
alternative to the intellectual property strategy for knowledge production and
distribution
Their advocates state that the privatization of data and information
leads to an artificial scarcity that hinders scientific advancement,
as well as social and economic progress
Communicational innovation produces emergent and unregulated social
spaces. Open Science advocates are actors that try to institutionalize
their ideals in these new spaces.
The growing amount of scientific knowledge available on the Internet
created a new information context for science.

8. “Models” of Science
“Closed” model of Science
&
“Open” model of Science

9. Science...
“closed model of Science”
Image of Science
Science = Research + Communication
(Publishing in Journals)
Doing research..., 1+1=2 2+2=4 ...
©
e.t.c...
restrictions = copyrights ©, access
to journals...
redundancy

10. Image of Science=
=Science iS Fun ! :-)
Science is Creative and Fun !!! :-)
... 1+1= 0.5 +1.5=...
...many correct solutions...
...many interesting perspectives...
...many approaches...

11. Science = Research + Communication
Theorem:
If
Science = Research + Communication + .....
That implies that
Open Science = Open Research + Open Communication + ...
Question: What is Open Research ?
Definition: Open research = Open collaboration + Open Access to
published results + Open access to “raw data” + ...

12. Publishing Science
“Open” & “Closed”
Traditional publishing & “Open” models

13. Science Policy
• Closed model = “Closed” Policy = (Copyrights) ©
(Author gives the copyrights to the Journal)
• “Open Policy” = (Creative Commons License)
(Author has the rights to distribute the work)

14. Creative Commons licenses
Open Research & Open Communication
The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the
copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge. The details of each of these licenses
depends on the version, and comprises a selection of four conditions:
Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make
derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the
manner specified by these.
Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and
make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only
verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
Share-alike (sa) Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical
to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

15. Copyright © Traditionally, the author of an article was
required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher. Publishers
claimed this was necessary in order to protect author's rights, and to
coordinate permissions for reprints or other use. However, many authors,
especially those active in the open access movement, found this
unsatisfactory, and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards
a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has
permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the
author(s) retain the other rights themselves.
Even if they retain the copyright to an article, most journals allow certain rights to
their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the
author's future work, and allow him to distribute a limited number of copies. In the
print format, such copies are called reprints; in the electronic format, they are called
postprints. Some publishers, also grant the author the right to post and update the
article on the author's or employer's website and on free e-print servers, to grant
permission to others to use or reuse figures, and even to reprint the article as long as
no fee is charged. The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the
copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science Source: http://
family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Scientific_journal
Copyright ©

16. MOTIVATIONS AND STRATEGIES
IN “OPEN”&”CLOSED” SCIENCE
SCIENCE POLICY CREATES THE MOTIVATIONS AND STRATEGIES TO PERFORM
AND COMMUNICATE RESEARCH
“CLOSED” SCIENCE PROMOTES COMPETITION(PUBLISHING MORE, KEEPING
NEW RESULTS SECRET UNTIL THEY ARE PUBLISHES, LONG TIME OF WAITING
FOR COMMUNICATING RESULTS, LONG PEER-REVIEW PROCESS)
“OPEN” SCIENCE PROMOTES COLLABORATION (EARLY SHARING RESULTS,
COLLABORATIVE REVIEWING AND IMPROVING THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION )
THE BEST STRATEGY IN “RESEARCH GAME”: PLAY “CLOSED”, ENCOURAGE
OTHERS TO PLAY “OPEN”.

18. THE BENEFITS OF OPENNESS
1 efficiency,
2 accessible information about research process,
3 results which could not be published in a regular journal,
4 less duplications,
5 access to (raw) data
6 results in progress
7 new collaborations
8 approaching questions from different perspectives
9 stating new questions and solving collaboratively
10 more creative and open research
11 quicker feedback
12 promoting dialog
13 noticing and correcting errors
14 collaborative dynamic peer-review
15 updating work
...

19. Motivations for Open Research
?
The Nature of Benefits of Openness are more for the Whole
Research Community than for individual researcher. The progress
of Science benefits from Openness but the gratification of
individual researcher does not increase from ‘opening’ his/her
research.
This status quo is because of evaluation system in Research, the
current “Scientometrics”, Impact Factor, etc...
the “score” in research = publications * A + citations * B + ...

20. Survey
Online survey to COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology) members
Nonprobability sampling (purposive sampling)
-Might overweight population subgroups that are more easily accessible
Invitation was sent to 4847 individual scientist’ e-mail address,
which were gathered at the COST website.
642 valid responses (13.2% response rate)

21. n=642

22. n=642

23. n=642

24. n=642

25. n=642

26. n=642

27. n=642

28. n=642

30. Results:
Their major stated concerns are sharing data and materials, as well as access to
their work. Half the COST researchers state they are concerned with promoting
innovation within private entities. The same proportion of researchers are
concerned about open (CC) licenses for research materials, data and results.
One third of researchers make data publicly available without any usage
restrictions, while only a fifth do not disclose data.
Another fifth of the researchers made their data publicly available under an
editable format.
Half the researchers would chose to publish in an OA journal over a closed
access one with equal reputation, while only 14% would chose the latter over the
former. One third or researchers submitted a paper to an OA journal in the last
two years.

31. THANK YOU
***
Dorota.Address@gmail.com; Pedro.Jacobetty@gmail.com
Questions?
Comments?