Beyond Open Access: Conceptualizing Open Science for Knowledge Co-creation

Abstract

Despite the calls from European Union (EU) and global institutions, such as UNESCO and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for more openness and collaboration between Quadruple Helix actors (government, academia, industry, and civil society), in practice, scientific knowledge creation has been much more closed and fragmented. As an emerging field of study, Open Science (OS) for knowledge co-creation currently requires significantly conceptual and theoretical challenges to be addressed before advancing to practical application. To address this gap, the paper aims to develop a conceptual framework integrating diverse understandings of OS beyond the use of Open Access (OA) and data practices. The author argues that OS should be approached as a complex ecosystem with the potential for knowledge co-creation and social innovations. The underlying premise of the proposed conceptual model is the interdisciplinarity in integrating multiple reference disciplines. Such an approach allows us to learn from other disciplines and contribute to OS research through the emergence of new ideas for theory and practical application. Consequently, a dyadic model is presented where (1) framework conditions regulate how (2) systemic conditions can realize their full potential for knowledge co-creation resulting in outputs (e.g., collaborative projects and citizen science projects) and outcomes (e.g., social innovations, higher quality of science, and democratized knowledge) beneficial for a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

Opening science to society: how to progress societal engagement into (open) science policies

“…All these actions do not change the fundamental process of 'doing science' as a process that happens among specialists-a dataset can be shared in a highly specialized format, and the open-access publication can be written in a niche jargon. These principles also fit into what Macǐulienė [18] terms the quality-control nature of open science. It is therefore unsurprising that this set of changes is easier to implement within the current science system.…”

Open Science for Knowledge Co-Creation: Methodological Framework and Empirical Evidence

“…The framework is based on the analysis of factors identified through the literature review and exploratory study. Previous work by the author details the theoretical influences of each dimension and the underlying logic of the framework [23], [24]. Brief descriptions of evaluation dimensions are provided in Table 1.…”

“…Feedback and monitoring processes at the national and institutional levels focused on Open Science activities Source: defined by author in [23], [24] The framework suggests that in evaluation of research and innovation ecosystems two important dimensions have to be considered i.e., framework conditions (structural factors that are amendable through policy interventions) and systemic (dynamics, linkages, and networks of the co-creation process) conditions. The dyadic approach provides a portrayal of national research and innovation systems where framework conditions regulate how systemic conditions can realize their full potential for knowledge co-creation.…”

Is there still a need for dental textbooks when doubts can be clarified by artificial intelligence and open access science?

“…Despite the accepted need for more openness and innovation, in practice, scientific education remains essentially closed and fragmented. This is also a reflection on research evaluation practices based on the number of citations and journal impact factors, scientific strategies focused on profit, unequal information distribution, and lack of adequate peer-review process (8,9). Therefore, it is not only important to make the science available for everyone, but also to determine in which databases the scope fits best; as well as how to separate the wheat from the chaff when reading a freely-available manuscript.…”

“…Therefore, it is not only important to make the science available for everyone, but also to determine in which databases the scope fits best; as well as how to separate the wheat from the chaff when reading a freely-available manuscript. In summary, open science is quickly growing and will broaden our horizons in terms of innovation, with significant implications for society, policy, and numerous academic research areas (8). When facing global challenges, higher education programs need to control different stakeholder groups and find new ways to manage students thinking like scientists, the importance of critical thinking and how the use of artificial intelligence can be positively associated with that.…”