Philosophy of Open Science

Leonelli, Sabina

doi:10.1017/9781009416368

Cited by 35 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…datasets). Such a pluralistic perspective is warranted by an ongoing shift in the conceptualisation of OS from 'accessibility to research outputs' towards 'judicious interactions' (Leonelli, 2023) both in the scientific practices and the societal usages of research. The type of information needed cannot be garnered only from research output data in digital platforms.…”

Section: Relationship To Os Values and Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Open Science as Transformative Change: Towards a Systemic Framework

Rafols,

Molas-Gallart,

Meijer

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Following a flurry of policies for Open Science (OS), there is now a wave of initiatives to monitor its adoption. However, the great diversity of understandings and activities associated related to Open Science makes monitoring very challenging. There is a danger that by focusing on what can be readily observed (e.g. publications) many other OS activities are overlooked (e.g. participation), with a potential narrowing of OS scope, ‘street-light’ effects, and deviation from the values of OS.Methods:We have conducted desk research to analyse existing OS conceptualisations and monitoring efforts against the evaluation literature. Since Open Science can be understood as a systemic transformation of the research system, we have borrowed in particular concepts from Transformative Innovation Policies (TIPs) frameworks which aim at evaluating socio-technical transitions.Results: In accordance with the notion of OS as a systemic transformation, we propose that OS should imply a change in monitoring frameworks for OS. Just like the shift from the ‘linear model’ to ‘innovation systems’ models in the 1980s was accompanied with new statistical concepts and tools (e.g. the OECD’s Oslo manual and innovation surveys), tracking OS adoption requires a far-reaching change in monitoring. We propose that the new monitoring should shift towards: (i) a systemic perspective which considers the various actions related to OS, including policies and outputs (e.g. datasets) but also processes (e.g. participatory events), outcomes (e.g. use of knowledge in policy) and expected impacts (e.g. increased attention to societal problems); (ii) implementation of monitoring as learning (rather than accountability or benchmarking) for strategic perspectives and reflexive evaluation; (ii) mapping the directionality of the activities and the values associated with the choices in directions. Conclusions:A monitoring framework for OS requires a profound change in monitoring framework and practices. The scope should broaden from outputs (such as publications) towards the processes of connection that make science ‘open’ (usage, co-creation and dialogue), as well as towards outcomes (changes in practices) and the longer-term impacts that reflect the values and normative commitments of OS.

show abstract

Section: Relationship To Os Values and Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Open Science as Transformative Change: Towards a Systemic Framework

Rafols,

Molas-Gallart,

Meijer

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Building on prior work on data sharing strategies and understandings of openness (Leonelli 2021;Leonelli 2023), our study takes a broad perspective on the structure and use of data infrastructures, focusing on three main characteristics: (1) architecture -the underlying computational systems and infrastructure that enable the functioning of data infrastructures, providing insight into the structural and organizational conditions that shape the production and dissemination of data; (2); submissions -the demography of contributors that are interacting with the architecture; and (3) usage -the lived experience of data communities who interact with data infrastructures in order to produce new outputs of knowledge. As a collective, these three components function as intermediaries in facilitating the exchange and production of SARS-CoV-2 data, thereby encapsulating the overarching role of data infrastructures as computational architectures that enable data submission and usage.…”

Section: From Collection To Analysis: Why Focus On Architecture Submi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unrestricted Versus Regulated Open Data Governance: A Bibliometric Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleotide Sequence Databases

Sheehan,

Botta,

Leonelli

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyse ongoing efforts to share genomic data about SARS-COV-2 through a comparison of the characteristics of the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data and the Covid-19 Data Portal with respect to the representativeness and governance of the research data therein. We focus on data and metadata on genetic sequences posted on the two infrastructures in the period between January 2020 and January 2023, thus capturing a period of acute response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a variety of data science methods, we compare the extent to which the two portals succeeded in attracting data submissions from different countries around the globe and look at the ways in which submission rates varied over time. We go on to analyse the structure and underlying architecture of the infrastructures, reviewing how they organise data access and use, the types of metadata and version tracking they provide. Finally, we explore usage patterns of each infrastructure based on publications that mention the data to understand how data reuse can facilitate forms of diversity between institutions, cities, countries, and funding groups. Our findings reveal disparities in representation between the two infrastructures and differing practices in data governance and architecture. We conclude that both infrastructures offer useful lessons, with GISAID demonstrating the importance of expanding data submissions and representation, while the COVID-19 data portal offers insights into how to enhance data usability.

show abstract

“…In the following sections, we explore more specific themes where RTBF might be applicable. (Fecher & Friesike, 2014;Leonelli, 2023).…”

Section: Crossing the Bridge Between Rtbf And Academia: Do Rtbf Princ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Teixeira da Silva,

Nazarovets

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we reflect on how the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF), specifically the right to erasure as enshrined in Article 17 (and to some extent Art. 19 and Art. 21) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Regulation (EU) 2016/679), or the right to delete undesirable, unflattering or reputation‐damaging archived records of oneself from search engines or databases, might apply to academic publishing. In particular, we focus on archival (library and information) science, post‐publication peer review, and reflect on whether RTBF is compatible with open science principles. Even though RTBF became enshrined in EU law in 2018, its trans‐Atlantic export to the United States faces resistance because it is seen as being incompatible with First Amendment rights. We ponder the pertinence of the debate regarding local versus global applicability of RTBF when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. Although RTBF applies broadly to search engines such as Google, we question whether authors have this right and also whether publishers are subjected to this law with respect to science databases, or even ‘local’ (i.e., publisher‐controlled) archives, especially in the light of retractions or withdrawals, in which data and files are removed from a preprint or journal's website or, in extreme cases, where all or most bibliometric information is scrubbed clean, as in the case of ‘silent retractions’. We extend our reflections further to appreciate whether authors or editors are entitled to RTBF in extreme instances of misconduct or fraud. The fundamental right to privacy and personal choice, as is suggested by (or enshrined in) RTBF, is not—in our view—compatible with several principles related to the integrity of data and information, or even their preservation, and may be diametrically opposed, depending on the situation. We encourage wider debate on this budding pertinent issue as a fundamental aspect of academic rights and freedoms.

show abstract

Philosophy of Open Science

Cited by 35 publications

References 108 publications

Monitoring Open Science as Transformative Change: Towards a Systemic Framework

Monitoring Open Science as Transformative Change: Towards a Systemic Framework

Unrestricted Versus Regulated Open Data Governance: A Bibliometric Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleotide Sequence Databases

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About