RE: One change to make science more open?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
That's a very good answer! However, I don't think previous contributions are enough since this number is directly correlated to how open science's access.
Let me give you an example. Not long along I wasn't fortunate enough to have access to ieeexplore. I hardly managed to do the research I needed to do, and most of the hypothesis needed to be validated by me alone even though nowadays I see those were already validated by someone else, I just didn't have access to it. As a result, I reinvented the wheel and spent time doing something not so "novel", although it had its impact.
Open science for me means the research should be public. Why hiding incredible results behind some subscription model? What's the point? Only for elite members to access it? There's a lot of creative non-elite people in the world who could use those to create magnificent things.
I also think the more open these things are the more contributions authors will make. It's not necessarily because they will have more incentives but because they will have a wider reach.
Now given that science is open to everyone, then the contribution could be (perhaps) measured on how much work they have inspired, not just cited as you mention but how much weight they had in other people's lifes. But again, it's difficult to measure with a single metric.
Ultimately, I love this EU initiative 😊 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/open-science-open-access.
Posted using Partiko Android
Javier, could you please elaborate on "previous contributions are not enough"? Enough for what? Are you referring to the number of citations?
I think your definition of open science is exactly what Daniel means: open to the public and no subscription model. And yes, more open → more contribution.
I agree that without internet access, it's incredibly difficult to do science. However, the scientist's job is to make their work as transparent as possible; it would be rather beyond their ability to make sure it's accessible from the other end. Limited internet access is a much larger issue than making science open.
While the EU initiative had great intention, have you heard about the involvement of Elsevier in their open science monitor?
Hi Trang! Now when I read my response it even sounds weird to me sorry 😅. What I meant is that previous work is not enough to determine how much an author has contributed to science, there are plenty of repeated or near equal work out there that I wouldn't say they contribute much. At the same it's great when more than one person reaches the same conclusion since it validates the others.
But even though the scientists job is to make their work as available as possible, you always see work that's exclusively available on sites like ieeexplore. And it's not about internet access what I'm talking about here, what if you do have internet but don't have the means to pay for the subscription? Moreover, if you are doing a one-time simple research paying for a subscription would be a waste since you wouldn't use it that much, and sometimes these subscriptions bind you for an extended period of time.
I need to do some homework about Elsevier, I see it suggests me papers based on others I have saved on Mendeley, which is a nice feature 😊.
In this regard, I love sci-hub and their slogan "removing barriers on the way of knowledge".
Posted using Partiko Android
Ah, I see what you're saying now. Yes, I think we're on the same page about open science and open access. Perhaps @dhimmel's recent talk in Zurich will interest you! The current model to avoid paywall is an OA fee upfront. Now, a caveat is that the scientist/author has to pay this fee to publish their work (e.g., Bioinformatics charges $3,150 for OA). While most scholars have funding, this relatively high fee does deter many labs from open license their work.
Oh I will definitely check his talk, thanks for sharing it! Although I am aware of the high fees, I believe science is a common asset for us humans as a civilization and race. Keeping them private or hindering progress is just stupid in my opinion because we all would benefit from it. But as you say, most of the scientists have funding so that shouldn't be a major issue, the problem is more noticable when it comes to accessibility.
Posted using Partiko Android