Open science will make science more efficient, reliable, and responsive to societal challenges. The European Commission has sought to advance open science policy from its inception in a holistic and integrated way, covering all aspects of the research cycle from scientific discovery and review to sharing knowledge, publishing, and outreach. We present the steps taken with a forward-looking perspective on the challenges laying ahead, in particular the necessary change of the rewards and incentives system for (...) researchers (for which various actors are co-responsible and which goes beyond the mandate of the European Commission). Finally, we discuss the role of artificial intelligence (AI) within an open science perspective. (shrink)

Research, innovation, and progress in the life sciences are increasingly contingent on access to large quantities of data. This is one of the key premises behind the “open science” movement and the global calls for fostering the sharing of personal data, datasets, and research results. This paper reports on the outcomes of discussions by the panel “Open science, data sharing and solidarity: who benefits?” held at the 2021 Biennial conference of the International Society for the History, (...) Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, and hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (shrink)

Advocates for open science argue that it democratizes access to and benefits from scientific knowledge. However, large-scale infrastructures such as public scientific databases are typically managed by closed organizations not subject to public democratic governance and that rely on a mix of volunteering, philanthropy, and service revenue alongside public funds. We argue that organizations are fruitful and overlooked objects of study for setting and implementing policies for open science to achieve just and equitable benefits. To this (...) point, we show how social science theories of organizational path dependence and cumulative advantage predict that commonly adopted organizational policies will lead to negative outcomes under a wide range of conditions. In particular, we focus on epistemic oppression, which Kristie Dotson defines as persistent epistemic exclusion from knowledge production. We use examples from biodiversity science to illustrate how our theoretical inferences can apply to current practices. While advocates of open science highlight its intended benefits for justice, we hypothesize that openness will generally exacerbate oppression without additional measures to change the governance of the organizations involved. (shrink)

Scientific data‐sharing and open science initiatives are increasingly important mechanisms for advancing the impact of genomic research. These mechanisms are being implemented as growing attention is paid to the need to improve the inclusion of research participants from marginalized and underrepresented groups. Together, these efforts aim to promote equitable advancements in genomic medicine. However, if not guided by community‐informed protections, these efforts may harm the very participants and communities they aim to benefit. This essay examines potential benefits and (...) harms of open science and explores how to advance a more just vision of open science in genomics. Drawing on relational ethics frameworks, we argue that researchers should consider their obligations to participants as well as the broader communities that are impacted by their research. We propose eight strategies to provide a foundation of practical steps for researchers to reduce the possibility of harms stemming from open science and to work toward genomic justice. (shrink)

Open science (OS) is considered the new paradigm for science and knowledge dissemination. OS fosters cooperative work and new ways of distributing knowledge by promoting effective data sharing (as early and broadly as possible) and a dynamic exchange of research outcomes, not only publications. On the other hand, intellectual property (IP) legislation seeks to balance the moral and economic rights of creators and inventors with the wider interests and needs of society. Managing knowledge outcomes in a new (...) open research and innovation ecosystem is challenging and should become part of the EU’s IP strategy, underpinning EU policies with the new open science–open innovation paradigm. (shrink)

I argue that Open Science as currently conceptualized and implemented does not take sufficient account of epistemic diversity within research. I use three case studies to exemplify how Open Science threatens to privilege some forms of inquiry over others, thus exasperating divides within and across systems of practice, and overlooking important sources and forms of epistemic diversity. Building on insights from pluralist philosophy, I then identify four aspects of diverse research practices that should serve as reference (...) points for debates around Open Science: (1) specificity to local conditions, (2) entrenchment within repertoires, (3) permeability to newcomers, and (4) demarcation strategies. (shrink)

The Open Science [OS] movement aims to foster the wide dissemination, scrutiny and re-use of research components for the good of science and society. This Element examines the role played by OS principles and practices within contemporary research and how this relates to the epistemology of science. After reviewing some of the concerns that have prompted calls for more openness, it highlights how the interpretation of openness as the sharing of resources, so often encountered in OS (...) initiatives and policies, may have the unwanted effect of constraining epistemic diversity and worsening epistemic injustice, resulting in unreliable and unethical scientific knowledge. By contrast, this Element proposes to frame openness as the effort to establish judicious connections among systems of practice, predicated on a process-oriented view of research as a tool for effective and responsible agency. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core. (shrink)

Taking credit for digitalization and platformization, China has initiated its open science infrastructure implementation and made an effort to focus on open access (OA) journals and data sharing over the past two decades. With the continuous development need, issues and concerns have caught in attention, including data accessibility, research transparency, general population awareness and communication of science, public trust in science, and scientific research and innovation efficiency. This paper has unfolded the maze of open (...) science stance in China and elaborated on its current economy, openness and freedom extents, and future innovation potential towards a global open science community, within depth and scope of both the Chinese and Western scholars’ interpretations. (shrink)

This open access book provides a broad context for the understanding of current problems of science and of the different movements aiming to improve the societal impact of science and research. The author offers insights with regard to ideas, old and new, about science, and their historical origins in philosophy and sociology of science, which is of interest to a broad readership. The book shows that scientifically grounded knowledge is required and helpful in understanding intellectual (...) and political positions in various discussions on the grand challenges of our time and how science makes impact on society. The book reveals why interventions that look good or even obvious, are often met with resistance and are hard to realize in practice. Based on a thorough analysis, as well as personal experiences in aids research, university administration and as a science observer, the author provides - while being totally open regarding science's limitations- a realistic narrative about how research is conducted, and how reliable ‘objective’ knowledge is produced. His idea of science, which draws heavily on American pragmatism, fits in with the global Open Science movement. It is argued that Open Science is a truly and historically unique movement in that it translates the analysis of the problems of science into major institutional actions of system change in order to improve academic culture and the impact of science, engaging all actors in the field of science and academia. (shrink)

Die Entwicklungen im Bereich der Open Science (OS) versprechen bereits seit einiger Zeit Lösungen für Schwierigkeiten im Kontext des elektronischen Publizierens und der damit einhergehenden Metrisierung wissenschaftlicher Expertise. Im Beitrag wird dieses Lösungsversprechen kritisch in den Blick genommen. Was wird eigentlich unter ‚Open Science‘ (OS) verstanden? Und mit welchen Herausforderungen sehen sich Initiativen in diesem Umfeld konfrontiert? In der Analyse wird ausführlich auf Sabina Leonellis Kritik an der derzeitigen OS-Bewegung eingegangen, die unter ‚Offenheit‘ v.a. ein ‚Teilen (...) von Ressourcen‘ verstehe. Demgegenüber postuliert sie epistemische Diversität und Gerechtigkeit als Leitprinzipien für künftige OS-Initiativen. Die Diskussion zeigt auf, dass die Problembehebung tatsächlich nicht, wie Leonelli meint, eine Neukonzeptionierung von OS erforderlich macht, sondern vielmehr in der gegenwärtigen Wissenschaftskultur selbst zu suchen ist. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die These vertreten, dass gerade hier die wesentliche Stellschraube für gelingende OS-Initiativen zu finden ist, welche das Potential haben, dysfunktionalen Entwicklungen wie dem Datentracking durch Informationsanalysten nachhaltig entgegenzuwirken. (shrink)

A major goal of the open science movement is to make more scientific information available to non-specialists, but it has been difficult to meaningfully achieve that goal. In response, this paper argues for two steps: (1) focusing on the scientific content that is most relevant to non-specialist audiences; and (2) packaging that content in meaningful ways for those audiences. The paper uses a case study involving a major environmental health issue (namely, PFAS pollution) to illustrate how the proponents (...) of open science can work with groups like government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and extension services to implement these two steps. (shrink)

Open Science becomes the basic concept in organizing and conducting the research and development process. The opening of the process of research and communication of science is supported and promoted both at the international level and at the national level in many countries through science policies and actions. At present, no Open Science policy is approved at the national level in the Republic of Moldova, but there are actions, undertaken by various organizations or within (...) some projects, that promote this concept. And recently, the national authority in the field of science policy has been concerned about the promotion of Open Science principles in the country. Policy development and implementation of Open Science principles is difficult without involving all stakeholders and without knowledge of the current situation, both in terms of technical and legislative issues, and especially in terms of awareness of the need and willingness of people to contribute to this process. In this context, we set out to carry out this study, taking into account the insufficient level of debates and analyzes on Open Science subject carried out in the Republic of Moldova. Its purpose is to determine the attitude, the level of awareness and involvement in issues related to Open Science and its elements in the Republic of Moldova, which will serve to develop Open Science policies and instruments at national and institutional levels. (shrink)

Funding organizations around the world are adopting open science policies, resulting in a pressing need for open science programs. In response to the 2011 decadal survey, NASA sought to expand and accelerate omics research, releasing its GeneLab Strategic Plan in 2014. GeneLab is an open science data repository and analysis portal for spaceflight and space-relevant omics data. GeneLab’s output has been outstanding, but its full potential as a way to transform space biology has not (...) yet been achieved. NASA should pursue the development of GeneLab as an open science platorm in earnest. (shrink)

Este trabajo aborda el nuevo paradigma de la Open Science o ciencia en abierto desde la perspectiva europea, pero destacando su necesario alcance global. Se analiza el concepto, origen y evolución de la Open Science y se discuten sus retos y la demora de su completa implementación. Se parte de la hipótesis de que la Open Science debería de ser el paradigma de comunicación científico por defecto en el siglo XXI. En primer lugar, se (...) revisa el concepto y alcance de Open Science frente a Open Access y en su interacción con Open Knowledge, así como la necesidad de mantener la denominación como «marca». En segundo lugar, se recogen los requisitos, reflexiones y parámetros para hacer de la ciencia un bien común y se describen los retos de la Open Science en Europa, que se han convertido en los principales pilares y/o elementos constitutivos de la ciencia en abierto. Se reflexiona sobre su puesta en práctica, detallando dos aproximaciones: 1) la creación de políticas y estrategias formales a nivel Estados miembros, y 2) la implementación bottom-up a través de Compromisos Prácticos de Implementación. Asimismo, se destacan los problemas reales que alejan a los agentes implicados de protagonizar el cambio sistémico hacia la Open Science. Finalmente se reflexiona sobre el efecto de la COVID-19 que ha corroborado la necesidad urgente de la ciencia en abierto. Este artículo recoge, a modo de ensayo, la experiencia y el trabajo realizado en los últimos cuatro años en la European Open Science Policy Platform, donde la autora ha presidido el segundo mandato desde 2018 a 2020. La autora expone algunas de sus principales teorías en torno a la Open Science y defiende su tesis de los compromisos prácticos de implementación y la confluencia de aproximaciones de prácticas de los agentes implicados y políticas de ciencia abierta, así como su categórica aproximación a la Open Science como marca, actitud y derecho. (shrink)

Open science hardware (OSH) are prototypes of laboratory instruments that use open source hardware to extend the purely epistemic (improving knowledge about nature) and normative (improving society) ideals of science and emphasize the importance of technology. They remind us of Zilsel’s 1942 thesis about the artisanal origins of science and instrument making that bridged disciplinary and social barriers in the 16th century. The emphasis on making, tinkering, and design transcends research, reproducibility, and corroboration in (...) class='Hi'>science and pushes to the forefront educational, emancipatory, and aesthetic and exploratory uses. I will use two recent projects, OpenDrop electrowetting platform and Open Source Estrogen that make but also reflect OSH’s playful, expressive, and performative strategies and define the present practices as “artisanal science.” These hybrid and ambiguous practices bridge divides between present disciplines and skills but they also define science as an everyday activity directly connected to the private and public interests of the citizens. To describe this epistemic and normative ambiguity of artisanal science, I employ Hannah Arendt’s 1958 critique of homo laborans and homo faber and claim that science artisans (citizen scientists, geeks, makers, and hackers) offer an alternative to professionalization of science as practiced in the university and R&D laboratories. Science artisans design and build instruments to engage in civic “vita activa” over instruments but also leisurely “otium” outside of the work and science labor. OSH in this sense empowers individuals and communities to explore new connections between scientific practices, public actions, and private interests (leisure). The science artisans strive for and explore sovereignty, dignity, and freedom in an age immersed in science and technology controversies by bridging the divides between art, science, engineering, and humanities. (shrink)

Open science advocates aim to address epistemic injustice and global power asymmetries in research infrastructures yet underestimate structural vulnerabilities and risks embedded in data sharing practices. Drawing on an ethnographic study of the GCRF South–South Migration Inequality and Development Hub’s (MIDEQ), we argue that even well-intentioned systems, such as the MIDEQ hub, do not reach these vulnerabilities. To capture these overlooked harms, we employ the concept of epistemic disadvantage, a category coextensive with, but separate from epistemic injustice. Epistemic (...) disadvantage includes ethically justified data withholding and misappropriation within consensual systems, which is not captured by existing notions of extractivism as those focus on the monetisation of epistemic resources without regard for the loss incurred by the originating community. To better account for these harms, we draw on two recent epistemic attitudes: the Book of Truths (BoT), which sees scientific truths as emerging through peer review, and the Book of Conversations (BoC), which values data for the interactions and reflections it provokes. Even when epistemic values recognise knowledge as relational and situated, extractivist harms persist. We offer an ameliorated concept of extractivism to include subtler, systemic harms rooted in epistemic disadvantage. (shrink)

In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points (...) to further unpacking what ‘opening up’ to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the ‘how’ of opening up in light of the ‘why’ to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI’s emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS’ co-existence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship. (shrink)

Compared to investments in R&D, the economic effect of innovation has recently been on the decline. This situation is exacerbated by a number of factors, including resource-intensive complex research, research assessment and incentive structure, and inequality in access to scientific knowledge in the research ecosystem. Along with such constraints, growing scientific crises such as reproducibility crises, research fraud, and exploitation of intellectual property rights (IPR) have resulted in a less effective scientific ecosystem and created a barrier between science and (...) society. Through an open, accessible flow of scientific knowledge, open science (OS) seeks to dismantle these barriers and enhances the efficiency and reproducibility of research. In the scientific community, there is an increasing emphasis on measures aimed at making research more “open.” Recognizing the societal implications, UNESCO issued an OS recommendation in 2021 for the nations to support and implement OS. In India, Open Access (OA) and OS initiatives also have garnered a lot of attention. The first substantial OA mandate guideline was released in 2014 as a consequence of collaborative DST-DBT initiative. Recently, India has announced plans to implement an OS framework in the “2020 draft of the 5th Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (STIP).” With the articulation of key policies, including the “Open Access Policy (2014),” the “SHRIMAN Guideline (2022) for sharing research infrastructure,” and the proposed “Biological Data Storage, Sharing and Access Policy (2019)” for easing access to data from publicly funded biological science research, the endeavors of open science have already begun in India. This chapter provides an analysis of the relevance of open science in building a robust, effective, and responsible research ecosystem. It also illustrates existing open science initiatives and policies in India’s STI ecosystem that might provide a base for the country’s implementation of an open science framework. (shrink)

The European Union has chosen Open Science as the way to do science and research based on its cultural and social values. Open Science can only really thrive in democracies and Open Societies to the benefit of humanity. This relationship between science, scientists and society is not trival and sometimes endangered, therefore we need to continuously engage in research with and for society.

Transparency and openness are frequently praised as vital institutional strategies to foster public trust in science. The expectation is that transparent and open science will be more trusted, either because publics will have access to information about what scientists do or because scientists will behave better under the watchful gaze of others. In this contribution, we challenge this widespread assumption by searching for the downsides of transparency in relation to public trust in science. The question we (...) ask is: could transparency also have unintended negative effects on public trust? First, we consider _theoretical_ treatments of transparency that challenge its status as an absolute value. This analysis highlights the benefits of seclusion and secrecy and the perils of excessive transparency. Next, we turn to the _practice_ of transparency, as enacted via open-science strategies. Open Science is a framework defined by a commitment to openness, sharing and collaboration; effectively, it offers a set of actionable strategies for scientists to be transparent. We examine risks associated with both specific open-science strategies and an Open Science normativity. This allows us to explicate three concrete pathways via which the enactment of transparency could inadvertently harm public trust in science. These pathways indicate that transparency (as enacted via open-science strategies) could fuel 1) well-placed distrust, 2) misplaced trust or 3) misplaced distrust. Eventually, we conclude that the architecture of Open Science needs a conditional and contextual operationalisation of transparency which results in new responsibilities for the scientific community. (shrink)

this article makes the case that the rationale of open science and responsible innovation will help to build public planetary goods: the necessity of this rationale is illustrated on the COViD-19 case.

This paper investigates the ethical implications of applying open science (OS) practices on disruptive technologies, such as generative AIs. Disruptive technologies, characterized by their scalability and paradigm-shifting nature, have the potential to generate significant global impact, and carry a risk of dual use. The tension arises between the moral duty of OS to promote societal benefit by democratizing knowledge and the risks associated with open dissemination of disruptive technologies. Van Rennselaer Potter's ‘third bioethics’ serves as the founding (...) horizon for an ethical framework to govern these tensions. Through theoretical analysis and concrete examples, this paper explores how OS can contribute to a better future or pose threats. Finally, we provide an ethical framework for the intersection between OS and disruptive technologies that tries to go beyond the simple ‘as open as possible’ tenet, considering openness as an instrumental value for the pursuit of other ethical values rather than as a principle with prima facie moral significance. (shrink)

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, open science has become central to experimental, public health, and clinical responses across the globe. Open science is described as an open commons, in which a right to science renders all possible scientific data for everyone to access and use. In this common space, capitalist platforms now provide many essential services and are taking the lead in public health activities. These neoliberal businesses, however, have a problematic role in the (...) capture of public goods. This paper argues that the open commons is a community of rights, consisting of people and institutions whose interests mutually support the public good. If OS is a cornerstone of public health, then reaffirming the public good is its overriding purpose, and unethical platforms ought to be excluded from the commons and its benefits. (shrink)

In this reply to the article by I.T. Kasavin “Creativity as a social phenomenon” the authors discuss the possibilities of the scientific precariat as a free creative class, which having entered the scientific community, will give it a new creative potential. The authors express some doubts that such a merger will preserve precariat's special creative spirit. The article draws attention to the diversity in understanding the nature, goals and values of creativity. The specificity of understanding creativity in the scientific community (...) is due to its rational and methodological guidelines, while the precariat is part of postmodern society, and its creative potential stems from a break with traditional rationalistic methodology. However, as long as peer review remains in the hands of the exclusively institutionalized scientific community, there is a high probability that the creativity of the precariat will be marginalized, and becoming part of the scientific community, the precariat will be forced to accept its epistemic values and lose the creative potential that is expected from them. The authors refer to P. Feyerabend’s theory of creativity, in which he rejects the subject-centered model of scientific creativity. According to Feyerabend, creativity is intersubjective in nature and grows organically from the sociocultural environment of the subject. The scientist creates following a cultural instinct, but the subject does not disappear from the creative process, since the cultural instinct is refracted through his individual style. If creativity is a reflection of the spirit of times, the precariat is the best way to embody it. In conclusion, a way for overcoming the social is outlined and, in a broad sense, the methodological problematic nature of the unification of the scientific community and the precariat, which the authors see in the general democratization and pluralism of society. (shrink)

Many neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric diseases and other brain disorders are accompanied by impairments in high-level cognitive functions including memory, attention, motivation, and decision-making. Despite several decades of extensive research, neuroscience is little closer to discovering new treatments. Key impediments include the absence of validated and robust cognitive assessment tools for facilitating translation from animal models to humans. In this review, we describe a state-of-the-art platform poised to overcome these impediments and improve the success of translational research, the Mouse Translational Research (...) Accelerator Platform (MouseTRAP), which is centered on the touchscreen cognitive testing system for rodents. It integrates touchscreen-based tests of high-level cognitive assessment with state-of-the art neurotechnology to record and manipulate molecular and circuit level activity in vivo in animal models during human-relevant cognitive performance. The platform also is integrated with two Open Science platforms designed to facilitate knowledge and data-sharing practices within the rodent touchscreen community, touchscreencognition and mousebytes. Touchscreencognition includes the Wall, showcasing touchscreen news and publications, the Forum, for community discussion, and Training, which includes courses, videos, SOPs, and symposia. To get started, interested researchers simply create user accounts. We describe the origins of the touchscreen testing system, the novel lines of research it has facilitated, and its increasingly widespread use in translational research, which is attributable in part to knowledge-sharing efforts over the past decade. We then identify the unique features of MouseTRAP that stand to potentially revolutionize translational research, and describe new initiatives to partner with similar platforms such as McGill’s M3 platform. (shrink)

Open science is good for both epistemic and social reasons, but in nonobvious ways, it can have detrimental epistemic side effects. Drawing on case studies and the social epistemology of science, I show how practices intended to increase transparency, communication, and information sharing in science can backfire. We should not reject Open Science, just implement it carefully. I argue that we can do so by treating openness as a governing value in science, and (...) thus, that our pursuit of openness needs to be balanced against our pursuit of the whole scheme of values that govern science. (shrink)

This article documents how biomedical researchers in the United Kingdom understand and enact the idea of “openness.” This is of particular interest to researchers and science policy worldwide in view of the recent adoption of pioneering policies on Open Science and Open Access by the U.K. government—policies whose impact on and implications for research practice are in need of urgent evaluation, so as to decide on their eventual implementation elsewhere. This study is based on 22 in-depth (...) interviews with U.K. researchers in systems biology, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics, which were conducted between September 2013 and February 2014. Through an analysis of the interview transcripts, we identify seven core themes that characterize researchers’ understanding of openness in science and nine factors that shape the practice of openness in research. Our findings highlight the implications that Open Science policies can have for research processes and outcomes and provide recommendations for enhancing their content, effectiveness, and implementation. (shrink)

The concept of equity has become central to discussions around Open Science. Key texts, such as the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, foreground equity as the fundamental driver of inclusive and accessible research. Nonetheless, such appeals to equity are rarely unpacked to provide insights into how equity is enacted in research, namely how equitable research actions can be understood and assessed and how infrastructures support equitable engagement with research resources. This paper problematizes discussions around equitable (...) class='Hi'>Open Science, highlighting key challenges for transitioning from high-level appeals to equity to practical action. The paper introduces the Capabilities Approach as a framework through which to critically interrogate how ‘meaningful openness’ can be embedded in research as a means of moving towards equitable research. (shrink)

There are concerns that participation in open science will lead to various forms of exploitation – of researchers and scholars in low-income countries and under-resourced institutions. This article defends a contrary thesis and demonstrates the exact ways the underexplored notions of communal relationships, human dignity and social justice – and the normative principles to which they give rise – grounded in African philosophy can usefully address critical concerns regarding exploitation in the sharing of research resources to facilitate (...) class='Hi'>open partnership/collaboration and reuse. Further research is required to study the specific roles different institutions can play in facilitating open practice and contribute towards establishing effective structures that can enhance equity and balance unfavourable power asymmetries. (shrink)

There are concerns that participation in open science will lead to various forms of exploitation – of researchers and scholars in low‐income countries and under‐resourced institutions. This article defends a contrary thesis and demonstrates the exact ways the underexplored notions of communal relationships, human dignity and social justice – and the normative principles to which they give rise – grounded in African philosophy can usefully address critical concerns regarding exploitation in the sharing of research resources to facilitate (...) class='Hi'>open partnership/collaboration and reuse. Further research is required to study the specific roles different institutions can play in facilitating open practice and contribute towards establishing effective structures that can enhance equity and balance unfavourable power asymmetries. (shrink)

Purpose: This article aims to analyze and summarize the practical experience of deploying and integrating platforms for open journals, conferences, and repositories with support for the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). It highlights the errors and challenges that journal and repository managers and administrators, as well as conference organizers, may encounter and offers recommendations to prevent and avoid these issues. Design / Method / Approach: The research is based on the analysis of real cases of (...) deploying platforms for open science, including the analysis of errors and difficulties encountered during this process. The methodology includes the analysis of real-world cases, applying methods such as testing, validating the OAI-PMH protocol, observation, and studying regulatory and technical documents. Findings: Key errors and difficulties that organizers may face when creating open journals, conferences, and repositories with OAI-PMH support have been identified. Specific solutions are proposed to ensure the reliable operation of the metadata harvesting protocol (PMH), initial setup, and further integration of these platforms. Theoretical Implications: The study extends the understanding of the problems and challenges in the field of open science, particularly concerning the organizational and technical aspects of platforms with OAI-PMH support. Practical Implications: Practical recommendations are provided for administrators and managers of open journals, conferences, and repositories to avoid common mistakes and effectively use OAI-PMH to ensure data interoperability and accessibility. Originality / Value: The article presents an original analysis of real cases of implementing and integrating platforms with OAI-PMH support, making it a valuable resource for practitioners in the context of deploying platforms for open science. Research Limitations / Future Research: The study is limited to the analysis of specific cases and does not cover all possible aspects of deploying and integrating web applications with OAI-PMH support. Future research may focus on the quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of implementing these platforms and their long-term impact on open science. Paper Type: Case Study / Practitioner Paper. (shrink)

Many initiatives addressing different types of problems of the practice of science and research have been described or cited in this book. Some were one-issue local actions, some took a broader approach at the national and some at EU level. Some stayed on, others faded after a few years. Many of the issues addressed by these movements and initiatives were part of the system of science and appeared to be systemically interdependent. This is how they converged and precipitated (...) in the movement of Open Science, somewhere at the beginning of the second decade of this century. I discuss the major move that was made since 2015 in the EU to embrace the Open Science practice as the way science and research are being done in Europe. This elicited tensions at first foremost relate to uncertainty regarding scholarly publishing, of how and where we publish open access. But also, with respect to what immediate sharing of data and results in daily practice of researchers means, how we value and give credit for papers and published data sets. It thus poses the question of how, if at all, we must compare incomparable academic work, how we get credit and build reputations in this new open practice of science. It is indeed believed that Open Science with its practice of responsible science will be a major contribution to address the dominant problems in science that we have analysed thus far, or at least will help to mitigate them. Open Science holds a promise to take science to the next phase as outlined in the previous chapters. That is not a romantic naive longing for the science that once was. It will be a truly novel way, but realistic way of doing scientific inquiry according to the pragmatic narrative pointed out.The Transition to Open Science as can be anticipated from the analyses above will not be trivial. The recent discussions have already shown that the transition to Open Science, even between EU member states, is a very different thing because of specific national, societal and academic contexts.I will conclude this chapter reporting some of my first-hand experiences, in Brussels and during visits to several EU member states in the course of a Mutual Learning Exercise, but also encounters in North America, South East Asia and South Africa where we in the past years have discussed Open Science. Although we know science and scholarship have many forms and flavours and that wherever you go, there is not one scientific community. For me discussing the Transition to Open Science in the past four years was really a Learning Exercise, an amazing, mostly encouraging, but many times quite shocking, even saddening adventure. (shrink)

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to (...) start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx). (shrink)

The elimination of gatekeepers for scientific publication has been represented as a means to promote the core moral values of open science, including democratic decision-making and inclusiveness. I argue that this framing ignores the reality that gatekeeping is a way of structuring prestige hierarchies, and that without gatekeeping, some other structuring would be needed: the flattening of prestige hierarchies is not possible given scientists’ need to navigate information overload. I consider two potential restructurings of prestige hierarchies, one based (...) on citation count and the other on search algorithm rank. These are shown to simply reintroduce status biases and hierarchies in ways that either do not further the open science ideals of democracy and inclusiveness, or else involve some de facto gatekeeping. Gatekeeper elimination should not be thought of as an intrinsic part of the open science movement. In fact, insofar as gatekeeping is guided by professional ideals of impartiality and diligence, it can be thought of as an ally of open science values. (shrink)

Open science has recently gained traction as establishment institutions have come on-side and thrown their weight behind the movement and initiatives aimed at creation of information commons. At the same time, the movement's traditional insistence on unrestricted dissemination and reuse of all information of scientific value has been challenged by the movement to strengthen protection of personal data. This article assesses tensions between open science and data protection, with a focus on the GDPR.

This paper examines how capacity building in open science (OS) can be a form of resource redistribution. We focus on MetaDocencia, a Latin American community of practice that adapted NASA’s Open Science 101 curriculum for Spanish-speaking learners and delivered training based on it in 2024. The adaptation involved translating materials, contextualising them with regionally relevant case studies, and connecting participants with each other and with funding opportunities. Drawing on a survey, participant observation, and direct involvement in (...) the process, we show that Latin American communities of practice engaged in OS expose the limitations of broadly optimistic accounts of it that emphasise its benefits while overlooking the conditions required to achieve them. These communities do not necessarily represent alternative epistemologies, but pragmatically strive for better means for their work and to participate in international scientific networks. We argue that capacity building can be a key practice through which actors operating in unequal systems become redistributive agents reallocating not just skills, but also funding mechanisms, recognition, and organisational capacities. This case illustrates the vital role of these capacities in supporting grassroots initiatives, and shows that volunteering, while a driving force in early stages, can ultimately hinder them limiting diversity and inclusion. (shrink)

Business Ethics: A European Review, EarlyView.

Metaphors used to describe new technologies mediate public understanding of the innovations. Analyzing the linguistic, rhetorical, and affective aspects of these metaphors opens the range of issues available for bioethical scrutiny and increases public accountability. This article shows how such a multidisciplinary approach can be useful by looking at a set of texts about one issue, the use of a newly developed technique for genetic modification, CRISPRcas9.

Biobanks represent an invaluable research tool and, as a result of their intrinsic and extrinsic nature, may be looked upon as archives or repositories largely made up of libraries, or collections of content where the content is the biological material derived from different individuals or species, representing valuable tangible assets. Biobanks analyses aspects of the commons and common intellectual property relating to the concepts of private property, not only concerning data but biological materials as well, and the advantages and disadvantages (...) of patents in scientific research. Several recent initiatives in biomedical research have attempted to make their data freely available to others, so as to foster innovation. Many of these initiatives have adopted the open source model, which has gained widespread recognition in the computer industry. This title is structured into eight chapters and begins with an introduction, which is followed by chapters that discuss how the term 'biobank' came about in scientific literature; legal matters relating to biobanks; and intellectual and physical property. Later chapters comprehensively analyse the intellectual property of biobanks within the sphere of copyright; biotechnological inventions and research patentability; open data sharing in biobanks; and biobanks as commons or vault. Considers biobanks as both repositories and as collections of tangible assets Argues that the data in biobanks represents a high value intangible asset Explores regulatory gaps exploited by the private sector. (shrink)

This comment focuses on the contradictions inherent in current conceptualizations and practices associated with Open Science and highlighted by the preceding set of articles. Using Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism (CCE), it argues that Open Science offers the potential for realization of the norms envisioned in CCE, but that the economic forces capitalizing on aspects of the call for Open Science and the current global context erode the capacity to realize the fourth norm of equality (...) of intellectual authority. This is a matter of both justice and epistemic reliability. (shrink)

Data-intensive science comes with increased risks concerning quality and reliability of data, and while trust in science has traditionally been framed as a matter of scientists being expected to adhere to certain technical and moral norms for behaviour, emerging discourses of open science present openness and transparency as substitutes for established trust mechanisms. By ensuring access to all available information, quality becomes a matter of informed judgement by the users, and trust no longer seems necessary. This (...) strategy does not, however, take into consideration the networks of professionals already enabling data-intensive science by providing high-quality data. In the life sciences, biological data- and knowledge bases managed by expert biocurators have become crucial for data-intensive research. In this paper, I will use the case of biocurators to argue that openness and transparency will not diminish the need for trust in data-intensive science. On the contrary, data-intensive science requires a reconfiguration of existing trust mechanisms in order to include those who take care of and manage scientific data after its production. (shrink)

I ask exactly how “open” we should be in “opening up cognitive science” and how many scientists should embrace the radical openness Martiny advocates. I suggest that the most fruitful realization of Martiny’s vision would consist in the creation of research groups with a balance between scholars of singular disciplines and transdisciplinary cognitive scientists.