
I am wondering how far we can get with "Open X" movements in science and research, and I will combine my musings about this with a recommendation to attend a satellite event at the Euroscience Open Forum 2008 in Barcelona.
First, let's consider how far we have come in terms of opening up the research process:
* Open Access in the narrow sense, i.e. to published or at least peer-accepted research results, is real for a substantial share of research output and rapidly gaining ground (for most recent updates, click here).
* Open Access to the scholarly review process is gaining ground (public or interactive peer review, e.g. here).
* Open Access to empirical data (Open Data) is moving forward, too.
* Open Access to software (Open Source) is driving many aspects of society, including wikis and many research projects.
* Open Access to encyclopedic knowledge is becoming real on the heels of Wikipedia and Citizendium.
* Open Access to lab notebooks is being experimented with at OpenWetWare.
To sum up, there are not too many aspects of research that currently remain entirely in the dark. They basically boil down to grant writing (an attempt is here) as well as the associated review and grant allocation procedures, bookkeeping (which is partly open in much of Scandinavia, within the wider framework of Open Government), the actual research and data analysis, and to writing up the results for publication.
I do not see any technical issues prohibiting complete openness of the whole research cycle, and so I deem it a valid
target to aim at, already at the current stage of technology. However, people more involved with the practical implementation of these things may have more complex views on these matters, and so I am glad to see that such topics found their way into the program of ESOF 2008, in the form of a satellite event entitled Collaborating for the future of open science where experts will discuss them.
Follow-up: OpenWetWare and
By danielFollow-up: OpenWetWare and its activities are the subject of a recent blog post at sciencecommons.
"Get rid of journals.
By daniel"Get rid of journals. Period. All of them." is the take-home message of another intriguing recent blog post, arguing from the perspective of the new methodological options for science and research evaluation that come about with the Open X movements described above.
A wiki-based journal is
By danielA wiki-based journal is already operating: Ancilla Iuris (www.anci.ch, or www.doaj.org/doaj?func=findJournals&hybrid=&query=ancilla+iuris )
They use dokuwiki and a blog plug-in.
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:dokuwiki
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/plugin:blog .
(seen on the BOAI mailing list)
A list of wiki journals is
By danielA list of wiki journals is available here.
An open scientist's research
By danielAn open scientist's research and teaching: In his essay entitled "Der öffentliche Wissenschaftler" (The Open Scientist), mathematics professor Christian Spannagel has declared himself an "open scientist" in the sense that he intends to make both his teaching and research public, for which he uses his account at the German Wikiversity as a platform.
How open are you?
By MCrosbyI recently had a follow-up post to this idea. I think one of the main concerns about this topic is the fact that people need to make a living. For those people at research institutes and or medical schools (primarily in the U.S., which is all of my experience), grant money is really everything. If one doesn't have the original ideas in which to bring in the grant money, one may no longer have a job at the end of the day. So, perhaps we are moving toward a more 'open' science, but then do we need to also make food, shelter, and other basic needs 'open' as well? (!)
Grants can be written in public, too.
By danielI understand that even scientists, who are often said to live in spheres far remote from reality, do need to make a living. However, this does not automatically preclude writing grant applications in public, since that would allow (a real-name policy and some version tracking tool provided) to track the origins of ideas much more precisely and transparently than what the current system with non-public grant writing allows for. In short, the transition may involve pain (on both sides) but public grant writing, as already practiced in some fields (e.g. particle physics), may well turn out to be a valid option in the long run.
Post new comment