Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byRene Von schomberg
Presentation on Open Science and its 'Impacts';
The document discusses the concept of open science, which emphasizes collaboration, transparency, and accessibility in the research process through the use of digital technologies. It highlights the shift from rapid publishing to early knowledge sharing, identifies trends and barriers in adopting 'science 2.0', and presents various stakeholders' perspectives on its implications for society and the economy. The document also outlines policy recommendations to foster open science and enhance research integrity and inclusivity.
More Related Content
Similar to Presentation on Open Science and its 'Impacts';
Presentation on Open Science and its 'Impacts';
- 1. Open Science Dr. Dr.Phil.Rene VON SCHOMBERG Team Leader-Open science policy coordination and development European Commission DG Research & Innovation A.6-Data, Open Access and Foresight
- 2. Open Science: anew approach to the research process Open Science • Based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing and sharing knowledge using digital technologies and new collaborative tools • A systemic change to the way science is organised and research is carried out • It affects virtually all components of doing science and research, from conceptual work to publishing, from empirical research to data- analysis. • Shifting focus from "publishing as fast as possible" to "sharing knowledge as early as possible" • 2014 Public consultation on ‘Science 2.0: Science in Transition’ Notes: tiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero,
- 3. Source : http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf Collaborative bibliographies Analysis OpenScience Open Science – opening up the research process
- 4. Analysis Publication ReviewConceptualisation Data gathering Open access Scientific blogs Collaborative bibliographies Alternative Reputation systems Citizens science Open code Open workflows Open annotation Open data Pre- print Data- intensive 4 Sci- starter.com Runmycode .org Impact Story Openannotation.org Anemerging ecosystem of services and standards It's real!
- 5. 2% 5% 10% 19% 22% 43% Digital science Enhanced science Networkedscience Open Digital science Science 2.0 Open science What is the most appropriate term to describe ‘Science 2.0’?
- 6. 70% 17% 11% 2% Do you recognisethe trends described in the consultation paper as 'Science 2.0'? Yes Yes, but with a different emphasis on particular elements Yes, but some essential elements Are missing No, not at all
- 7. 11% 22% 26% 28% 32% 36% 34% 30% 43% 47% 76% 33% 40% 45% 44% 41% 39% 42% 46% 43% 43% 22% 6% 6% 3% 3% 6% 2% 6% 4% 3% 34% 22% 20% 19% 15% 16% 14% 17% 9% 7% 2% 16% 9% 6% 6% 6% 7% 4% 3% 3% 2% 0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% Citizens acting as scientists Scientific publishers engaging in 'Science 2.0' Public demand for faster solutions to Societal Challenges Growing public scrutiny of science and research Public funding supporting 'Science 2.0' Public demand for better and more effective science Growing criticism of current peer-review system Increase of the global scientific population Researchers looking for new ways of collaboration Researchers looking for new ways of disseminating their output Availability of digital technologies and their increased capacities What are the key drivers of 'Science 2.0'? I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree
- 8. 26% 44% 43% 43% 35% 47% 43% 46% 50% 53% 44% 32% 37% 38% 46% 35% 41% 39% 38% 35% 6% 6% 4% 6% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% 17% 13% 13% 9% 10% 10% 9% 9% 7% 8% 7% 5% 3% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% Concerns about ethical and privacy issues Lack of incentives for junior scientists to engage with 'Science 2.0' Lack of research skills fit for 'Science 2.0' Legal constraints (e.g. copyright law) Uncertain benefits for researchers Lack of financial support Limited awareness of benefits of 'Science 2.0 for researchers Lack of integration in the existing infrastructures Lack of credit-giving to 'Science 2.0' Concerns about quality assurance What are the barriers for 'Science 2.0' at the level of individual scientist? I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree
- 9. 18% 21% 29% 33% 37% 41% 42% 42% 46% 40% 39% 47% 43% 41% 38% 40% 41% 37% 8% 9% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 4% 26% 22% 14% 15% 13% 13% 10% 11% 10% 8% 9% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% Crowd-funding an important research funding source Research more responsive to society through crowd-funding Science more responsive to societal challenges Reconnect science and society Greater scientific integrity Data-intensive science as a key economic driver Faster and wider innovation Science more efficient Science more reliable (e.g. re-use of data) What are the implications of 'Science 2.0‘ for society, the economy and the research system? I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree Background
- 10. 7.4 7.4 6.9 6.2 5.7 5.65.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 4.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Meanrankingposition On what issues within 'Science 2.0' do you see a need for policy intervention? Mean Mean - std Mean + std Rank : the lowest need (1) to the highest need (11)
- 11. Five lines ofpotential policy actions Open Science • Fostering and creating incentives for Open Science • Removing barriers to Open Science • Mainstreaming and further promoting Open Access policies • Developing research infrastructures for Open Science • Embedding Open Science in society as a socio-economic driver Notes: tiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero,
- 12. Open Science: keyissues Open Science • The European Open Science Cloud • Advancing Open Access and Data Policies • Alternative systems to evaluate the quality and impact of research • Text and Data Mining • Towards better, more efficient and more Open Science • Fostering Research Integrity • Making science more inclusive: Citizen Science Notes: tiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero,
- 13. Bottom-up governance Federation Legacy andsustainability Leverage of MS investment Trust IPR and privacy protection Big data analytics Data fusion across disciplines High performance computing Data access and re-use Data manipulation and export Data discovery and catalogue High-speed connectivity Super-Computing Data storage Governance layer Data and service layer Infrastructure layer …Long tail of scienceLead scientific users… Scaleofscientificactivity(data-drivenscience) Open ScienceSource: DG Research and Innovation (2015) Governance of the European Open Science Cloud
- 14. Research organisation Funder Sub-unit ofresearch organisation Funder and research organisation Multiple research organisations NumberofPolicies Policies Adopted by Quarter Open ScienceSource: http://roarmap.eprints.org/ Growth of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies
- 15. Discovery Analysis WritingPublication Outreach Assessment Elsevier Springer Nature Digital Science Google Wikimedia Open ScienceSource: http://innoscholcomm.silk.co Open Science: From Open Access to Open Scholarly Communication Public or private initiatives at every level of the research process offering specific services to researchers Layer of "commons" New initiatives allowing the scholarly process to be carried out differently
- 16. Open ScienceSource: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/11/11/101-innovations- in-scholarly-communication/ research governance changes technical changes& standards economic & copyright changes GOOD OPENEFFICIENT Towards ‘better science’ – Good, efficient and Open Science connected tools & platforms no publ. size restrictions null result publishing speed of publication (web)standards, IDs semantic discovery Re-useability versioning open peer review open (lab)notes plain language open drafting open access CC-0/BY declaring competing interests replication & reproducibility meaningful assessment effective quality checks credit where it is due no fraud, plagiarism
- 17. Open Science PolicyPlatform and European Open Science Agenda • May 2016 Competitiveness Council: • "NOTES the establishment of the Open Science Policy Platform by the Commission, which aims at supporting the further development of the European Open Science policy and promoting the uptake by stakeholders of best practices, including issues such as adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics, guiding principles for optimal reuse of research data, development and use of standards, and other aspects of open science such as fostering research integrity and developing citizen science"; • Commissioner Moedas will inform the Council biannually on advances of the Platform (which consist of 25 Key stakeholders-European Branch Organisations)
- 18. Optimal re-use ofResearch Data • Competitiveness Council: • 1.Make research data produced by H2020 open by default • 2.Encourage MS to Promote data stewardship and implement data management plans • 3.Encourage MS and Commission to follow FAIR principles in research programmes and funding mechanisms • Follow-Up by Stakeholders, EC and MS: • 1. As of 2017, Open Data is the default option under H2020- Data Management Plans will be mandatory • 2. Evaluation of MS advances on Open Data will be necessary • 3. Evaluation of MS advances on Open Data will be necessary; Expert Group on FAIR data will advise DG RTD in course of 2016
- 19. European Open ScienceCloud • Competitiveness Council: • "CALLS on the Commission, in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders, to explore appropriate governance and funding frameworks' • European Commission-Follow up of the April 2016 Communication on a European Cloud Initiative: • Commission will need to have a roadmap for funding of European Open Science Cloud by end of 2016 which requires consultation of Member States.
- 20. European Commission DSM & framework conditionsfor data: • Copyright - TDM • Data Protection • Free Flow of Data • … ERA & framework conditions for actors: • European Charter for researchers • Code of conduct for Research Integrity • Charter for Access to Research Infra • … Open Science Policy Platform Wide input from stakeholders: • ad-hoc meetings and workshops • e-platform with wider community • reports and independent experts EG on open science cloud EG on altmetrics EG on alt. business models for OA publishing EG on FAIR open data opinions advice context European Open Science Agenda: • OA publishing models • FAIR open data • Science Cloud • Alternate metrics • Rewards & careers • Education & skills • Citizen Science • Research integrity • … Open Science Policy Platform
- 21. European Open SciencePolicy Agenda (1) Foster Open Science: Creating incentives, e.g. • Establish an Open Science Policy Platform • Promote best practices • Launching a European Open Science Monitor • Promote a discussion on evaluation criteria of research, prepare for next framework programme
- 22. European Open ScienceAgenda (2) Remove barriers, e.g. • European Copyright and Data Protection revisions: foresee appropriate exceptions for research activities - TDM • Development of 'alternative' metrics • Propose a European "code of conduct" • Address low open data-skills amongst researchers and the underuse of professional support (librarians, repository managers etc.)
- 23. Next-generation altmetrics: responsible metricsand evaluation for open science Flash Report EU Expert Group Altmetrics First release September 2016
- 24. EU expert groupmembers James Wilsdon, University of Sheffield (chair); Judit Bar-Ilan, Bar-Ilan University; Robert Frodeman, University of North Texas; Elizabeth Lex, Graz University of Technology; Isabella Peters, Leibniz Information Centre for Economics; Paul Wouters, Leiden University
- 25. Aims /1 ✓assess changingrole of (alt)metrics in research evaluation ✓consider how altmetrics can be developed to support open science ✓engage stakeholders ✓consider implications of metrics for: ✓diversity and equality ✓interdisciplinarity ✓research cultures ✓gaming
- 26. Aims /2 ✓examine implicationsof: ✓emerging social networks ✓research information systems ✓citation profiles ✓to develop a framework for responsible metrics for research qualities and impacts for evaluation of Horizon 2020 and for wider use in the next framework programme ✓to consider required data infrastructures
- 27. Across the research community,the description, production and consumption of ‘metrics’ remains contested and open to misunderstandings.
- 28. ✓ Quantitative evaluationshould support expert assessment. ✓ Measure performance in accordance with the research mission. ✓ Protect excellence in locally relevant research ✓ Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple. ✓ Allow for data verification ✓ Account for variation by field in publication and citation practices ✓ Data should be interpreted taking into account the difficulty of credit assignment in the case of multi-authored publications. ✓ Base assessment of individual researchers on qualitative judgment. ✓ False precision should be avoided ✓ Systemic effects of the assessment and the indicators should be taken into account and indicators should be updated regularly
- 29.
- 30. Responsible metrics ✓ Robustness:basing metrics on the best possible data in terms of accuracy and scope; ✓ Humility: recognizing that quantitative evaluation should support – but not supplant – qualitative, expert assessment; ✓ Transparency: keeping data collection and analytical processes open and transparent, so that those being evaluated can test and verify the results; ✓ Diversity: accounting for variation by field, using a variety of indicators to reflect and support a plurality of research & researcher career paths; ✓ Reflexivity: recognizing the potential & systemic effects of indicators and updating them in response.
- 31. Ambitions for OpenScience ✓ More comprehensive measurement of traditional scientific publications (eg Mendeley) ✓ Recognizing and capturing the diversity of scientific output including new forms (eg software and blogs) ✓ Opening up the whole scientific publication system (open access) and more interactive communication ✓ Opening up the very core of knowledge creation and its role in higher education and innovation (participatory science) 31
- 32. Measuring is changing ✓What counts as excellence is shaped by how we measure and define “excellence” ✓ What counts as impact is shaped by how we measure and define “impact” ✓ Qualities and interactions are the foundation for “excellence” and “impact” so we should understand those more fundamental processes first ✓ We need different indicators at different levels in the scientific system to inform wise management that strikes the right balance between trust and control ✓ Context crucial for effective data standardization
- 33. Call for evidence/1 ✓strong support for development and research of open metrics and altmetrics ✓metrics should complement not replace human judgment of quality ✓altmetrics currently not yet ready for routine use in assessment ✓EU should help develop public sector based metrics ✓diversity key criterion for metrics
- 34. Call for evidence/2 ✓portfolios of metrics for societal interaction and impact urgently needed ✓open standards for data and indicator infrastructure ✓context should prevail over technical standards ✓reflexive protection against gaming strategies ✓strong support for Metrics Tide and Leiden Manifesto principles ✓portfolios of indicators to support open science
- 35. Report outline ✓Metrics: technicalstate of the art ✓Use of metrics in policy and practice ✓Data infrastructures and open standards ✓Cultures of counting, ethics and research ✓Next generation metrics: the way forward More information & updates on the progress of the expert panel can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cf m?pg=altmetrics_eg
- 36. To conclude withsome problems… • Good Metrics for Science 'equals' good metrics for Open Science? • -Impacts of research is becoming more important, but what is a good impact? • -metrics can never directly measure 'impact' and 'excellence'(whatever the definition)- are metrics not more useful for what they are not created for? • Final thesis: Responsible metrics resembles responsible research ( See Von Schomberg, 2013- A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation)