Rebooting science? Implications of science 2.0 main trends for scientific method and research institutions

Foresight

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 204-223

  Szkuta, Katarzyna ^a   Osimo, David ^b  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Citizen science; Data intensive science; Open science; Science 2.0; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 84977518412     PISSN: 14636689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/FS-06-2014-0040     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L. and Roberge, G. (2013), Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels – 2004-2011, Science-Metrix, available at: www.science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf
2. Bartling, S. and Friesieke, S. (Eds) (2014), “Opening Science”, Springer Open, available at: www.openingscience.org
3. Bohannon, J. (2013), “Who is afraid of the Peer Review?”, Science, Vol. 342, p. 6154, pp. 60-65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
4. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A. and Chute, R. (2009), “A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures”, PLoS One, Vol. 4 No. 6, p. e6022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.
5. Bollen, J., Crandall, D., Junk, D., Ding, Y. and Börner, K. (2014), “From funding agencies to scientific agency: collective allocation of science funding as an alternative to peer review”, EMBO Reports, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 131-133.
6. Boudreau, K. and Lakhani, K. (2014), “Open disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology”, Research Policy, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.001.
7. Bücheler, T. and Sieg, J.H. (2011), “Understanding science 2.0: crowdsourcing and open innovation in the scientific method”, Procedia Computer Science, Proceedings of the 2nd European Future Technologies Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 7, pp. 327-329.
8. Burgelman, J.C., Osimo, D. and Bogdanowicz, M. (2010), “Science 2.0 (change will happen…)”, First Monday, Vol. 15, pp. 7-5.
9. Burkholder, L. (Ed.). (1992), Philosophy and the Computer, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
10. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
11. Chesbrough, H.W and West, J. (Eds). (2006), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
12. Coleman, S. (2008), “Foundations of digital government”, Digital Government, E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 3-19.
13. Crawford, K. and Boyd, D. (2011), “Six provocations for big data”, Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926431 accessed 6 May 2016.
14. Dasgupta, P. and David, P.A. (1994), “Toward a new economics of science”, Research Policy, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 487-521. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.
15. David, P.A. (2004), “Patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution: from keeping ‘nature’s secrets’ to the institutionalization of ‘open science Discussion Papers 03-039, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
16. Davis, P.M. (2011), “Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing”, FASEB Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2129-2134. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988.
17. Delfanti, A. (2010), “Open science, a complex movement”, Journal of Science Communication, Vol. 9.
18. Donoho, D.L., Maleki, A. and Shahram, M. (2009), “Reproducible research in computational harmonic analysis”, Computing in Science and Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 8-18.
19. Fecher, B., Friesike, S. and Hebing, M. (2015), “What drives academic data sharing?”, PLoS One, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. e0118053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118053.
20. Fortson, L., Masters, K., Nichol, R., Borne, K., Edmondson, E., Lintott, C., Raddick, J., Schawinski, K. and Wallin, J. (2011), “Galaxy Zoo: morphological classification and citizen science”, available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5513 (accessed 6 May 2016).
21. Franceschet, M. and Costantini, A. (2010), “The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 540-553. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003.
22. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, New Delhi, London, Washington, DC, p. 192.
23. Gray, J. (2009), “A transformed scientific method”, in Hey, T., Tansley, S. and Tolle, K. (Eds), The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery, Miscrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, pp. 17-31.
24. Groth, P., Gibson, A. and Velterop, J. (2010), “The anatomy of a nanopublication”, Information Services and Use, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 51-56, available at: http://iospress.metapress.com/content/ftkh21q50t521wm2 (accessed April 2015).
25. Groth, P. and Gurney, T. (2010), “Studying scientific discourse on the web using bibliometrics: a chemistry blogging case study”, Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, NC.
26. Harley, D., Krzys Acord, S., Earl-Novell, S., Judson King, C. and Lawrence, S. (2010), “Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: an in-depth study of faculty needs and ways of meeting them”, Final Report, Centre for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley, available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc (accessed 6 May 2016).
27. Hey, T., Tansley, S. and Tolle, K. (2009), The Fourth Paradigm, Data Intensive Scientific Discovery, Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA.
28. Hoffman, H.F. (2009), “Open, global collaborations in particle physics, presentation”, available at: http://communia-project.eu/communiafiles/Conf%202009_S_%20Hoffmann_KS.pdf (accessed 28 February 2014).
29. Hufbauer, K. (2006), “Amateurs and the rise of astrophysics 1840–1910”, Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 183-190.
30. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005), “Why most published research findings are false”, PLoS Med, Vol. 2 No. 8, p. e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
31. Kannappan, S. (2001), “Border trading: the amateur-professional partnership in variable star astronomy, MA thesis”, MIT, available at: http://user.physics.unc.edu/∼sheila/entirethesis.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
32. Kotarski, R., Reilly, S., Schrimpf, S., Smit, E. and Walshe, K. (2012), “Report on best practices for citability of data and on evolving roles in scholarly communication”, ODE Report, available at: www.stm-assoc.org/2012_07_10_STM_Research_Data_Group_Data_Citation_and_Evolving_Roles_ODE_Report.pdf (accessed April 2015).
33. Lakhani, K.R. and Panetta, J.A. (2007), “The principles of distributed innovation”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 97-112. doi: 10.1162/itgg.2007.2.3.97.
34. Lazier, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., King, G., Macy, M., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., Roy, D. and Van Alstyne, M. (2009), “Computational social science”, Science, Vol. 323 No. 5915, pp. 721-723. doi: 10.1126/science.1167742.
35. Lyon, L. (2009), “Open science at web-scale: optimising participation and predictive potential”, Consultative Report, JISC.
36. Merali, Z. (2010), “Computational science: … error”, Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 775-777. doi: 10.1038/467775a.
37. Merton, R.K. (1973), The Normative Structure of Science in Merton: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
38. Moody, J. (2004), “The structure of a social science collaboration network”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 69, pp. 213-238.
39. Mukherjee, A. and Stern, S. (2009), “Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of open science”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 27, pp. 449-462.
40. Murray-Rust, P. (2008), “Open data in science”, Serials Review, Vol. 34 No. 1.
41. Nesta and RIN Joint Report (2010), “Open to all? Case studies of openness in research”, available at: www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/data-management-and-curation/open-science-case-studies (accessed April 2015).
42. Neylon, C. and Wu, S. (2009), “Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact”, PLoS Biology, Vol. 7 No. 11, p. e1000242.
43. Nicholas, D., Herman, E. and Jamali, H.R. (2015), “Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars”, JRC Science and Policy Report, JRC- IPTS.
44. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
45. Olson, J.S., Hofer, E., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G.M., Cooney, D. and Faniel, I. (2008), “A theory of remote scientific collaboration”, in Olson, G.M., Zimmerman, A. and Bos, N. (Eds), Scientific Collaboration on the Internet, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
46. Parris, T.M. (1999), “Bytes of note: connecting with citizen science”, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 3-3.
47. PARSE (2009), Insight Into Digital Preservation of Research Output in Europe, available at: www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-4_SurveyReport_final_hq.pdf (accessed April 2015).
48. Piwowar, H., Day, R.S. and Fridsma, D.B. (2007), “Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate”, PLoS One, Vol. 2 No. 3, p. e308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000308.
49. Piwowar, H.A., Vision, T.J. and Whitlock, M.C. (2011), “Data archiving is a good investment”, Nature, Vol. 473, p. 285. doi: org/10.1038/473285a.
50. PLoS, Medicine, and Editors (2006), “The impact factor game: it is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 3, pp. 6, e291. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.
51. Poschl, M. (2012), “Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation”, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Vol. 6 No. 33.
52. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A. and Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010), “Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 368 No. 1926, pp. 4039-4056.
53. Reilly, S., Schallier, W., Schrimpf, S., Smit, E. and Wilkinson, M. (2011), Report on Integration of Data and Publications, Opportunities for Data Exchange Project, available at: www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/downloads/2011/11/ODE-ReportOnIntegrationOfDataAndPublications-1_1.pdf (accessed 8 May 2016).
54. Savage, N. (2012), “Gaining wisdom from crowds”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55 No. 3, p. 13. doi: 10.1145/2093548.2093553.
55. Scheliga, K. and Friesike, S. (2014), “Putting open science into practice: a social dilemma?”, First Monday, Vol. 19 No. 9.
56. Science Editorial (2011), “Dealing with data”, Challenges and Opportunities, Chandos Publishing, Oxford, Vol. 331 No. 6018, pp. 692-693.
57. Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006), “The open research web: a preview of the optimal and the inevitable”, in Jacobs, N. (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, Chandos Publishing, Oxford.
58. Smith, A., Lintott, C. and Alliance, T.C.S. (2010), “Web scale citizen science”, Proceedings of the Royal Society Discussion Meeting Web Science: A New Frontier, London.
59. Solomon, D.J., Laakso, M. and Björk, B.-C. (2013), “A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 642-650.
60. Stodden, V. (2009), “Enabling reproducible research: open licensing for scientific innovation”, International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, Vol. 13.
61. Stodden, V. (2010), “Massive data, the digitization of science, and reproducibility of results, presentation”, CERN Colloquium, Geneva, available at: https://web.stanford.edu/∼vcs/talks/VictoriaStoddenCERN2010.pdf (accessed April 2015).
62. Stodden, V., Guo, P. and Ma, Z. (2013), “Toward reproducible computational research: an empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption”, PLoS One, Vol. 8 No. 6, p. e67111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067111.
63. Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C.A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F. and Chambers, C.D. (2014), “The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study”, BMJ, p. 349. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015.
64. Swan, M. (2012), “Crowdsourced health research studies: an important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. e46. doi: 2196/jmir.1988.
65. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A.U., Wu, L., Read, E., Manoff, A. and Frame, M. (2011), “Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions”, PLOS One, Vol. 6 No. 6, p. e21101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.
66. van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T. and Evans, S.J.W. (2010), “Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial”, BMJ, p. 341. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729.
67. von Ahn, L. and Dabbish, L. (2008), “Designing games with a purpose”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51 No. 8, p. 57. doi: 10.1145/1378704.1378719.
68. Weber, M. (1949), On the Methodology of the Social Sciences, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
69. Wicherts, J.M., Bakker, M. and Molenaar, D. (2011), “Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results”, PLoS One, Vol. 6 No. 11, p. e26828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026828.
70. Wiggins, A. and Crowston, K. (2011), “From conservation to crowd sourcing: a typology of citizen science”, Proceeding HICSS ‘11 Proceedings of the 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, HI.
71. Wouters, P. and Costas, R. (2012), Users, Narcissism and Control: Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century, SURF Foundation, Utrecht, available at: www.surffoundation.nl/nl/publicaties/Documents/Users%20narcissism%20and%20control.pdf (accessed April 2015).
72. Ziman, J. (2000), Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.
73. Nielsen, M. (2011), Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
74. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. and Hemminger, B. (2011), “Altmetrics in the wild: an exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media”, Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research, Vol. 12.