How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice

Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 128-141

  Levin, Nadine ^a   Leonelli, Sabina ^b   Weckowska, Dagmara ^c   Castle, David ^d   Dupré, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

life sciences; open access; open data; open science; research infrastructure; research practice; science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85024380263     PISSN: 02704676     EISSN: 15524183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0270467616668760     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Acord, S. K., & Harley, D. (2013). Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0. New Media & Society, 15, 379-397.
2. Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2015). Valuing data in postge-nomic biology: How data donation and curation practices challenge the scientific publication system. In H. Stevens & S. Richardson (Eds.), Post-genomics (pp. 126-149). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3. Bezuidenhout, L., Leonelli, S., Kelly, A., & Rappert, B. (in press). Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data. Science and Public Policy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scw036
4. Björk, B.-C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PloS One, 5(6), e11273.
5. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1224-1228.
6. Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 1059-1078.
7. Corrall, S., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Coherence of “open” initiatives in higher education and research: Framing a policy agenda. iCon-ference 2014 Proceedings, 7, 293-313.
8. Desjardins-Proulx, P., White, E. P., Adamson, J. J., Ram, K., Poisot, T., & Gravel, D. (2013). The case for open preprints in biology. PLoS Biology, 11(5), e1001563.
9. Digital Curation Centre. (2014). Overview of funders’ data poli-cies. Retrieved from http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/policy-and-legal/overview-funders-data-policies
10. Editors, P. M. (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine, 3(6), e291.
11. Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A. L., Bowker, G. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011). Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 41, 667-690.
12. European Commission. (2014). Consultation on “Science 2.0”: Science in Transition. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/consultation_en.htm
13. Evans, J. A. (2010). Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40, 757-791.
14. Fenner, M. (2010). Supplementary information: Should I stay or should I go? Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2010/08/27/supplementary_information_should_i_ stay_or_should_i_go/
15. Ferguson, L. (2014). How and why researchers share data (and why they don’t). Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2014/11/03/how-and-why-research-ers-share-data-and-why-they-dont?referrer=exchanges
16. Finch, J. (2012). Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications. Retrieved from https://www.acu.ac.uk/research-information-network/finch-report
17. Gaule, P., & Maystre, N. (2011). Getting cited: Does open access help? Research Policy, 40, 1332-1338.
18. Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Winfield, A. F. (2016). Mapping the hinterland: Data issues in open science. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 88-103.
19. Groves, T., & Godlee, F. (2012). Open science and reproducible research. British Medical Journal, 344, e4383.
20. Grubb, A. M., & Easterbrook, S. M. (2011). On the lack of consen-sus over the meaning of openness: An empirical study. PloS One, 6(8), e23420.
21. Haeussler, C. (2011). Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study. Research Policy, 40, 105-122.
22. HEFCE. (2014). Policy guide: Open access research. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/
23. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.
24. Hilgartner, S., & Brandt-Rauf, S. I. (1994). Data access, owner-ship, and control toward empirical studies of access practices. Science Communication, 15, 355-372.
25. Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two bits: The cultural significance of free soft-ware. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26. Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One, 6(6), e20961.
27. Leonelli, S. (2013). Why the current insistence on open access to scientific data? Big data, knowledge production, and the political economy of contemporary biology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 6-11.
28. Leonelli, S. (2016) Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
29. Leonelli, S., Spichtinger, D., & Prainsack, B. (2015) Sticks and carrots: Incentives for a meaningful implementation of open science guidelines. Geo, 2, 12-16. doi:10.1002/geo2.2
30. LERU Research Data Working Group. (2013). LERU roadmap for research data. Retrieved from http://www.leru.org/files/publications/AP14_LERU_Roadmap_for_Research_data_ final.pdf
31. Lezaun, J., & Montgomery, C. M. (2015). The pharmaceutical com-mons sharing and exclusion in global health drug development. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(1), 3-29.
32. Mauthner, N. S., & Parry, O. (2013). Open access digital data shar-ing: Principles, policies and practices. Social Epistemology, 27(1), 47-67.
33. Nelson, B. (2009). Data sharing: Empty archives. Nature, 461, 160-163.
34. Neylon, C. (2012). Science publishing: Open access must enable open use. Nature, 492, 348-349.
35. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2015). The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and health care: Ethical issues. Retrieved from http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Biological_and_health_data_web.pdf
36. Peters, M. A. (2013). Open science, philosophy and peer review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46, 215-219.
37. Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493, 159-159.
38. RECODE. (2015). RECODE policy recommendations for open access to research data. Retrieved from http://recodeproject. eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/recode_guideline_en_web_ version_full_FINAL.pdf
39. Research Councils UK. (2013a). RCUK common principles on data policy. Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/data-policy/
40. Research Councils UK. (2013b). RCUK policy on open access. Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/policy/
41. Roche, D. G., Lanfear, R., Binning, S. A., Haff, T. M., Schwanz, L. E., Cain, K. E., … Kruuk, L. E. (2014). Troubleshooting public data archiving: Suggestions to increase participation. PLoS Biology, 12(1), e1001779.
42. The Royal Society. (2012a). Data sharing. Retrieved from http://royalsocietypublishing.org/data-sharing
43. The Royal Society. (2012b). Science as an open enterprise. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/sape/2012-06-20-saoe.pdf
44. Sansone, S.-A., Rocca-Serra, P., Field, D., Maguire, E., Taylor, C., Hofmann, O., … Amaral-Zettler, L. (2012). Toward interoper-able bioscience data. Nature Genetics, 44, 121-126.
45. Science International. (2015). Open data in a big data world. Retrieved from http://www.icsu.org/science-international/accord/open-data-in-a-big-data-world-long
46. Tenopir, C., Dalton, E. D., Allard, S., Frame, M., Pjesivac, I., Birch, B., … Dorsett, K. (2015). Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. PLOS One, 10(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.013482
47. The Royal Society. (2012b). Science as an open enterprise. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/sape/2012-06-20-saoe.pdf
48. Wallis, J. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011). Who is responsible for data? An exploratory study of data authorship, ownership, and responsibility. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-10.
49. Wallis, J. C., Rolando, E., & Borgman, C. L. (2013). If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PLoS One, 8(7), e67332.
50. Walsh, J. P., & Huang, H. (2014). Local context, academic entre-preneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and com-mercial activity among Japanese and US scientists. Research Policy, 43, 245-260.
51. Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alterna-tives (PRC Summary Papers 4). London, England: Publishing Research Consortium.
52. The Wellcome Trust. (2012). Position statement in support of open and unrestricted access to published research. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002766.htm
53. The Wellcome Trust. (2013). Policy on data management and sharing. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/about-us/policy/policy-and-position-statements/wtx035043.htm
54. Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday, 10(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1265/1185
55. Wynholds, L. A., Wallis, J. C., Borgman, C. L., Sands, A., & Traweek, S. (2012). Data, data use, and scientific inquiry: Two case studies of data practices. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Washington, DC.