Science 2.0 study

Updates on progress and discussions on results of Science 2.0: implications for European policies on research and innovation study

Openness in the Research Cycle

We’re looking for a model that enables us to describe the changes in the research process brought by Science.2.0. First, we have proposed division between open science, citizen science and data-intensive science.

Now, we have focused on the research cycle trying to capture different applications on different stages of research process. The inner cycle on the diagram below represents stages of the research process from the conceptualisation to the publication of a peer-reviewed article.

In the science.2.0 model the openness, principles of sharing and collaboration are (can be) present on every stage of the research process whereas in the traditional model, only result that is shared is the peer-reviewed article (often behind a paywall).

At the conceptualisation stage open discussions around ideas (blogs, fora) and knowledge sharing is important (open annotation, open bibliographies). Subsequently we have the stage of gathering data where data and research praxis can be shared in real-time (open data, open lab notebooks) and gathered in collaboration with citizens. In order to deposit data to enable further analysis we need eInfrastructures. Also in many instances the data can be analysed with the help of volunteers (citizen science) and open collaboration (collaborative analysis) . The analysis of data can be facilitated by sharing the open software. The outcome of analysis can be published as an article or a book chapter (which can be updated in an instance – liquid publications) but also as a statement accompanied with metadata that is linked with other statements (nanopublications). The article can be published in an open access journal or submitted to an institutional repository allowing wider accessibility. Data can be published  and linked to the article. Finally, publications are subject of the review by the academic community to establish the importance of the findings and filter the increasing number of scientific literature according to their relevance and significance for the field. Publications can be opened to post-peer reviews when the community openly discusses the importance of the discovery. Also other reputation systems, distinct from peer-review can be used to measure scientific excellence and author/publication impact (e.g. altmetrics).

What’s missing in our diagram?  What should be added/changed in order to better capture the Science2.0 phenomenon?

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

4 thoughts on “Openness in the Research Cycle

  1. Hi, good work!
    But there is something in the “research cycle” that I am somehow missing.

    As it is now, it seems that “science” comes out out of the nothing.
    But in most cases… science is depending on, or it is rather almost adicted to… funding.
    In the case of Europe -where there are already Master degrees on ‘How to get money from the EC’- this is frequently the case.

    In many cases the “Conceptualisation” phase is not that much a pre-rrequisite for “Data gathering” but for some kind of “Project proposals/Fund gathering” phase.

    I think some kind of “golden rule” (ie: following the flows of money) is needed to analyse science, if we want to understand its working.
    For example: a lot of “Publishing results” is not that much related with real results coming from “Analisys” but with the need to justify the funding /Comply with demands from research institutions to obtain High Impact publications (if you want to keep the job and/or progress in your scientific career).

    So… if we are going to thing about Open Science, “Funding” could be somehow included in the analysis. Maybe adding it as an (optional) phase of the inner cycle.

    What is clear is that, in order to have a working “open science”, in the outher cycle we would need something like… “Open-minded funding”? ;-).

  2. Thanks a lot, Pedro, really useful. Certainly the funding is important and some times it has a lot of impact on the research process (e.g. open access mandates) so we should add it to the circle. So I would put open access mandate and open data mandate in funding phase. What else?

  3. Pingback: Shape with us the future research priorities of the EU – comment on the draft policy recommendations « Science 2.0 study

  4. Pingback: Science 2.0 is not just a passing fad: crowdsourcing the evidence « Science 2.0 study

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: