Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Modern information and communication technologies, together with a cultural upheaval within the research community, have profoundly changed research in nearly every aspect. Ranging from sharing and discussing ideas in social networks for scientists to new collaborative environments and novel publication formats, knowledge creation and dissemination as we know it is experiencing a vigorous shift towards increased transparency, collaboration and accessibility. Many assume that research workflows will change more in the next 20 years than they have in the last 200. This book provides researchers, decision makers, and other scientific stakeholders with a snapshot of the basics, the tools, and the underlying visions that drive the current scientific (r)evolution, often called ‘Open Science.’
According to the study, the most common reason for denying requests was the amount of effort required for compliance. Vision presents disciplinary data repositories that are maintained by the data creators themselves as an appropriate solution to the problem. This way, scientists would only need to upload their data once instead of complying with requests. Although Vision emphasizes the necessity to minimize the submission burden for the author, he does not suggest concrete inducements for scientists to upload their data (for instance forms of community recognition or other material rewards).
Gloning, T. (2012). Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation 2010–2011 Eine Online-Befragung, Giessen: Giessener Elektronische Bibliothek. Available at: http:// geb. uni-giessen. de/geb/volltexte/2012/8539/index. html. Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science–discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology & Society, 14(2), 221–240. doi:10. 1177/ 097172180901400202. Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature, 458(7236), 274–277. doi:10. 1038/458274a.
Moreover, the increase in citations is not a sign of increased dispersion of scientific knowledge because, presumably, most articles get quoted unread. This has been shown by research that documents how mistakes from the cited papers are also included in the articles which cite them. (Simkin and Roychowdhury 2005). Therefore, more and more articles are published but they are read less and less. The whole process represents a vicious circle that leads to a rapid increase in the publication of nonsense.
Puschmann, C. , & Mahrt, M. (2012). Scholarly blogging: A new form of publishing or science journalism 2. 0? In A. Tokar et al. (Eds. ), Science and the Internet (pp. 171–181). Düsseldorf: University Press. Redfield, R. (2010). Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA’s claims). RRResearch. Available at: http://rrresearch. fieldofscience. com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas. html. Reich, E. S. (2011). Researchers tweet technical talk. Nature, 474(7352), 431–431. Shema, H. , Bar-Ilan, J. , & Thelwall, M. (2012) research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information C.
Mathias Binswanger 49 Science Caught Flat-Footed: How Academia Struggles with Open Science Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander Gerber 73 Open Science and the Three Cultures: Expanding Open Science to all Domains of Knowledge Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michelle Sidler 81 Part II Tools (Micro)Blogging Science? Notes on Potentials and Constraints of New Forms of Scholarly Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cornelius Puschmann 89 Academia Goes Facebook?