Cargando…

On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study

This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a explorator...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grubb, Alicia M., Easterbrook, Steve M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157385/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21858110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023420
_version_ 1782210293835759616
author Grubb, Alicia M.
Easterbrook, Steve M.
author_facet Grubb, Alicia M.
Easterbrook, Steve M.
author_sort Grubb, Alicia M.
collection PubMed
description This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3157385
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31573852011-08-19 On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study Grubb, Alicia M. Easterbrook, Steve M. PLoS One Research Article This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved. Public Library of Science 2011-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3157385/ /pubmed/21858110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023420 Text en Grubb, Easterbrook. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grubb, Alicia M.
Easterbrook, Steve M.
On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study
title On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study
title_full On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study
title_fullStr On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study
title_full_unstemmed On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study
title_short On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study
title_sort on the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157385/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21858110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023420
work_keys_str_mv AT grubbaliciam onthelackofconsensusoverthemeaningofopennessanempiricalstudy
AT easterbrookstevem onthelackofconsensusoverthemeaningofopennessanempiricalstudy