dr.dr.phil. rene von schomberg open science...open sciencedr.dr.phil. rene von schomberg team leader...

Open ScienceDr. Dr.Phil. Rene VON SCHOMBERGTeam Leader-Open science policy coordination and development

European CommissionDG Research & InnovationA.6-Data, Open Access and Foresight

Open Science: a new approach to the research process

Open Science

• Based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing and sharing knowledge using digital technologies and new collaborative tools

• A systemic change to the way science is organised and research iscarried out

• It affects virtually all components of doing science and research, from conceptual work to publishing, from empirical research to data-analysis.

• Shifting focus from "publishing as fast as possible" to "sharing knowledge as early as possible"

• 2014 Public consultation on ‘Science 2.0: Science in Transition’

Notes:tiamultriciesnisivelaugue.Curabiturullamcorperultriciesnisi.Namegetdui.Etiamrhoncus.Maecenastempus,tellusegetcondimentumrhoncus,semquamsemperlibero,

Source : http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf

Collaborative bibliographies

Analysis

Open Science

Open Science – opening up the research process

Analysis

Publication

ReviewConceptualisation

Data gathering

Open access

Scientific blogs Collaborative

bibliographies

Alternative Reputation

systems

Citizens science Open

code

Open workflows

Open annotation

Open data

Pre-print

Data-intensive

4

Sci-starter.com

Runmycode.org

Impact Story

Openannotation.org

Anemergingecosystemofservicesandstandards

It's real!

11%

22%

26%

28%

32%

36%

34%

30%

43%

47%

76%

33%

40%

45%

44%

41%

39%

42%

46%

43%

43%

22%

6%

6%

3%

3%

6%

2%

6%

4%

3%

34%

22%

20%

19%

15%

16%

14%

17%

9%

7%

2%

16%

9%

6%

6%

6%

7%

4%

3%

3%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Citizens acting as scientists

Scientific publishers engaging in 'Science 2.0'

Public demand for faster solutions to Societal Challenges

Growing public scrutiny of science and research

Public funding supporting 'Science 2.0'

Public demand for better and more effective science

Growing criticism of current peer-review system

Increase of the global scientific population

Researchers looking for new ways of collaboration

Researchers looking for new ways of disseminating their output

Availability of digital technologies and their increased capacities

What are the key drivers of 'Science 2.0'?

I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree

26%

44%

43%

43%

35%

47%

43%

46%

50%

53%

44%

32%

37%

38%

46%

35%

41%

39%

38%

35%

6%

6%

4%

6%

5%

6%

4%

5%

4%

3%

17%

13%

13%

9%

10%

10%

9%

9%

7%

8%

7%

5%

3%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Concerns about ethical and privacy issues

Lack of incentives for junior scientists to engage with 'Science 2.0'

Lack of research skills fit for 'Science 2.0'

Legal constraints (e.g. copyright law)

Uncertain benefits for researchers

Lack of financial support

Limited awareness of benefits of 'Science 2.0 for researchers

Lack of integration in the existing infrastructures

Lack of credit-giving to 'Science 2.0'

Concerns about quality assurance

What are the barriers for 'Science 2.0' at the level of individual scientist?

I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree

18%

21%

29%

33%

37%

41%

42%

42%

46%

40%

39%

47%

43%

41%

38%

40%

41%

37%

8%

9%

6%

6%

6%

6%

6%

3%

4%

26%

22%

14%

15%

13%

13%

10%

11%

10%

8%

9%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Crowd-funding an important research funding source

Research more responsive to society through crowd-funding

Science more responsive to societal challenges

Reconnect science and society

Greater scientific integrity

Data-intensive science as a key economic driver

Faster and wider innovation

Science more efficient

Science more reliable (e.g. re-use of data)

What are the implications of 'Science 2.0‘ for society, the economy and the research system?

I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know

I partially disagree I totally disagree

Background

7.4 7.46.9

6.25.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3

4.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mea

n r

anki

ng

posi

tion

On what issues within 'Science 2.0' do you see a need for policy intervention?

Mean

Mean - std

Mean + std

Rank : the lowest need (1) to the highest need (11)

Five lines of potential policy actions

Open Science

• Fostering and creating incentives for Open Science

• Removing barriers to Open Science

• Mainstreaming and further promoting Open Access policies

• Developing research infrastructures for Open Science

• Embedding Open Science in society as a socio-economicdriver


Open Science: key issues

Open Science

• The European Open Science Cloud

• Advancing Open Access and Data Policies

• Alternative systems to evaluate the quality and impact of research

• Text and Data Mining

• Towards better, more efficient and more Open Science

• Fostering Research Integrity

• Making science more inclusive: Citizen Science


Discovery Analysis Writing Publication Outreach Assessment

Elsevier

Springer Nature Digital Science

Google

Wikimedia

Open ScienceSource: http://innoscholcomm.silk.co

Open Science: From Open Access to Open Scholarly Communication

Public or private initiatives at every level of the research process offering specific services to researchers

Layer of "commons"

New initiatives allowing the scholarly process to be carried out differently

Open ScienceSource: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/11/11/101-innovations-in-scholarly-communication/

researchgovernance

changes

technicalchanges &standards

economic& copyright

changes

GOOD

OPENEFFICIENT

Towards ‘better science’ – Good, efficient and Open Science

§ connected tools & platforms§ no publ. size restrictions§ null result publishing§ speed of publication§ (web)standards, IDs§ semantic discovery§ Re-useability§ versioning

§ open peer review§ open (lab)notes § plain language§ open drafting§ open access

§ CC-0/BY

§ declaring competing interests§ replication & reproducibility§ meaningful assessment§ effective quality checks§ credit where it is due§ no fraud, plagiarism

Open Science Policy Platform and European Open Science Agenda

• May 2016 Competitiveness Council:

• "NOTES the establishment of the Open Science Policy Platform by the Commission, which aims at supporting the further development of the European Open Science policy and promoting the uptake by stakeholders of best practices, including issues such as adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics, guiding principles for optimal reuse of research data, development and use of standards, and other aspects of open science such as fostering research integrity and developing citizen science";

• Commissioner Moedas will inform the Council biannually on advances of the Platform (which consist of 25 Key stakeholders-European Branch Organisations)

European Commission

DSM & framework conditions for data:• Copyright - TDM• Data Protection• Free Flow of Data• …

ERA & framework conditions for actors:• European Charter for

researchers • Code of conduct for

Research Integrity• Charter for Access to

Research Infra• …

Open Science Policy Platform

Wide input from stakeholders:• ad-hoc meetings and workshops• e-platform with wider community• reports and independent experts

ü EG on open science cloudü EG on altmetricsü EG on alt. business models

for OA publishingü EG on FAIR open data

opinions

advice

context

European Open Science Agenda:• OA publishing models• FAIR open data• Science Cloud• Alt metrics• Rewards & careers• Education & skills• Citizen Science• Research integrity• …

Open Science Policy Platform

Next-generation altmetrics:responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

EU Expert Group Altmetrics

Development of recommendations

Hearings Call forEvidence6

Experts

• 5 headline findings• 12 targeted recommendations organised

under four of the headings of the European Open Science Agenda:• Foster open science• Remove barriers to open science• Develop research infrastructures for open science • Embed open science in society

Recommendations

• No perfect metrics: neither alternative, nor traditional

• Responsible use of metrics is key

• Open science requires open metrics

Headline findings

Selected recommendationsRecommendations Short Term Goals Long Term Goal

Ground an open science system in a mix of expert judgement, quantitative, andqualitative measures

Provide guidelines forresponsible metrics in support of open science

Fostering open

science


Ground an open science system in a mix of expert judgement, quantitative, andqualitative measures

Provide guidelines forresponsible metrics in support of open science

Fostering open

scienceMake better use ofexisting metrics foropen science

Assess suitability ofindicators, encouragedevelopment of newindicators


Open, transparent and linked datainfrastructure formetrics in open science

Use open metrics andreward adoption of open science principles andpractices Removing

barriersto

openscience


Open, transparent and linked datainfrastructure formetrics in open science

Use open metrics andreward adoption of open science principles andpractices Removing

barriersto

openscienceMeasure whatmatters

Highlight howinappropriate use ofindicators can impedeopen science

Initial endorsement by OSPP-I• Mix of expert judgement, quantitative and

qualitative measures.

• Transparency and accuracy are crucial

• Make better use of existing metrics for open science

• open, transparent data infrastructure

• Measure what matters

Initial endorsement by OSPP-II• clear guidelines for the responsible use of metrics

• development of new indicators and use suitable existing ones for open science.

• adoption and implementation of open science principles and practices should be rewarded

• highlight how the inappropriate use of indicators (whether conventional or altmetrics or next generation metrics) can impede progress towards open science

To conclude with some problems…• -Does Good Metrics for Science 'equals' good

metrics for Open Science? • -Impacts of research is becoming more important,

but what is a good impact?• -metrics can never directly measure 'impact' and

'excellence'(regardless how their definition)- Are metrics not more useful for what they are not created for?)

Hence (RvS): indicators for engagement with Open Science (not focus on individual "productivity" of researchers)

dr.dr.phil. rene von schomberg open science...open sciencedr.dr.phil. rene von schomberg team leader...

Documents