Organizing in Times of Crisis: The Case of Covid-19
Class 8: Open Science, Data and Commons
Leonhard Dobusch
April 2020 University of Innsbruck If I have seen further it is by “standing on the shoulders of Giants. Isaac Newton > > >
Mertonian Science Communism All scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods, to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm.
Merton (1942) I hereby assign to [scientific publisher] “exclusively all my right, title and interest in said article, including without limitation the copyright therein. Source: standard copyright form of a large academic publisher Sci-Hub: 28 million downloads in 6 months
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers Source:Screenshot http://www.sci-hub.cc/ 31.5.2016 Tell us what you think about Sci-Hub—Love it or Hate it? – Beantwortungen | SurveyMonkey
Tell us what you think about Sci-Hub—Love it or Hate it?
Q1 Share Tweet Share Share
Do you think it is wrong to download 10937 responses pirated papers? 4/21/2016 - 5/5/2016 Answered: 10,841 Skipped: 96
224 views
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers
Antwortoptionen Beantwortungen
Yes 12.13% 1,315
No 87.87% 9,526
Total 10,841
Q2
Have you used Sci-Hub, and if so, how often?
Answered: 10,874 Skipped: 63
Never
A few times
Daily or weekly
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Antwortoptionen Beantwortungen
Never 41.11% 4,470
A few times 33.27% 3,618
Daily or weekly 25.62% 2,786
Total 10,874
Q3
Have you used other repositories of pirated journal articles, or used the twitter hashtag #IcanhazPDF to obtain a paper.
Answered: 10,817 Skipped: 120 https://de.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-PQX56R8R/ 1/4 Publication Process
Scientific Publication „Desk Rejection“ Editor letter Process explaining the decision
Editor Submission reads submission
Sends out manuscript to Editor makes two to four reviewers a decision
Editor makes Inivation to revise and Article gets Sign a a decision resubmit („R&R“) published copyright form (maybe after consulting the reviwers) Publication Process
„Desk Rejection“ Editor letter explaining the decision
Editor Submission reads submission
Sends out manuscript to Editor makes Scientific Publication Process two to four reviewers a decision
Editor makes Inivation to revise and Article gets Sign a a decision resubmit („R&R“) published copyright form (maybe after consulting the reviwers) Open Access
Open Open Formats Licenses
Open Access Mandates EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research & Innovation by Funding Institutions
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Guidelines Brussels,on Open Access Directorate-General for Research & Innovation to Scientific Publications and Research Data ERCEA/12.04.2016 in Horizon 2020
Dear grantee of the European Research Council,
You are the Principal Investigator of an ERC grant funded under Horizon 2020, and we
would like to provide you with important information regardingVersion the 2.1 requirements for open 15 February 2016 access to publications.
Please be reminded that you have an obligation to ensure open access to all peer-
reviewed scientific publications related to the results of the ERC project. We would like to Guidelinesemphasize that onthe mandatoryOpen Access open access for ERC projects in H2020 applies not to Scientificonly to peer Publications reviewed journal and articles, Research but to Data all types of peer reviewed scientific publications, includingin Horizon books and2020 monographs. You can ensure open access through the green (self-archiving) or gold (publishing open access) route. Choosing green open access means that you provide open access by depositing a copy of the final peer-reviewed manuscript (or published version) in a repository. Open access should be provided as soon as possible and in any case no later than six months after the official publication date.Version For 2.1 publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain a delay of up to twelve15 monthsFebruary 2016 is acceptable. Choosing gold open access means ensuring that an electronic version will be available for free via the publisher. Be aware that also in these cases, a copy of the publication must be deposited in a repository, at the latest on publication (either by the publisher or the researcher). These are the main open access obligations in your grant agreement and we advise you to read the full text of the relevant article (29.2) with more details, at the end of this letter. The ERC strongly encourages ERC funded researchers to use discipline-specific repositories for their publications. The recommended repository for Life Sciences is Europe PubMed Central (http://europepmc.org) and for Physical Sciences and Engineering arXiv (http://arxiv.org/). The recommended repository for monographs, book chapters and other long-text publications is the OAPEN Library (http://oapen.org). Institutional repositories and centralised repositories are also acceptable. Open access fees are eligible costs that may be charged to the ERC grant, if they incur in the duration of the projects, even if this was not planned in the original budget. There is however no additional funding for this type of costs. Be reminded that as stated in your
ERC Executive Agency Place Rogier 16, COV2 21/132, BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium I Tel: +32 2 299 45 89 I Fax +32 2 299 45 89 I [email protected] I http://erc.europa.eu I International Review of General Linguistics
Revue Internationale de Linguistique Générale
Interim editor H. Whitaker
Please note that the articles in this issue were handled by the previous editorial team: Johan Rooryck, Anikó Lipták, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Chung-hye Han and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli
Open Access Publishing (peer-reviewed) Volume 169 ( 2016)
>>
Amsterdam – Boston – London – New YorkContext: https://governancexborders.com/2015/11/07/open-access-and-the-– Oxford – Philadelphia – San Diego – St. Louis power-of-editorial-boards-why-elsevier-plays-hardball-with-deviant-linguists/
International Review of General Linguistics
Revue Internationale de Linguistique Générale
Interim editor H. Whitaker
Please note that the articles in this issue were handled by the previous editorial team: Johan Rooryck, Anikó Lipták, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Chung-hye Han and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli
Volume 169 ( 2016 )
Amsterdam – Boston – London – New York – Oxford – Philadelphia – San Diego – St. Louis From Open Access to Open Science Open Science is the idea Open Access “that scientific knowledge of Open (Research) all kinds should be openly Data / Materials shared as early as is Open Source / practical in the research Open Methods process. Katja Mayer Open Instructions
Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science
Foto: Ralf Rebmann, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katja_Mayer_1.jpg, CC BY-SA 4.0 International Open Access
Open (Research) Data / Materials
Open Source / Open Methods
Open Instructions
Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science
Screenshot:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov Open Access
Open (Research) Data / Materials
Open Source / Open Methods
Open Instructions
Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science
Screenshot: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/covid-19-coronavirus-data Open Access
Open (Research) Data / Materials
Open Source / Open Methods
Open Instructions
Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science
Screenshot:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov Open Access
Open (Research) Data / Materials
Open Source / Open Methods
Open Instructions
Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science
Screenshot:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov Open Access Preprint server ‣ Scientific peers Open (Research) ‣ Media audiences Data / Materials
Open Source / Open Methods Open peer review Open ‣ Open identities Instructions ‣ Open reports Open Education ‣ Open participation O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science Credit: CC-BY-SA AJ Cann, via https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/learning/open-peer-review Open Access
Open (Research) Data / Materials
Open Source / Open Methods
Open Instructions How to organize science Open Education more openly? O P E N S C I E NCE E CI S N E P O
Open Evaluation
Citizen Science Organizing Open Strategies in Science
Goals Levels ‣ Sharing and collaboration ‣ Transparency and reproducibility ‣ Re-usability and new applications ‣ Societal participation and feedback loops
Source: Presentation by Maximilian Heimstädt and Katja Mayer Source: Taken from Brian Nosek https://osf.io/r9v3p/ and https://cos.io/blog/strategy-culture-change Contact
E-Mail: [email protected] Twitter: @leonidobusch Web: bit.ly/LD-UIBK // dobusch.net
Research blogs: osconjunction.net governancexborders.com References
‣ Dobusch, L., & Heimstädt, M. (2019). Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review. Management Learning, 50(5), 607-619. ‣ Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: one term, five schools of thought. In Opening science (pp. 17-47). Springer. ‣ Mayer, K. (2018): Open Science, all or nothing?, https://zenodo.org/record/ 1889751#.XpnCHlMzYWo ‣ Merton, R. K. (1973) [1942]. The Normative Structure of Science. In: Merton, R. K. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754