information

Article Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia

Clara Inés Pardo Martínez 1,* and Alexander Cotte Poveda 2 1 Colombian Observatory of Science and Technology, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá 11011, Colombia 2 Colombian Observatory of Science and Technology, Universidad Santo Tomas, Bogotá 11011, Colombia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]



Received: 15 October 2018; Accepted: 12 November 2018; Published: 21 November 2018


Abstract: Open science can provide researchers diverse opportunities to collaborate, disseminate their research results, generate important impacts in the scientific community, and engage in effective and efficient science for the benefit of society. This study seeks to analyse and evaluate researchers’ knowledge of open science in Colombia using a survey to determine adequate instruments with which to improve research in the framework of open science. The aim of the study is to determine researchers’ current awareness of open science by considering demographic characteristics to analyse their attitudes, values, and information habits as well as the levels of institutionalism and social appropriation of open science. A representative sample of Colombian researchers was selected from the National Research System. An anonymous online survey consisting of 34 questions was sent to all professors and researchers at Colombian universities and research institutes. Sampling was random and stratified, which allowed for a representative sample of different categories of researchers, and principal component analysis (PCA) was used for the sample design. A total of 1042 responses were received, with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 3%. The majority of respondents knew about open science, especially in relation to open science tools (software, repositories, and networks) and open data. Researchers consider open science to be positively impacted by factors such as the rise of digital technologies, the search for new forms of collaboration, the greater availability of open data and information, and public demand for better and more effective science. In contrast, a lack of resources to develop research activities within the open science approach and the limited integration between traditional and open science are identified as the most important barriers to its use in research. These results are important for building adequate open science policy in Colombia.

Keywords: open science; survey; perceptions; researchers; Colombia

1. Introduction In recent years, open science has generated changes in the scientific research process, including in the development, evaluation, and use of new knowledge for researchers and society. The improvement and application of information technology has created alternative ways to assess, publish and disseminate research results that are characterised by their quality and veracity and researchers’ scientific reputation, whereby different stakeholders are affected by this new scientific perspective [1]. Open science is a new approach to scientific practice based on cooperative research and new methods of knowledge distribution using digital technologies and new collaborative tools that promote joint effort along with the sharing of results and new knowledge as early and as widely as possible. The goal of open science is to participate with broader communities to address global challenges more effectively and guarantee that science and research are fundamental to the innovation, growth and development of countries [2].

Information 2018, 9, 292; doi:10.3390/info9110292 www.mdpi.com/journal/information Information 2018, 9, 292 2 of 19

Different approaches to open science have emerged, emphasizing different aspects. These include [3] (i) democratic, which aims for all knowledge to become free and available to everybody, including open access, open data and codes, and intellectual property rights; (ii) pragmatic, where the objective is the open process of knowledge creation, including networking and open data and codes; (iii) infrastructure, which is derived from open and available platforms, tools, and services for scientists; (iv) public, which implies that science should be accessible to society, including citizen science, scientific projects with social participation, and science blogs; and (v) measurement, which refers to the development of a new system to evaluate scientific impacts through alternative metrics. These approaches indicate the importance of analysing open science and taking into account the entire research process to determine the main perceptions, ideas, opinions, and knowledge of researchers in the application and use of different elements and tools of open science with the aim to improve research process. In the Latin American context, studies on the perceptions of open science are limited. However, various countries have developed political initiatives to promote open science and open data. In particular, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador seek to guarantee equal access to knowledge, reduce gaps in cooperation and transparency, increase the impact of research in the region, and articulate an open science policy that strengthens the scientific process as a driver of growth, development, and innovation [4]. In this context, the objective of this study is to assess researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with open science in Colombia, to examine its impact and to understand how Colombian researchers use the scientific process and research cycle to promote open science in their country. The scope of this study is based on the need to update science, technology, and innovation policies in the framework of open science in Colombia based on three relevant sources: the Colombian Digital Library Project, the National System of Open Access, and the Open Data Platform. An analysis examines the perceptions, opinions, and recommendations of Colombian researchers in order to strengthen the open science process in the country. The general hypothesis of this study is that Colombian researchers who consider open science in the research process are limited. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section2 provides a literature review related to previous studies of the perception of open science. Section3 explains the methods used in this study. Section4 describes the main results and provides a discussion. Finally, Section5 presents the main conclusions.

2. Literature Review Open science represents a new perspective of scientific development and the scientific process based on cooperative work and research as well as information circulation through networks using advanced technologies and collaborative tools. Open science seeks to facilitate knowledge generation and acquisition through collaborative networks and to encourage the generation of solutions based on openness and sharing [5]. Open science includes the following components [6,7], (i) open access implies free access to scientific knowledge for everyone without restrictions, and its use according to creative commons licenses is assumed; (ii) open data are data that can be freely used, shared, and built upon by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose, although the integrity and authorship of the data must be guaranteed [8]; (iii) open reproducible research provides access to the results (open access), to the process (open data), and to the methodology and other aspects of the research process that make it possible to understand how the results were achieved and to allow the research work to be replicated and reproduced; (iv) evaluation of open science implies the use of cybermetrics, webmetrics, altmetrics, and different types of impacts (impact factor and the H index), including social impacts, for the dissemination of solutions to society’s problems; (v) open science policy refers to all governmental or institutional actors or programmes that seek to encourage and regulate open science in a specific society or academic community through different strategies and resources; and (vi) open science tools are technological Information 2018, 9, 292 3 of 19 tools that help in the development of open science, such as platforms for integration (software and hardware) and networks. This project emerged from the requirements of Colombian public policy and the guidelines of the National Development Plan, which prioritizes the establishment of solid ecosystems of open data where science, technology and innovation play an important role. The country needs to define a formal policy to promote open science that benefits society, especially for the scientific community with respect to legal requirements (copyrights) and institutional rules and requirements of researchers. Moreover, in this country, the main studies on open science focus on Colombian researchers’ access to information, transparent science, and open access [9–11]. Various universities have research groups and initiatives to promote open science with the help of libraries and research offices. To analyse how acquainted Colombian researchers are with open science and its tools, a survey was used because it is the most frequently applied mechanism to explore researchers’ perceptions, opinions, and knowledge of open science. Prior studies have examined specific knowledge areas based researchers’ age, territorial scope or academic education. The main studies of the perception of open science and its components, such as open access, are the following.

I To analyse data policy research in institutions, Leaders Activating Research Networks (LEARN) [12] developed the study ‘Ready to manage research data?’ in Europe and Latin America. It included thirteen questions to evaluate data management in different institutions.

I To examine users’ experience with open science networks, Open Science Grid [13] developed the Open Science Grid PKI General User Survey study with different network users. It included nine questions on users’ experience with open science and their interactions in the network.

I To evaluate the particularities and context of research and its relationship with global changes, Belmont Forum [14] established the study Skills for e-infrastructures and data management in global change research worldwide. It used twenty-one questions on research contexts related to data infrastructure requirements to promote open science.

I To evaluate the knowledge and perceptions of open access in social science and the humanities, Edith Cowan University (ECU) [15] developed a study with thirteen questions related to knowledge of open access and its application as well as users’ experience publishing in open access contexts.

I To compare the perceptions, motivations, and behaviours of researchers in relation to open science in three areas—physics, economics, and medicine—the study called ‘Open science: one term, five schools of thought’ [16] was developed. It included eighteen questions to analyse the degree of acceptance of open science by researchers in three different areas of knowledge.

I A study on perceptions of open access based on the experience and age of researchers was conducted on academic research faculty members possessing a PhD at U.S. universities and colleges. It included four questions on open access perceptions [17].

I In Spain, a study was performed to determine the perceptions of open access among PhD students, professors and researchers at a university. It included thirty-seven questions related to different elements of open access [18].

These studies included questions that evaluated researchers’ knowledge and use of open science, although some studies only included open access as a component of open science. Moreover, the studies analysed the main barriers or constraints for open science, which include (i) the lack of evaluation by academic peers, (ii) publications of lower quality or prestige, (iii) studies in draft form, (iv) the danger of open science publishing harming one’s career, (v) the lack of institutional support for open access, (vi) the unclear benefits of open science, (vii) the lack of financial support for open science, and (viii) the lack of national and institutional policies and guidelines for open access publishing. These results show that open science is important to the research process. In general, studies of the perceptions of open science consider specific elements or components such as open access. Hence, this study seeks to design a survey that includes different open science approaches to add value Information 2018, 9, 292 4 of 19 for determining researchers’ perceptions of open science. As explained in the methodology section, various facets of these studies informed the design of the survey (see Table1).

Table 1. Conforming categories in Colombian departments of study.

Category Colombian Departments Sample Size Amazonas, Boyacá, Caldas, Caquetá, Casanare, Cauca, Cesar, Chocó, 1 Córdoba, Cundinamarca, Huila, La Guajira, Magdalena, Meta, Nariño, 242 Norte de Santander, Quindío, Risaralda, Sucre, and Tolima. 2 Atlántico, Bolívar, Santander, and Valle del Cauca. 205 3 Antioquia. 136 4 Bogotá D.C. 459 Total 1042

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area and Population For this study, a survey was administered to Colombian researchers registered on the national platform Scienti in the application CvLAC, which contains the curriculum vitae of national researchers and is administered by Colciencias, the agency chiefly responsible for the administration of science, technology, and innovation in Colombia. The study population comprises 72,797 researchers registered on the Scienti platform as of December 2016, which are distributed in different Colombian departments.

3.2. Sampling Technique, Sample Size, and Data Collection To achieve a suitable sample size from this population, a probabilistic sample was used to ensure, with confidence, that the different units of sample researchers have equal probabilities of being chosen. A sample size of 1042 researchers was calculated to guarantee a margin of error of 3% and a confidence level of 95%. Confidence intervals (CI) for the population proportion (P) were identified as defined in Equation (1), with sample proportion (Ps), population size (N), sample size (n), and the table value from the standard normal distribution at the 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96) [19]. Sample proportion (Ps) is the proportion of researchers in a sample who share a common trait [19]. Population proportion (P) is the proportion of total researchers who share a common trait [19]. The probability of acquaintance inclusion was assigned to be greater than zero, and a priori probabilities were assigned as a condition of the selection mechanisms, which allowed for precise and reliable statistical inferences of the target population and a national representative sample of Colombian researchers from the National Research System. r r P (1 − P ) N − n CI f or P = P ± Z s s (1) s n N − 1 To determine the different categories from the geographical distribution and the presence of researchers in every Colombian department, the technique used was random and stratified sampling. This study used principal component analysis to identify high correlations between selected variables for grouping (according to size of the researcher population in every Colombian department, the number of affiliated institutions, and the number of research groups). These variables indicated strong correlations (see Figure1). Next, this study applied a hierarchical method with Ward’s method and the k-means method using the function cluster.carac and selected the algorithm for strata Fan–Muller–Rezucha. Table1 shows the categories and sample size of the survey. Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area and Population For this study, a survey was administered to Colombian researchers registered on the national platform Scienti in the application CvLAC, which contains the curriculum vitae of national researchers and is administered by Colciencias, the agency chiefly responsible for the administration of science, technology, and innovation in Colombia. The study population comprises 72.797 researchers registered on the Scienti platform as of December 2016, which are distributed in different Colombian departments.

3.2. Sampling Technique, Sample Size, and Data Collection To achieve a suitable sample size from this population, a probabilistic sample was used to ensure, with confidence, that the different units of sample researchers have equal probabilities of being chosen. A sample size of 1042 researchers was calculated to guarantee a margin of error of 3% and a confidence level of 95%. Confidence intervals (CI) for the population proportion (P) were identified as defined in Equation (1), with sample proportion (Ps), population size (N), sample size (n), and the table value from the standard normal distribution at the 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96) [19]. Sample proportion (Ps) is the proportion of researchers in a sample who share a common trait [19]. Population proportion (P) is the proportion of total researchers who share a common trait [19]. The probability of acquaintance inclusion was assigned to be greater than zero, and a priori probabilities were assigned as a condition of the selection mechanisms, which allowed for precise and reliable statistical inferences of the target population and a national representative sample of Colombian researchers from the National Research System.

(1 − ) − = ± (1) − 1

To determine the different categories from the geographical distribution and the presence of researchers in every Colombian department, the technique used was random and stratified sampling. This study used principal component analysis to identify high correlations between selected variables for grouping (according to size of the researcher population in every Colombian department, the number of affiliated institutions, and the number of research groups). These variables indicated strong correlations (see Figure 1). Next, this study applied a hierarchical method with Ward’s method

Informationand the2018 k,-9means, 292 method using the function cluster.carac and selected the algorithm for strata Fan5 of– 19 Muller–Rezucha. Table 1 shows the categories and sample size of the survey.

Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

FigureFigure 1. 1.Factorial Factorial mapsmaps andand hierarchal tree tree (using (using the the Ward Ward technique) technique) of ofvariables variables used used to conform to conform categoriescategories of of Colombian Colombian departments.departments.

3.3. Survey and InstrumentsTable 1. Conforming categories in Colombian departments of study.

CategoryThis research used a survey questionnaire.Colombian Surveys Departments are the best method to cover a largeSample population Size and ensure anAmazonas, accurate Boyacá, sample. Caldas, The Caquetá, questionnaire Casanare, was Cauca, divided Cesar, into Chocó, five sections,Córdoba, with a total of 34 questions1 Cundinamarca, (see Table2 ).Huila, The La questions Guajira, Magdalena, were selected Meta, Nariño, based Norte on de a Santander, literature Quindío, review and242 an expert Risaralda, Sucre, and Tolima. panel from2 ColcienciasAtlántico, Bolívar, (Colombian Santander, and government Valle del Cauca. organization for science, technology, innovation,205 and Colombian3 universities),Antioquia. and Antigua Manual guidelines [20] for perception studies related136 to science and technology4 Bogotá were D.C. followed to define the categories in the questionnaire. Moreover, the459 overall Total 1042 survey instrument underwent content validity analysis and pilot testing in an effort to purify and refine the3.3. survey Survey instrument. and Instruments It was determined that the survey completion took, on average, 35–40 min. This research used a survey questionnaire. Surveys are the best method to cover a large population and ensure an accurate sample. The questionnaire was divided into five sections, with a total of 34 questions (see Table 2). The questions were selected based on a literature review and an expert panel from Colciencias (Colombian government organization for science, technology, innovation, and Colombian universities), and Antigua Manual guidelines [20] for perception studies related to science and technology were followed to define the categories in the questionnaire. Moreover, the overall survey instrument underwent content validity analysis and pilot testing in an effort to purify and refine the survey instrument. It was determined that the survey completion took, on average, 35–40 min.

Table 2. Categories and questions for the first national survey on open science in Colombia.

Categories Questions Source Sociodemographic Eleven questions: Name, age, institutional affiliation, position, years as a [21], characteristics researcher, classification as researcher, level of education, etc. Authors

Information 2018, 9, 292 6 of 19

The pilot test was sent to a group of researchers to determine the response time, precision, and understanding of the questions with the aim to assure that the instrument was relevant and appropriate for the study. Most researchers replied that the survey was clear and easy to answer, and some made suggestions that were applied before the survey was sent to other researchers. Moreover, the Cronbach’s test demonstrated that the survey instrument was suitable for this study. This test calculates the internal consistency and reliability of questionnaires with Likert-type scales and items [19].

Table 2. Categories and questions for the first national survey on open science in Colombia.

Categories Questions Source Sociodemographic Eleven questions: Name, age, institutional affiliation, position, years [21], characteristics as a researcher, classification as researcher, level of education, etc. Authors Seven questions: Knowledge of open science (Do you know about open science? What words do you think about when we talk about open science?), use of elements of open science (What elements of Knowledge and open science have you used?), information access (How informed are [15,22,23], perceptions of you about open science? Through what media platform do you Authors open science mainly obtain information on open science?), use of media (Can you name a web portal/blog/journal/network that you consult/seek/use to investigate an approach of open science?) Four questions: Elements to promote open science (Availability of digital technologies and their higher capacity, Increase in the body of scientific research throughout the world, Public’s demand for rapid solutions to social challenges, Researchers seek new forms of dissemination of their results, Critiques of the current evaluation system for research results, Public recognition of scientific integrity and accountability for science and technology, and other), barriers to open science (Lack of legitimacy regarding the quality and rigour of scientific production, lack of recognition of the process and tools of open science, lack of integration between infrastructures of traditional science and open science, limited knowledge of the potential benefits of open science for researchers, lack of adequate resources for financing open science, uncertainty regarding the benefits of open science, legal restrictions related to copyrights, constraints to using the tools of open science, uncertainty regarding ethics and privacy in the open science context, and other), deficiencies of current system that open science could overcome (Restricted access and delays in disseminating academic results that limit the transfer of knowledge to Attitudes towards [14,23], researchers and other members of society, many of the research results open science Authors cannot be reproduced due to a lack of underlying data, instructions regarding the process and contextual information, lack of transparency of traditional science, results of the research are often valued more for their quantity, academic communication is limited by the current incentive structures that privilege the publication of research results in indexed journals, digital technologies and their possibilities in academic communication are not used and fully applied, limited access to scientific resources and products decreases the efficiency and productivity of the research system, and other) and implications of open science (more reliable and efficient science, faster and wider innovation, greater scientific integrity, data-intensive science will become a key driver of economic growth and development, greater connection between science and society, science is more committed to solving social problems, research is more receptive to society, increase in research funding sources, greater promotion of public disclosure and social appropriation of science, technology and innovation, greater global benefits of knowledge transfer, and other). Information 2018, 9, 292 7 of 19

Table 2. Cont.

Categories Questions Source Three questions: Use of open science tools (consult public repositories to search for information and research results, include your research in the repository of your institution to disseminate your research results, publish your articles in open access publications after paying a monetary fee or without paying a monetary fee, use and update academic networks (academia, ResearchGate), exchange of information, data or research results with colleagues and/or researchers in your area of knowledge, training in open science, use and management of bibliographic managers (Zotero, RefBase, etc.), I have a researcher profile (Google academic, Orcid, Researcher ID, Scopus author ID, etc.), I consult bibliographic reference indexes (Google academic, CiteSeerx, and Scholarometer); achievements from Capacities and open science (Conducted research with other researchers nationwide, [12,13,16], abilities for Conducted research with other researchers at an international level, I Authors open science have received feedback on my publications from other researchers, I have received invitations from other academic and scientific communities to share my research results, I have been invited to be evaluator of open access scientific articles, I have participated as an expert researcher in projects developed by international organizations I have exchanged information or data about my research, other); and applications of elements of open science in projects (some individual in society has collected information or data from your project, some individual in society has played an active role in your research project, You have jointly conducted research with the community, You have shared your research results with the community, Your research questions arise from community problems, other. Nine Questions: Institutional topics on open science (Does your institution have open science guidelines for its researchers, in your institution, what open science tools are used?); publication in open access contexts (Approximately how many articles have you published as a researcher? Of those articles, how many have been in Experiences and open access publications? Of the articles published in open access [16,23,24], participation in publications (open access), how many have involved you making a Authors open science payment? Where do the resources for the payments to open access publications come from?); and requirements of an open science policy (Do you believe that the country should have an integrated public policy on open science? What elements should be included in a public policy of open science in the country? How do you prioritize public policy actions to promote open science?).

3.4. Survey Administration All surveys included a cover letter that explained the purpose of the survey, the benefits of participation, and background information on the study. It also included contact information, the time required to complete the survey (on average 35–40 min) and a submission deadline. The survey was sent using QuestionPro online survey software. The strategies to motivate participation in the survey included email broadcasting as well as communications with research directors of different universities to promote the study and to complete the survey. Every week, books were delivered to different universities, and researchers completed the survey through a draw. Every five days, the researchers were sent personalised reminders through the researcher database. A total of 3000 surveys were e-mailed to Colombian researchers registered on Scienti, the database for categorised Colombian researchers. During a 30-day time frame in the first semester of 2017, 1280 surveys were returned, of which 238 were incomplete. Therefore, the total number of usable surveys was 1042, which provided a suitable sample size, as explained in Section 3.2. Of these Information 2018, 9, 292 8 of 19

1042 surveys, 40.40% were in Category 1, 16.12% Category 2, 14.30% Category 3 and 29.17% Category 4, which are representative of Colombia, according to the sampling plan.

4. Results and Discussion This section presents the main results of the national survey on open science calculated using statistical techniques to ensure high reliability. A total of 1042 responses were received, with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 3%. The majority of respondents knew about open science, especially as it relates to open science tools (software, repositories, and networks) and open data. These results indicate that researchers have different perspectives of open science.

4.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics A national representative sample of 1042 researchers participated in this study. Of these researchers, 38% were women and 62% were men; 40% were between 25 and 55 years of age; 33.5% had completed a Master’s and 25.8% had completed doctoral studies. With regard to areas of study, 37.38% of the researchers were in the social sciences and humanities, 19.78% in engineering, and 13% in the natural sciences. A total of 37% had between 5 and 10 years of experience as researchers, and the majority worked for a higher education institution or research center (87% and 8%, respectively). These sociodemographic characteristics ensure the study’s representativeness in relation to different sociodemographic features.

4.2. Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Colombian Researchers Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18 These questions focused on analysing the researchers’ beliefs, knowledge, and information habits knewregarding about open open science. science The were questionnaire asked to continue began withthe survey, a filtering but question: if the answer respondents was negative, who knew the surveyabout openwas considered science were complete asked to because continue the the res survey,earcher but had if the no answerknowledge was on negative, the topic. the The survey results was indicatedconsidered that complete 54.13% because of respondents the researcher knew had about no knowledge open science. on the topic. Figure The 2 resultsdepictsindicated hierarchical that connections54.13% of respondents for words knew related about to open open science science. (from Figure a2 sequencedepicts hierarchical by repetition connections frequency) for wordsthat it generatesrelated to among open science words (from and concepts a sequence with by an repetition increased frequency) number of that responses it generates by survey among respondents words and andconcepts how with these an words increased and numberconcepts of are responses associated by surveyand related respondents by more and and how fewer these mentions words and by researchersconcepts are (e.g., associated free access and is related one of by the more words and most fewer often mentions mentioned by researchers and is interconn (e.g., freeected access with is accessibilityone of the words and most databases, often mentioned and accessibility and is interconnected is related to with open accessibility information and and databases, then with and community).accessibility is related to open information and then with community).

Accessibility

Open Open Free access Knowledge Information

Information Databases Liberty Community

Impact Research Progress

Cooperation

FigureFigure 2. 2. WordsWords related related to to open open science, science, according according to to Colombian Colombian researchers. researchers.

AmongAmong the the respondents, respondents, the the most most well-known well-known elements elements of open of science open science are open are access open (26.71%), access (26.71%),tools for opentools accessfor open such access as software, such as software, repositories, repositories and networks, and networks (20.31%), (20.31%) and open, and data open (19.96%). data (19.96%). The least known elements are institutional policies on open science (2.88%) and evaluation (3.69%), and researchers with PhDs had more knowledge about the elements of open science. Another important aspect is researchers’ application of different elements of open science (see Figure 3). Open access, the tools of open science and open data are the most used terms, which are similar to the most well-known elements. The results are similar across all sociodemographic attributes, indicating a direct relationship between knowledge and use in open science. We found that 53.30% of Colombian researchers are not sufficiently well informed about open science, while 40.38% are informed. The Internet is the main media platform used to inform researchers about open science, followed by academic events (see Figure 4). These results indicate that the knowledge and perceptions of open science among Colombian researchers are limited. This finding confirms the hypothesis of this study that it is important to strategically develop their knowledge, especially at early education levels (university and Master’s levels) and in departments with lower research capacities. These results concur with those of the authors of a past paper [3], who consider open science to be a relatively underdeveloped topic of discussion that has emerged as a catchphrase in today’s scientific society. They view technological innovation as providing new opportunities to share knowledge, and that the Internet can be used as an enabling tool to improve collective knowledge.

Information 2018, 9, 292 9 of 19

The least known elements are institutional policies on open science (2.88%) and evaluation (3.69%), and researchers with PhDs had more knowledge about the elements of open science. Another important aspect is researchers’ application of different elements of open science (see Figure3). Open access, the tools of open science and open data are the most used terms, which are similar to the most well-known elements. The results are similar across all sociodemographic attributes,Information 2018 indicating, 9, x FOR PEER a direct REVIEW relationship between knowledge and use in open science. 9 of 18

Open access 33.05% Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 Tools of open science (software, repositories, network) 21.27%

Open data 21.06% Open access 33.05% Open reproducible research 9.98% Tools of open science (software, repositories, network) 21.27% Open science policy 3.88% Open data 21.06% Open access policy 3.69% Open reproducible research 9.98% Evaluation of open science 2.95% Open science policy 3.88% Institutional policy for elements of open science 2.56% Open access policy 3.69% Policy of the opening of data 1.56% Evaluation of open science 2.95% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Institutional policy for elements of open science 2.56% Figure 3. EElementslements of open science most used by Colombian researchers. Policy of the opening of data 1.56% We found that 53.30% of Colombian researchers are not sufficiently well informed about open 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% science, while 40.38% are informed.Internet The Internet is the main media platform used to inform researchers42.30% about open science, followed by academic events (see Figure4). Event (congress, conferFigureence, wo 3.rk sEholementsp, etc.) of open science most used14.9 by7% Colombian researchers.

For a college 10.99% Internet 42.30% Journal in which it was published 10.62% Event (congress, conference, workshop, etc.) 14.97% Your work is developed in open science 7.79% For a college 10.99% Information by e-mail 5.66% Journal in which it was published 10.62% Course on open science in your institution 3.25% Your work is developed in open science 7.79% Blog 2.30% Information by e-mail 5.66% Call or research that requires open science 2.12% Course on open science in your institution 3.25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Blog 2.30% Figure 4. The main media platforms used by Colombian researchers to find information about open 2.12% Calscience.l or resear ch that requires open science 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Sharing and collaborative research have become imperative in modern science, but they require opportunitiesFigureFigure 4. The 4. The mainfor mainfree media accessmedia platforms platformsto, and used use used by of Colombian by, data, Colombian cooperation researchers researchers between to find to find information scientists information aboutand about researchers open open science. in differentscience. fields of knowledge, and progressive and increased dialogue between science and society [25], Theseas noted results by the indicate respondents that the to knowledgethis survey. and perceptions of open science among Colombian researchersTSharinghe open are and science limited. collaborative movement This findingresearch is closely confirms have related become the to hypothesisboth imperative the open of in thisdatamodern studyand openscience, that access it but is important movements,they require to strategicallywhichopportunities support develop for the free sharing theiraccess knowledge, to of, and data use an especially ofd , publications,data, atcooperation early educationrespectively between levels [26scientists]. (university The and results researchers and regarding Master’s in levels)Colombiandifferent and fields inresearchers’ departments of knowledge, knowledge with and lower progressive and research perceptions and capacities. increased reflect These similar dialogue results conce betweenrns, concur indicating science with thoseand that society of open the data[25], asand noted open by access the respondents are elements to with this highersurvey. recognition within open science. AnotherThe open important science movement finding from is closely the survey related is to that both information the open data technologies and open areaccess fundamental movements, to thewhich research support process, the and sharing the Internet of data is anthed preferred publications, media respectively for the search [26 for]. information. The results Moreover, regarding researchersColombian researchers’ seek information knowledge about and open perceptions science from reflect the similar web pages conce ofrns, university indicating repositories, that open amongdata and other open sources, access arewhich elements indicates with that higher they employrecognition diverse within information open science. sources to stay up to date on openAnother scien ce.important This finding finding accords from withthe survey that of is the that authors information of a previous technologies a previous are fundamental paper [6], who to foundthe research that the process, Internet and is the changing Internet how is the science preferred is conducted media for in the the search world. for Moreover, information. open Moreover, science communicationresearchers seek has information different stakeholders about open and science activities from at the different web pages steps of in universitythe research repositories, cycle, and among other sources, which indicates that they employ diverse information sources to stay up to date on open science. This finding accords with that of the authors of a previous a previous paper [6], who found that the Internet is changing how science is conducted in the world. Moreover, open science communication has different stakeholders and activities at different steps in the research cycle, and

Information 2018, 9, 292 10 of 19 authors of a past paper [3], who consider open science to be a relatively underdeveloped topic of discussion that has emerged as a catchphrase in today’s scientific society. They view technological innovation as providing new opportunities to share knowledge, and that the Internet can be used as an enabling tool to improve collective knowledge. Sharing and collaborative research have become imperative in modern science, but they require opportunities for free access to, and use of, data, cooperation between scientists and researchers in different fields of knowledge, and progressive and increased dialogue between science and society [25], as noted by the respondents to this survey. The open science movement is closely related to both the open data and open access movements, which support the sharing of data and publications, respectively [26]. The results regarding Colombian researchers’ knowledge and perceptions reflect similar concerns, indicating that open data and open access are elements with higher recognition within open science. Another important finding from the survey is that information technologies are fundamental to the research process, and the Internet is the preferred media for the search for information. Moreover, researchers seek information about open science from the web pages of university repositories, among other sources, which indicates that they employ diverse information sources to stay up to date on open science. This finding accords with that of the authors of a previous a previous paper [6], who found that the Internet is changing how science is conducted in the world. Moreover, open science communication has different stakeholders and activities at different steps in the research cycle, and it reflects aspects of collaboration, accessibility, and transparency. With open access and open research, data findings become more open, and there is more information about which people can communicate, which strengthens the value of research [27].

4.3. Attitudes towards Open Science In this section of the questionnaire, we analyse the main drivers of open science, the barriers to the promotion and positioning of open science, the deficiencies of the current system that could be overcome by open science, and the implications of open science. These questions allow us to determine researchers’ attitudes towards open science. According to the Colombian researchers, the main drivers of open science are the following (see AppendixA Figure A1), open data and information (72% fully agree), the availability of digital technologies and higher capacity (62% fully agree), and new forms of dissemination and disclosure of results (59% fully agree). Thus, the researchers perceive that open science requires new technologies and strategies for information access and effective dissemination. The main barriers to open science identified by the Colombian researchers are the following (see AppendixA Figure A2), lack of financial resources (52% fully agree), limited knowledge of the potential benefits of open science (41% fully agree), and lack of motivation and incentives (41% fully agree). Thus, the researchers perceive that it is important for both governments and institutions to promote better practices to include open science in the research cycle. Colombian researchers consider the following to be the deficiencies of the current system that open science could overcome (see Figure5). Restricted access and delays in disseminating academic results that limit knowledge transfer (67% fully agree), academic communication restricted by the current incentive structure (58% fully agree), and limited access to resources and scientific products (52% fully agree). The main implications of open science and its impact on society, the economy, and research for Colombian researchers are as follows (see AppendixA Figure A3), greater connections between science and society (62% fully agree), improved dissemination and appropriation of science, technology and innovation (58% fully agree), and enhanced benefits of knowledge transfer (58% fully agree). Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 it reflects aspects of collaboration, accessibility, and transparency. With open access and open research, data findings become more open, and there is more information about which people can communicate, which strengthens the value of research [27].

4.3. Attitudes towards Open Science In this section of the questionnaire, we analyse the main drivers of open science, the barriers to the promotion and positioning of open science, the deficiencies of the current system that could be overcome by open science, and the implications of open science. These questions allow us to determine researchers’ attitudes towards open science. According to the Colombian researchers, the main drivers of open science are the following (see Appendix A Figure A1), open data and information (72% fully agree), the availability of digital technologies and higher capacity (62% fully agree), and new forms of dissemination and disclosure of results (59% fully agree). Thus, the researchers perceive that open science requires new technologies and strategies for information access and effective dissemination. The main barriers to open science identified by the Colombian researchers are the following (see Appendix A Figure A2), lack of financial resources (52% fully agree), limited knowledge of the potential benefits of open science (41% fully agree), and lack of motivation and incentives (41% fully agree). Thus, the researchers perceive that it is important for both governments and institutions to promote better practices to include open science in the research cycle. Colombian researchers consider the following to be the deficiencies of the current system that open science could overcome (see Figure 5). Restricted access and delays in disseminating academic results that limit knowledge transfer (67% fully agree), academic communication restricted by the currentInformation incentive2018, 9, 292 structure (58% fully agree), and limited access to resources and scientific products11 of 19 (52% fully agree).

66.8% 58.0% 51.8%

42.2% 43.0% 39.2% 34.1% 39.1% 36.7% 32.7% 32.9% 29.0% 26.2% 26.4% 27.9% 19.7% 15.9% 11.8% 11.6% 9.9% 9.2% 6.8% 5.6% 3.5% 2.4% 3.0% 3.4% 5.0% 2.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 2.3% 0.2% 0.3% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A A A A A A A

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d D D D D D D D

u u u u u u u r r r r r r r y y y y y y y l l l l l l l F F F F F F F o l o l o l o l o l o l o l n u n u n u n u n u n u n u

F F F F F F F e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r g g g g g g g a a a a a a a

r r r r r r r e e e e e e e h h h h h h h t t t t t t t i i i i i i i e e e e e e e N N N N N N N

Restricted access to Many of the research Lack of transparency of Often, research results are Academic communication is Digital technology and its Limited access to resources dissemination and delay of results cannot be traditional science valued more by quantity limited by current incentive possibilities in academic and scientific products that academic outcomes limiting reproduced due to lack of structures that privilege communication are not could decrease the the transfer of knowledge underlying data, process publications of research used and fully applied effectiveness and to researchers and other instructions and context results in indexed journals productivity of research members of society information systems

Figure 5. TheThe deficiencies deficiencies of of the the current system that open science could overcome, according to Colombian researchers.

TheThese main findings implications indicate of thatopen Colombian science and researchers its impact on perceive society, that the openeconomy science, and isresearch promoted for Colombianby different researchers elements. The are authorsas follows of a(see past Appendix paper [28 A] described Figure A3 seven), greater drivers: connections emerging between digital sciencetechnologies and society(to deliver (62% more fully rapid, agree), reliable, improved and sustainable dissemination results), and the appropriation need for collaboration of science, technology(new strategies and andinnovation models (58% to collaborate fully agree) on, and and enhanced disseminate benefits research), of knowledge the evolution transfer of traditional(58% fully agree).peer review models (more transparency and accountability of research results), increased public scrutinyThese (higher findings expectations indicate that for Colomb researchian results researchers within perceive society), that changes open toscience research is promoted assessment by differentmetrics (altmetrics elements. as The an alternative authors of measure a past to paper improve [28] research described evaluations), seven drivers: accessibility emerging of research digital technologies(research with (to public deliver funds more must rapid, allow reliable better, and accessibility sustainable and results), traceable the impacts), need for andcollaboration reproducibility (new strategiesof results and (to improve models to the collaborate quality and on transparency and disseminate of research). research), Open the evolution science has of traditional gradually beenpeer reviewincorporated models into (more scientific transparency endeavours and accountability because it has of the research potential results), to improve increased the public efficiency scrutiny and (higherquality of expectations research by for decreasing research the results costs within of data soci collection,ety), changes helping to research researchers assessment exploit dormant metrics or inaccessible data at a low cost, and increasing the opportunities for collaboration in research and innovation [29]. Moreover, the survey results indicate that Colombian researchers perceive that open science can contribute to improving structures and research processes to ensure greater access to and dissemination of science. These results are important in the context of open science’s advantages, which include the following [30], greater availability and accessibility of publicly funded scientific research output; opportunities for rigorous peer review processes; greater reproducibility and transparency of scientific works; and greater impacts of scientific research, which can be disseminated throughout the scientific community to strengthen and enhance the open science process as a new form of research and as a way to achieve greater transparency and impact for the new knowledge generated. However, several studies have demonstrated that the main barriers to open science are research funding methods, the absence of alternative reputation systems for researchers’ performance, research integrity to ensure that research findings are reliable, reproducible, and trustworthy, and the money spent on the research [31,32]. Moreover, the authors of a past paper [33] classified the barriers to open science into two categories: operational barriers (such as the difficulty of providing evaluations of the quality and rigour of research findings and the lack of skills and knowledge about the advantages of open science for research) and institutional barriers (such as inadequate funding schemes and institutional processes that inhibit processes related to open science). Another important aspect is the relationship between open science and society, as open science should empower populations through science and allow citizens to become involved in scientific efforts. In addition, open science can have positive implications for the development of a culture of scientific awareness [34]. Information 2018, 9, 292 12 of 19

4.4. Capacities and Abilities for Open Science This section examines the perceptions of Colombian researchers related to the activities, processes and tools used in open science and how these elements have improved projects and research activities. Colombian researchers have begun to use different tools related to open science to strengthen their research processes, such as consulting repositories of information (13%), using and updating academic networks (9.8%), having a researcher profile on Google Scholar, ORCID, Research ID, etc. (8.7%), consulting citation indexes (8.6%), investigating open access results (8.5%), exchanging information (7.8%), and open access publishing (7.6%) (see AppendixA Figure A4). These results indicate that the use of open science tools is limited in the Colombian scientific community. The main opportunities provided by open science according to the Colombian researchers are the following (see Figure6), information exchange (20.31%), feedback from other researchers (18.63%), invitations to serve as an evaluator or reviewer of scientific or academic papers (16.34%), invitations to share investigation results with academic communities (15.59%), and participation in jointInformation investigations 2018, 9, x FOR (13.47%). PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

Exchange of information or data for my own research 20.31%

I have gotten feedback on my papers from other researchers 18.63%

I have been invited as an evaluator of scientific papers in open access 16.34%

I have received invitations by other scientific communities to share 15.59% research results

To conduct research with other researchers at a international level 13.47%

To conduct research with other researchers at a national level 11.20%

I have participated as an expert researcher in projects for international 4.47% organizations

Figure 6. The main opportunities providedprovided by open science forfor ColombianColombian researchers.researchers.

InThe their capacities projects, and Colombian abilities researchersfor open science have used imply open the science use of in different the following tools ways,that increase formulating both athe research efficiency question of the based research on community process andproblems its diffusion, (27.53%), therebysharing research increasing results the with effectiveness a community and (26.91%),productivity and of collecting scientific information and research and systems data for to research engage from in powerful people in data the communitymanipulation, (16.41%). provide analysesThe capacitiesat low cost and, and abilities reduce for duplication open science costs imply for thecollecting, use of different creating, tools transferring that increase, and bothreusing the efficiencydata and ofscience the research [35,36]. process According and its to diffusion, the results thereby of this increasing study, the the scientific effectiveness community and productivity must be ofbetter scientific informed and about research these systems benefits to of engage the open in science powerful tools. data manipulation, provide analyses at low cost,Moreover, and reduce the survey duplication results demonstrate costs for collecting, that open creating, science transferring,is becoming a and research reusing strategy data andthat scienceallows [ for35, 36 improved]. According research to the results results ofand this communication study, the scientific that community can be enriched must be and better strengthened informed aboutthrough these higher benefits quality, of the transparency open science, and tools. conformity with research networks through collaboration and Moreover, information the sharing. survey results This finding demonstrate concurs that with open previous science isworks becoming [5] that a research indicated strategy that open that allowsscience fordemands improved new researchforms of resultsquality andassurance communication to ensure the that integrity can be of enriched the research and process strengthened when throughcollaborative higher activities quality, and transparency, data sharing and are conformity involved. with They research suggest networks adopting through guidelines collaboration that allow andjournals information to select sharing. which aspectsThis finding are most concurs relevant with previousfor their works knowledge [5] that area indicated and that that increase open sciencetransparency demands without new becoming forms of too quality difficult assurance for journal to ensure editors the and integrity authors.of the research process whenAnother collaborative finding activities related and to capabilitiesdata sharing and are involved.abilities indicates They suggest the importance adopting guidelines of connecting that allowsociety journals with science to select and which technology aspects as are a most means relevant of empowerment for their knowledge and to strengthen area and that a country’s increase transparencyscientific culture. without Moreover, becoming these too results difficult are for closely journal connected editors and with authors. citizen science, which involves the active participation of citizens in data collection, scientific experiments, and problem solving and can also occur at the behest of individuals who are forced to find scientific solutions to problems without being scientists themselves [5].

4.5. Experiences and Participation in Open Science This section of the questionnaire included questions related to open science guidelines in universities and research centers, publications in open access contexts and financial sources, national policy requirements for the open science environment, and policies requiring improved open science access in Colombia. We found that 30.64% of the respondents affirmed that their institutions have open science guidelines, especially in areas with higher research competence, such as Bogotá (46.22%), Antioquia (16.38%), Valle (7.08%), and Atlántico (5.18%). The institutional initiatives recognised by respondents include the following. Open access to databases, repositories, and publications; economic support for open access publications; promotion of open access institutional journals; and the development of policies or guidelines related to open access.

Information 2018, 9, 292 13 of 19

Another finding related to capabilities and abilities indicates the importance of connecting society with science and technology as a means of empowerment and to strengthen a country’s scientific culture. Moreover, these results are closely connected with citizen science, which involves the active participation of citizens in data collection, scientific experiments, and problem solving and can also occur at the behest of individuals who are forced to find scientific solutions to problems without being scientists themselves [5].

4.5. Experiences and Participation in Open Science This section of the questionnaire included questions related to open science guidelines in universities and research centers, publications in open access contexts and financial sources, national policy requirements for the open science environment, and policies requiring improved open science access in Colombia. We found that 30.64% of the respondents affirmed that their institutions have open science guidelines, especially in areas with higher research competence, such as Bogotá (46.22%), Antioquia (16.38%), Valle (7.08%), and Atlántico (5.18%). The institutional initiatives recognised by respondents include the following. Open access to databases, repositories, and publications; economic support for open access publications; promotion of Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18 open access institutional journals; and the development of policies or guidelines related to open access. Open science tools with higher use by universitiesuniversities and researchresearch centerscenters includeinclude thethe followingfollowing (see(see AppendixAppendixA Figure A Figure A5 ), A open5), open access access to institutional to institutional repositories repositories (14.98%), (14.98%), open access open to databases access to (13.64%),databases open (13.64%), access opento journals access (11.76%), to journals and normalization (11.76%), and of normali profileszation in academic of profiles networks in academic (10.94%). Thesenetworks results (10.94%). predominate These resultsin regions predominate with greater in research regions withcapacity, greater such research as Bogot capacity,á and Antioquia, such as indicatingBogotá and that Antioquia, universities indicating and research that universities centers with and better research results centers include with open better science results within include their researchopen science processes. within their research processes. We foundfound thatthat 50%50% ofof respondentsrespondents had published at least six academic papers as researchers, withwith an averageaverage of three paperspapers inin openopen accessaccess publications using resources from the universities or research institutesinstitutes wherewhere theythey work (52.5%), usingusing resources from their research project (29.32%),(29.32%), and using their own resources (10.33%).(10.33%). With respectrespect toto openopen sciencescience policies,policies, 93.75%93.75% of respondents believe that Colombia should have an integrated open science public policy (see Figure 77)) thatthat includesincludes openopen accessaccess (95%(95% fullyfully agree)agree) and the promotion of open science projects (93% fully agree) and open science tools (92% (92% fully fully agree). agree). These resultsresults areare important important as as inputs inputs to to design design and and establish establish an an adequate adequate open open science science policy policy from from the academicthe academic community’s community perspective.’s perspective.

94.8% 93.3% 89.4% 92.3% 87.5% 85.2%

8.6% 10.3% 6.1% 5.4% 1.7% 3.5% 4.4% 3.8% 4.5% 2.2% 4.5% 2.3% d d d d d d w w w w w w d d d d d d e e e e e e e e e e e e o o o o o o e e e e e e e e e e e e n n n n n n r r r r r r r r r r r r k k k k k k g g g g g g g g g g g g

a a a a a a t t t t t t A A A A A A ' ' ' ' ' ' s s s s s s i i i i i i n n n n n n D D D D D D o o o o o o d d d d d d

/ / / / / /

r r r r r r e e e e e e w w w w w w s s s s s s n n n n n n a a a a a a

o o o o o o N N N N N N Open access Open data Open reproducible Evaluation of open science To promote open science Tools of open science research projects

Figure 7. 7. Elements that should be included in an open science policy in Colombia, Colombia, according to Colombian researchers.

Moreover, the main priorities of an open science policy according to the respondents are as follows (see Appendix A Figure A6), developing strategies and instruments that guarantee free access to scientific information in a timely manner (91% fully agree), improving researchers’ abilities and competence in the use of information systems (83% fully agree), and designing effective incentives to participate in open science among the scientific community. This indicates that such a policy should begin with open data, the generation of competences and the provision of incentives in recognition that the engagement and effort of all stakeholders are important for achieving an effective open science policy in accordance with the needs of the country. These results demonstrate that open science faces different challenges, and considering that only 1.7% of the respondents reported attending training programmes in open science, it is important for Colombian researchers to be able to improve their capacities and knowledge of the tools used in open science. The experiences and participation in open science by Colombian researchers indicate that regions with better research competences have employed some elements of open science, including using institutional repositories. This finding accords with the results of the survey by authors of a past paper [37], in which researchers download papers from institutional repositories or their personal or university webpages that are generally useful to their research. Open access publication is still limited and focused on universities and research centers with greater recognition of their research activities, which indicates the importance of implementing initiatives and strategies to promote open science in all regions of Colombia to decrease regional disparities.

Information 2018, 9, 292 14 of 19

Moreover, the main priorities of an open science policy according to the respondents are as follows (see AppendixA Figure A6), developing strategies and instruments that guarantee free access to scientific information in a timely manner (91% fully agree), improving researchers’ abilities and competence in the use of information systems (83% fully agree), and designing effective incentives to participate in open science among the scientific community. This indicates that such a policy should begin with open data, the generation of competences and the provision of incentives in recognition that the engagement and effort of all stakeholders are important for achieving an effective open science policy in accordance with the needs of the country. These results demonstrate that open science faces different challenges, and considering that only 1.7% of the respondents reported attending training programmes in open science, it is important for Colombian researchers to be able to improve their capacities and knowledge of the tools used in open science. The experiences and participation in open science by Colombian researchers indicate that regions with better research competences have employed some elements of open science, including using institutional repositories. This finding accords with the results of the survey by authors of a past paper [37], in which researchers download papers from institutional repositories or their personal or university webpages that are generally useful to their research. Open access publication is still limited and focused on universities and research centers with greater recognition of their research activities, which indicates the importance of implementing initiatives and strategies to promote open science in all regions of Colombia to decrease regional disparities. This study’s findings are in accord with the authors of a previous paper [38], who found that open science goes beyond open access to include publications or data incorporating diverse issues in the entire research cycle. This implies interoperability of the scientific infrastructure, open and shared research methodologies (such as open applications and informatics codes), and machine-friendly tools (text and data mining). Moreover, an effective open science policy must include topics related to developing the necessary infrastructure (to share data and findings), legal frameworks to ensure transparency and copyright protection when sharing and reusing the research output produced by others, new strategies to evaluate and assess research results, and incentive mechanisms (financial incentives).

5. Conclusions This study analysed the perceptions, experiences, and knowledge of open science among Colombian researchers through an online survey that used a probabilistic sampling strategy, which allowed us to ensure the representativeness of the study. A total of 1042 responses were received, with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 3%. The majority of the respondents had heard of open science, especially as it relates to open science tools (software, repositories, and networks) and open data. The researchers consider the rise of digital technologies, the search for new forms of collaboration, the greater availability of open data and information, and the public’s demand for better and more effective science to be factors that have affected open science. In contrast, a lack of resources and the limited integration between traditional and open science are the most important barriers to the use of open science in research. These results are important inputs for building an adequate open science policy in Colombia, and they indicate the need to develop clear methodological and deontological rules regarding open science in which scientific collaboration and digital technologies are fundamental and involve both researchers and practitioners as well as rules concerning the use of data by nonscientific people. Moreover, these results highlight the importance of conducting behavioural studies on virtual research to understand the factors that influence the effective operation and performance of different open science tools [38,39]. A total of 43.54% of the respondents consider themselves to be very well informed or informed, while 53.30% do not consider themselves to be sufficiently well informed about open science. The main media platforms for information on open science are the Internet, conferences and universities. Information 2018, 9, 292 15 of 19

The results indicate that level of education, experience, and area of study affect the affinity for open science and its application in research processes; thus, it is important to increase knowledge of open science among Colombian researchers. Policy-makers can use these results as an input for formulating strategies and programmes that allow for increased knowledge of open science in order to increase its development through responsible decision-making and provide heightened equality with regard to knowledge access.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C.P. and C.I.P.M.; Methodology, C.I.P.M.; Software, A.C.P.; Validation, A.C.P. and C.I.P.M.; Formal Analysis, A.C.P. and C.I.P.M.; Investigation, A.C.P. and C.I.P.M.; Resources, A.C.P. and C.I.P.M.; Data Curation, A.C.P.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, C.I.P.M.; Writing-Review & Editing A.C.P. and C.I.P.M.; Visualization, A.C.P. and C.I.P.M. Funding: This was financing by Colciencias. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to Colciencias for their financial support. The authors would like to extend thanks to the Colombian researchers that contributed in the development of this study, reviewers for their comments and suggestions to the previous version of this paper. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

InformationAppendix 2018, 9 The, x FOR Main PEER Detailed REVIEWResults of the Survey 15 of 18 Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18

71.8%

61.6% 71.8% 58.7% 61.6% 54.9% 50.0% 58.7% 54.9% 43.9% 50.0% 43.3% 40.9% 39.7% 40.6% 38.2% 36.8% 34.8% 37.2% 43.9% 35.5% 43.3% 40.9% 39.7% 33.8% 40.6% 31.1% 38.2% 29.9%30.3% 36.8% 34.8% 37.2% 35.5% 33.8% 25.8% 31.1% 23.1% 29.9%30.3% 25.8% 23.1% 15.8% 16.8% 17.0% 17.0% 15.9% 15.8% 16.8% 17.0% 17.0% 15.9% 6.1% 7.6% 6.5% 5.7% 5.7% 4.7% 4.9% 3.7% 0.69.%1%0.3% 0.2% 1.4% 0.7% 7.61%.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 6.5% 0.3% 0.6% 5.7% 1.3% 5.7% 0.4% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3% 4.7% 4.9% 3.7% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 1.4% 0.7% 1.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 1.3% 0.4% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a a a a a a a a a a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e A A A A A A A A A A

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y y y y y y y y y g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g l l l l l l l l l l a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d a a a a a a a a a a D D D D D D D D D D

A A A A A A A A A A

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s u u u u u u u u u u r r r r r r r r r r i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l F F F F F F F F F F o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d D D D D D D D D D D

u u u u u u u u u u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u r r r r r r r r r r y y y y y y y y y y

l l l l l l l l l l F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l e e e e e e e e e e n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u e e e e e e e e e e

F F F F F F F F F F r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e a a a a a a a a a a r r r r r r r r r r

g g g g g g g g g g r r r r r r r r r r a a a a a a a a a a e e e e e e e e e e

r r r r r r r r r r h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t e e e e e e e e e e i i i i i i i i i i h h h h h h h h h h e e e e e e e e e e t t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i N N N N N N N N N N e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N Availability of digital An increase in global scientificP ublic demand for very quick Public demand for better and Search for new forms of Researchers that seek new Critics of current system of Citizens that act as scientists Increasing public recognition Higher availability of open

technologAievsa ialanbdi lhityighoef rd igital Anpinocpreualasteioinnglobal sciesnotliufitciPounbsl itcod seomcaianld chfoarllveenrgyeqsu ick mPuobreli cedffeimcieantd sfcoirebnecteter and Searccohllafboronraetwiofnorms of forRmese oafr cdhifefrus stihoant asneedk rneeswults Criticrsesoefacruchrr eenvtasluysateiomnof Citizens that act as scientists Increabsyin sgcpieunbtliifcicr eincoteggnriittioy nandH igherdaavtai laanbdili tinyfoofrmopaetnion by technologies and higher population solutions to social challenges more efficient science collaboration forms of diffusion and results research evaluation by scientific integrity and data and information by capacity sharing accountability public and private entities capacity sharing accountability public and private entities

FigureFigure A 1. A1.A 1.The The main main drivers drivers of of open open science, science, according tototo ColombianColombian researchers.researchers. researchers.

525.20.%0% 48.24%8.2% 45.6% 44.0% 45.6% 43.1%43.1% 44.0% 41.3% 42.24%2.2% 40.490%.9% 39.8% 41.3% 40.8% 40.9% 39.8% 3399.2.2%% 40.8% 40.9% 37.43%7.4% 35.0%35.0% 33.0% 333..55%% 33.0% 31.0% 31.0% 29.5% 29.5%

22.6% 22.2% 22.6% 21.0% 22.2% 20.8% 21.0% 19.1% 20.8% 19.1% 16.5% 15.1% 16.5% 12.3% 15.1% 12.9% 10.9% 10.9% 11.3% 12.3% 9.5% 12.9% 9.9% 10.9% 9.1% 8.1% 10.9% 11.3% 9.1% 7.9% 9.5% 9.9% 6.4% 5.2% 8.1% 7.9% 6.4% 4.9% 3.8% 4.7% 2.4% 5.2% 4.9% 2.1% 2.6% 3.0% 42.7.3%% 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 3.8% 2.4% 0.3% 2.1% 2.6% 3.0% 2.3% 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 0.3% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a e e e e e e e e e e A A A A A A A A A A e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l l l l l l l l l l g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g l l l l l l l l l l d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d D D D D D D D D D D a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

A A A A A A A A A A

u u u u u u u u u u r r r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s y y y y y y y y y y y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l l l l l l l l l l l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l l l l l l l l l l l d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d D D D D D D D D D D n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u

u u u u u u u u u u

r r r r r r r r r r F F F F F F F F F F y y y y y y y y y y F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l e e e e e e e e e e o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l e e e e e e e e e e n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u r r r r r r r r r r

F F F F F F F F F F g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e a a a a a a a a a a

e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t

i i i i i i i i i i r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i e e e e e e e e e e

Lack oN f legitimacy in Lack ofN recognition Lack of N integration Limited kN nowledge Lack of aN dequate UncertaiN nty of Legal restrictN ions on LimitationN s in Lack of motiv N ation Uncertainty of eN thics quality, process and of process and tools between traditional of potential benefits resources for benefits to copyright obtaining new and incentive to and privacy Lack of legitimacy in Lack of recognition Lack of integration Limited knowledge Lack of adequate Uncertainty of Legal restrictions on Limitations in Lack of motivation Uncertainty of ethics rigor in scientific of open science science and open of open science financing open researchers of research skills in the participate in open

quality, prporcoedsuscatniodnof process and tools between tsrcaidenitcioen al of potential benefits resouscriceenscfeo r rebsuenltesf oitfs otpoen copyright coonbtetxati noifn ogpneenw ansdciienncceentive to and privacy rigor in scientific of open science science and open of open science financing open resesacricehnecres of reseasrcihe nsckeills in the participate in open production science science results of open context of open science science science Figure A2. The main barriers to open science, according to Colombian researchers. FigureFigure A2. A2. TheThe main main barriers barriers to to open open science, science, according toto ColombianColombian researchers. researchers.

61.8% 57.6% 58.3% 61.8% 52.5% 57.6% 58.3% 48.8% 45.9% 52.5% 44.2% 43.6% 48.8% 40.9% 38.4% 45.9% 37.1% 37.5% 37.3% 36.8% 44.2% 43.366%.5% 40.9% 33.3% 32.9% 33.0% 32.5% 38.4% 37.1% 29.7% 29.4% 30.2% 37.5% 37.3% 36.8% 36.5% 28.1% 33.3% 32.9% 33.0% 32.5% 21.4% 29.7% 29.4% 30.2% 18.6% 28.1% 15.8% 15.6% 21.4% 13.5% 13.4% 11.1% 18.6% 7.8% 8.0% 7.7% 6.4% 15.8% 6.7% 15.6% 13.5% 13.4% 2.7% 2.7% 3.1% 3.6% 3.5% 11.1% 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.7% 0.4% 1.1% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 0.3% 7.8% 8.0%0.3% 7.70%.1% 6.4% 6.7% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 3.1% r r r r r r 3.6% r r 3.5% r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g 2.7% g 2.7% g g 2.5% g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

A A A A A A 1.4% A A A A A 1.4% 1.1% s s s s s s s s s s 0.s 7% s s s s s s s s s s s s 0.s 7% s s 1s .0% s 1s .1%s s s s 0i .5%i i i i i i i i i i i i 0i .4%i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y 0.3% y 0.1% y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 0.1%

D D D D D D 0.3% D D D D 0.3% D

u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r y y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l F F F F F F F F F F F o o o o o o o o o o o l l l l l l l l l l l e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e F F F F F F F F F F F r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e e g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e e e e e e e g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a r r r r r r r r r r r a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A A A A A A A A A A A

g g g g g g g g g g g s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y y y y y y y y y y a a a a a a a a a a a l l l l l l l l l l l

l l l l l l l l l l l d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d D D D D D D D D D D D r r r r r r r r r r r

u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r e e e e e e e e e e e y y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l F F F F F F F F F F F o o o o o o o o o o o l l l l l l l l l l l h h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t t n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u i i i i i i i i i i i

F F F F F F F F F F F e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N N e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a

Sci ence more Scie nce more Innovat ion quicker Higher scientific Intensive science in Higher con nection Science more Research m ore An increase of Greater promo tion Greater glob al r r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e e

h credible eh fficient andh broader inth egrity data is a dh river for between h science committedh to the responsivh e to financing souh rces of social h benefits ofh t t t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i i

e e e e developme ent and and soe ciety resolution oe f social societe y for researce h appropriatione of knowledge trane sfer N N N N economiN c growth N probleN ms N N science, technN ology N Science more Science more Innovation quicker Higher scientific Intensive science in Higher connection Science more Research more An increase of andG irnenaotevra tpiorno manodt ion Greater global credible efficient and broader integrity data is a driver for between science committed to the responsive to financing sourcesp ublic doisf csloscuiarle benefits of development and and society resolution of social society for research appropriation of knowledge tran sfer economic growth problems science, technology and innovation and Figure A3. The main implications of open science, according to Colombian researchers.public disclosure Figure A3. The main implications of open science, according to Colombian researchers.

Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18

71.8%

61.6% 58.7% 54.9% 50.0% 43.9% 43.3% 40.9% 39.7% 40.6% 38.2% 36.8% 34.8% 37.2% 33.8% 35.5% 31.1% 29.9%30.3% 25.8% 23.1% 15.8% 16.8% 17.0% 17.0% 15.9%

6.1% 7.6% 6.5% 5.7% 5.7% 4.7% 4.9% 3.7% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 1.4% 0.7% 1.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 1.3% 0.4% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A A A A A A A A A A

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d l d d D D D D D D D D D D

u u u u u u u u u u r r r r r r r r r r y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l F F F F F F F F F F o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u

F F F F F F F F F F e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a

r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N

Availability of digital An increase in global scientificP ublic demand for very quick Public demand for better and Search for new forms of Researchers that seek new Critics of current system of Citizens that act as scientists Increasing public recognition Higher availability of open technologies and higher population solutions to social challenges more efficient science collaboration forms of diffusion and results research evaluation by scientific integrity and data and information by capacity sharing accountability public and private entities Figure A1. The main drivers of open science, according to Colombian researchers.

52.0% 48.2% 45.6% 44.0% 43.1% 42.2% 40.9% 41.3% 39.8% 39.2% 40.8% 40.9% 37.4% 35.0% 33.0% 33.5% 31.0% 29.5%

22.6% 22.2% 21.0% 20.8% 19.1% 16.5% 15.1% 12.3% 12.9% 10.9% 10.9% 11.3% 9.5% 9.9% 9.1% 8.1% 7.9% 6.4% 5.2% 4.9% 3.8% 4.7% 2.4% 2.1% 2.6% 3.0% 2.3% 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 0.3% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A A A A A A A A A A

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i y i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d D D D D D D D D D D

u u u u u u u u u u r r r r r r r r r r y y y y y y y y y y F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l F l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l o l n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u

F F F F F F F F F F e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a

r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N

Lack of legitimacy in Lack of recognition Lack of integration Limited knowledge Lack of adequate Uncertainty of Legal restrictions on Limitations in Lack of motivation Uncertainty of ethics quality, process and of process and tools between traditional of potential benefits resources for benefits to copyright obtaining new and incentive to and privacy rigor in scientific of open science science and open of open science financing open researchers of research skills in the participate in open production science science results of open context of open science science science Information 2018, 9, 292 16 of 19 Figure A2. The main barriers to open science, according to Colombian researchers.

61.8% 57.6% 58.3%

52.5% 48.8% 45.9% 44.2% 43.6% 40.9% 38.4% 37.1% 37.5% 37.3% 36.8% 36.5% 33.3% 32.9% 33.0% 32.5% 29.7% 29.4% 30.2% 28.1%

21.4% 18.6% 15.8% 15.6% 13.5% 13.4% 11.1% 7.8% 8.0% 7.7% 6.4% 6.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.1% 2.5% 3.6% 3.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 1.4% 1.1% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A A A A A A A A A A A

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d D D D D D D D D D D D

u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r u r y y y y y y y y y y y l l l l l l l l l l l F F F F F F F F F F F o o o o o o o o o o o l l l l l l l l l l l n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u

F F F F F F F F F F F e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g a a a a a a a a a a a

r r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e e e e e e e h h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t t i i i i i i i i i i i e e e e e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N N

Science more Science more Innovation quicker Higher scientific Intensive science in Higher connection Science more Research more An increase of Greater promotion Greater global credible efficient and broader integrity data is a driver for between science committed to the responsive to financing sources of social benefits of development and and society resolution of social society for research appropriation of knowledge transfer economic growth problems science, technology and innovation and public disclosure InformationFigure 2018Figure, 9, Ax FOR3. A3. The ThePEER main main REVIEW implications implications of of open open science, science, according toto ColombianColombian researchers. researchers. 16 of 18

Consultation of repositories 13.00%

Use and update of academic networks (academia, researchgate, etc.) 9.83%

Profile of researcher (Google academic, Orcid, Researcher ID, Scopus autor ID, etc.) 8.69%

To consult a citation index (Google academic, CiteSeerx, Scholarometer) 8.62%

To consult research results in open access (Publish, google scholar metrics, etc.) 8.48%

Sharing of information, data or results of research with colleagues or researchers 7.76% Publication of papers in open access, free of charge 7.62% Sharing research using tools as Google drive, Zoho, Box, SlideShare, Prezi, scribd, etc. 6.86%

To use and manage reference management software (Zotero, RefBase, etc.) 5.57%

Inclusion of research findings in the university repositoy for their dissemination 5.26%

Use of scientific news services (ScienceDaily, Science news, Science 2.0, etc.) 4.12%

Participate in a network to promote open access 3.56%

Publication of papers in open access with monetary charge 2.76%

To design and publish multimedia content to disseminate research 2.71%

I have a web page or blog to dissemination research findings 2.66%

Trainning in open science 1.70%

I use scientific collaboration platforms (HUBzero, My experiment, DHcommons, etc.) 0.79% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% Figure A4.A4. Open science tools used by Colombian researchers, accordingaccording toto thethe surveysurvey results.results.

Institutional repositories 14.98%

Open access to database 13.64%

Own journals in open access 11.76%

Normalization of profiles in academic network (academia, researchgate, etc.) 10.94%

Reference management software (Zotero, RefBase, etc.) 10.41%

Facilities to connect with open access networks 8.75%

Financial support to pay open access publications 7.58%

Infrastructure to manage research data in the research cycle 7.15%

Training on open science 4.17%

Resources to promote research in open science 3.74%

To publish open data research with adequate policy 3.37%

Institution has protocols to publish data and findings 2.71%

Institution has road map to check and update open science policies and services 0.79%

Figure A5. Open science tools used by universities and research centres in Colombia.

91.0% 82.8% 80.2% 77.8% 68.7% 70.5% 65.0%

30.4% 27.5% 27.1% 20.9% 17.9% 14.7% 7.2% 3.8% 4.7% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 2.4% 2.5%

High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / don't don't don't don't don't don't don't know know know know know know know To generate strategies and To support diffusion of best To design an incentive To define evaluation criteria To experiment with higher To promote events on To increase and improve instruments to guarantee practices to improve policy to participate in open for research in the open access and review by awareness of open science abilities and competence in open access to scientific knowledge flow within science on the part of the framework of open science transparent peers the use of information information in a timely science and society scientific community systems between manner researchers, librarians, repositories management, etc. Figure A6. Main priorities for an open science policy, according to Colombian researchers.

Information 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 18

Consultation of repositories 13.00%

Use and update of academic networks (academia, researchgate, etc.) 9.83%

Profile of researcher (Google academic, Orcid, Researcher ID, Scopus autor ID, etc.) 8.69%

To consult a citation index (Google academic, CiteSeerx, Scholarometer) 8.62%

To consult research results in open access (Publish, google scholar metrics, etc.) 8.48%

Sharing of information, data or results of research with colleagues or researchers 7.76%

Publication of papers in open access, free of charge 7.62%

Sharing research using tools as Google drive, Zoho, Box, SlideShare, Prezi, scribd, etc. 6.86%

To use and manage reference management software (Zotero, RefBase, etc.) 5.57%

Inclusion of research findings in the university repositoy for their dissemination 5.26%

Use of scientific news services (ScienceDaily, Science news, Science 2.0, etc.) 4.12%

Participate in a network to promote open access 3.56%

Publication of papers in open access with monetary charge 2.76%

To design and publish multimedia content to disseminate research 2.71%

I have a web page or blog to dissemination research findings 2.66%

Trainning in open science 1.70%

I use scientific collaboration platforms (HUBzero, My experiment, DHcommons, etc.) 0.79% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% Information 2018, 9, 292 17 of 19 Figure A4. Open science tools used by Colombian researchers, according to the survey results.

Institutional repositories 14.98%

Open access to database 13.64%

Own journals in open access 11.76%

Normalization of profiles in academic network (academia, researchgate, etc.) 10.94%

Reference management software (Zotero, RefBase, etc.) 10.41%

Facilities to connect with open access networks 8.75%

Financial support to pay open access publications 7.58%

Infrastructure to manage research data in the research cycle 7.15%

Training on open science 4.17%

Resources to promote research in open science 3.74%

To publish open data research with adequate policy 3.37%

Institution has protocols to publish data and findings 2.71%

Institution has road map to check and update open science policies and services 0.79%

FigureFigure A5.A5. Open science toolstools usedused byby universitiesuniversities andand researchresearch centrescentres inin Colombia.Colombia.

91.0% 82.8% 80.2% 82.8% 77.8% 80.2% 70.5% 68.7% 70.5% 65.0%

30.4% 27.5% 27.1% 20.9% 17.9% 14.7% 7.2% 7.2% 4.7% 3.8% 4.7% 2.4% 2.5% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 2.4% 2.5%

High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No High Low No priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / priority priority answer / don't don't don't don't don't don't don't know know know know know know know To generate strategies and To support diffusion of best To design an incentive To define evaluation criteria To experiment with higher To promote events on To increase and improve instruments to guarantee practices to improve policy to participate in open for research in the open access and review by awareness of open science abilities and competence in open access to scientific knowledge flow within science on the part of the framework of open science transparent peers the use of information information in a timely science and society scientific community systems between manner researchers, librarians, repositories management, etc. Figure A6.A6. Main priorities for an open science policy,policy, accordingaccording toto ColombianColombian researchers.researchers.

References 1. Borrell-Damián, L. The Importance of Open Science for Europe’s Universities. 2016. Available online:

https://www.adjacentopenaccess.org/research-science-innovation-news/importance-open-science- europes-universities/29073/ (accessed on 20 July 2017). 2. Oettinger, G.; Moedas, C. Open Science for a Knowledge and Data-Driven Economy. 2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/oettinger/blog/open-science-knowledge- and-data-driven-economy_en (accessed on 22 July 2017). 3. Fecher, B.; Friesike, S. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In Opening Science; Bartling, S.F.S., Friesike, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; p. 340. 4. García, D.; Rendueles, C. Abierto, libre ... y público. Los desafíos políticos de la ciencia abierta. Argum. Razón Técnica 2014, 17, 45–64. (In Spanish) 5. Salmi, J. Study on Open Science Impact, Implications and Policy Options. 2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/rise/study_on_open_science- impact_implications_and_policy_options-salmi_072015.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2018). 6. Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing; Springer Open: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. Information 2018, 9, 292 18 of 19

7. Foster. Open Science Taxonomy. 2015. Available online: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster- taxonomy/open-science (accessed on 10 February 2018). 8. Open Knowledge International. Open Data Handbook. 2010. Available online: http://opendatahandbook. org/guide/en/ (accessed on 9 February 2018). 9. Agudelo-Calderón, C.A. NECOBELAC apoya el ACCESO ABIERTO, un camino para la ciencia abierta. Rev. Salud Pública 2012, 13, 883–884. (In Spainsh) 10. Forero Pineda, C.; Jaramillo Salazar, H. The access of researchers from developing countries to international science and technology. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2002, 54, 129–140. [CrossRef] 11. Matijasevic, E. Ciencia Transparente Para Todos. Acta Médica Colomb. 2012, 37, 101. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/amc/v37n3/v37n3a01.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2016). 12. LEARN. Ready to Management Data in Research? 2013. Available online: http://www.curatore. es/datos-de-investigacion-24/gestion-de-datos-de-investigacion-espana-y-america-latina/ (accessed on 6 December 2016). 13. Open Science Grid. Open Science Grid PKI General User Survey. 2013. Available online: http://www. opensciencegrid.org (accessed on 13 December 2016). 14. Belmont Forum. Skills for E-Infrastructures and Data Management in Global Change Research. 2014. Available online: http://www.codata.org/news/144/62/Skills-for-e-infrastructures-and-data- management-in-global-change-research (accessed on 29 December 2016). 15. Gross, J.; Ryan, C. Landscapes of Research: Perceptions of Open Access (OA) Publishing in the Arts and Humanities. Publications 2015, 3, 65–88. [CrossRef] 16. Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Probets, S.; Creaser, C. Towards an Understanding of the Relationship Between Disciplinary Research Cultures and Open Access Repository Behaviors. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2710–2724. [CrossRef] 17. Rodriguez, J. Awareness and Attitudes about Open Access Publishing: A Glance at Generational Differences. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2014, 40, 604–610. [CrossRef] 18. Serrano-Vicente, R.; Melero, R.; Abadal, E. Open Access Awareness and Perceptions in an Institutional Landscape. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2016, 42, 595–603. [CrossRef] 19. Rea, L.; Parker, R. Designing and Conducting Survey Research, a Comprehensive Guide; Jossey-Bass Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997. 20. Rycit. The Antigua Manual: Indicators of Perception of Science and Technology. 2015. Available online: http: //www.ricyt.org/novedades/308-nueva-publicacion-manual-de-antigua (accessed on 16 December 2016). 21. Open Access Academy. Open Access Awareness Study. 2015. Available online: http://www.oaacademy.org (accessed on 22 November 2016). 22. European Commission. Validation of the Results of the Public Consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition. 2015. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_ final_report.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2016). 23. Kaba, A.; Said, R. Open access awareness, use, and perception: A case study of AAU faculty members. New Libr. World 2015, 116, 94–103. [CrossRef] 24. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage: London, UK, 2009. 25. Caso, R.; Ducato, R. Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks [Online], University of Toronto, the Trento Law and Technology Research Paper Series. 2014. Available online: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2511602 (accessed on 10 December 2016). 26. Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Bukvova, H.; Nyman, L.; Björk, B.-C.; Hedlund, T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e20961. [CrossRef][PubMed] 27. Smith, E.; Gunashekar, S.; Lichten, C.; Parks, S.; Chataway, J.; A Framework to Monitor Open Science Trends in the EU. ECD Blue Sky III Forum, Informing Science and Innovation Policies: Towards the Next Generation of Data and Indicators. 2016. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/sti/063%20-%20OECD%20Blue% 20Sky%202016_Open%20Science.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018). 28. Wiley Drivers of Open Science. 2016. Available online: https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/ discover/blog/2016/10/12/7-drivers-of-open-science (accessed on 1 May 2017). 29. OECD. Open Science: Policy Challenges and Opportunities, Internal Working Document, Country Studies and Outlook Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry; OECD: Paris, France, 2011. Information 2018, 9, 292 19 of 19

30. UNESCO. Open Science Movement. 2016. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ communication-and-information/portals-and-platforms/goap/open-science-movement/ (accessed on 11 March 2017). 31. Forsström, P.; Haataja, J. Open Science as an Instrument for Effective Research. Signum 2016, 2, 11–15. 32. Ritter, M. Digitalisation of Society, the Role of Universities and Its Impact on Doctoral Education and Research. 2017. Available online: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/CDE-Events-2017/eua-cde-talinn-june- 2017_ritter-vzd10268ca84b96a879ce5ff00009465c7.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 16 November 2016). 33. Gagliardi, D.; Cox, D.; Li, Y. Institutional Inertia and Barriers to the Adoption of Open Science. 2014. Available online: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw: 283336&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF (accessed on 6 May 2017). 34. OECD. Making Open Science a Reality, OECD Science; Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015; Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en (accessed on 25 April 2017). 35. Hampton, S.; Anderson, S.; Bagby, S.; Gries, C.; Han, X.; Hart, E.; Jones, M.; Lenhardt, C.; Macdonald, A.; Michener, W.; et al. The Tao of open science for ecology. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–13. [CrossRef] 36. Carey, B. Journal Science Releases Guidelines for Publishing Scientific Studies. New York Times, 25 June 2015. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/science/journal-science-releases-guidelines-for- publishing-scientific-studies.html (accessed on 12 June 2017). 37. Taylor and Francis. Open Access Survey. 2014. Available online: www.oecd.org/sti/survey-of-scientific- authors.htm (accessed on 1 April 2017). 38. OECD. Policies to Promote Open Science: Evidence from OECD Countries. 2015. Available online: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/attachment/PoliciesToPromoteOpenScience_ GiuliaAjmoneMarsan.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2017). 39. Spallek, H.; O’Donnell, J.; Clayton, M.; Anderson, P.; Krueger, A. Paradigm shift or annoying distraction—Emerging implications of Web 2.0 for clinical practice. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2010, 1, 96–115. [CrossRef][PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).