Organizing in Times of Crisis: The Case of Covid-19 Class 8: Open Science, Data and Commons Leonhard Dobusch April 2020 University of Innsbruck If I have seen further it is by “standing on the shoulders of Giants. Isaac Newton > > > Mertonian Science Communism All scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods, to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm. Merton (1942) I hereby assign to [scientific publisher] “exclusively all my right, title and interest in said article, including without limitation the copyright therein. Source: standard copyright form of a large academic publisher Sci-Hub: 28 million downloads in 6 months Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers Source:Screenshot http://www.sci-hub.cc/ 31.5.2016 Tell us what you think about Sci-Hub—Love it or Hate it? – Beantwortungen | SurveyMonkey Tell us what you think about Sci-Hub—Love it or Hate it? Q1 Share Tweet Share Share Do you think it is wrong to download 10937 responses pirated papers? 4/21/2016 - 5/5/2016 Answered: 10,841 Skipped: 96 224 views Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers Antwortoptionen Beantwortungen Yes 12.13% 1,315 No 87.87% 9,526 Total 10,841 Q2 Have you used Sci-Hub, and if so, how often? Answered: 10,874 Skipped: 63 Never A few times Daily or weekly 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Antwortoptionen Beantwortungen Never 41.11% 4,470 A few times 33.27% 3,618 Daily or weekly 25.62% 2,786 Total 10,874 Q3 Have you used other repositories of pirated journal articles, or used the twitter hashtag #IcanhazPDF to obtain a paper. Answered: 10,817 Skipped: 120 https://de.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-PQX56R8R/ 1/4 Publication Process Scientific Publication „Desk Rejection“ Editor letter Process explaining the decision Editor Submission reads submission Sends out manuscript to Editor makes two to four reviewers a decision Editor makes Inivation to revise and Article gets Sign a a decision resubmit („R&R“) published copyright form (maybe after consulting the reviwers) Publication Process „Desk Rejection“ Editor letter explaining the decision Editor Submission reads submission Sends out manuscript to Editor makes Scientific Publication Process two to four reviewers a decision Editor makes Inivation to revise and Article gets Sign a a decision resubmit („R&R“) published copyright form (maybe after consulting the reviwers) Open Access Open Open Formats Licenses Open Access Mandates EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research & Innovation by Funding Institutions EUROPEAN COMMISSION Guidelines Brussels,on Open Access Directorate-General for Research & Innovation to Scientific PublicationsERCEA/ and12 Research.04.2016 Data in Horizon 2020 Dear grantee of the European Research Council, You are the Principal Investigator of an ERC grant funded under Horizon 2020, and we would like to provide you with important information regardingVersion the 2.1 requirements for open access to publications. 15 February 2016 Please be reminded that you have an obligation to ensure open access to all peer- reviewed scientific publications related to the results of the ERC project. We would like to Guidelinesemphasize that onthe mandatoryOpen Access open access for ERC projects in H2020 applies not to Scientificonly to peer Publications reviewed journal and articles, Research but to Dataall types of peer reviewed scientific publications, includingin Horizon books and2020 monographs. You can ensure open access through the green (self-archiving) or gold (publishing open access) route. Choosing green open access means that you provide open access by depositing a copy of the final peer-reviewed manuscript (or published version) in a repository. Open access should be provided as soon as possible and in any case no later than six months after the official publication date.Version For 2.1 publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain a delay of up to twelve15 monthsFebruary 2016 is acceptable. Choosing gold open access means ensuring that an electronic version will be available for free via the publisher. Be aware that also in these cases, a copy of the publication must be deposited in a repository, at the latest on publication (either by the publisher or the researcher). These are the main open access obligations in your grant agreement and we advise you to read the full text of the relevant article (29.2) with more details, at the end of this letter. The ERC strongly encourages ERC funded researchers to use discipline-specific repositories for their publications. The recommended repository for Life Sciences is Europe PubMed Central (http://europepmc.org) and for Physical Sciences and Engineering arXiv (http://arxiv.org/). The recommended repository for monographs, book chapters and other long-text publications is the OAPEN Library (http://oapen.org). Institutional repositories and centralised repositories are also acceptable. Open access fees are eligible costs that may be charged to the ERC grant, if they incur in the duration of the projects, even if this was not planned in the original budget. There is however no additional funding for this type of costs. Be reminded that as stated in your ERC Executive Agency Place Rogier 16, COV2 21/132, BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium I Tel: +32 2 299 45 89 I Fax +32 2 299 45 89 I [email protected] I http://erc.europa.eu I International Review of General Linguistics Revue Internationale de Linguistique Générale Interim editor H. Whitaker Please note that the articles in this issue were handled by the previous editorial team: Johan Rooryck, Anikó Lipták, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Chung-hye Han and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli Open Access Publishing (peer-reviewed) Volume 169 ( 2016 ) >> Amsterdam – Boston – London – New YorkContext: https://governancexborders.com/2015/11/07/open-access-and-the-– Oxford – Philadelphia – San Diego – St. Louis power-of-editorial-boards-why-elsevier-plays-hardball-with-deviant-linguists/ International Review of General Linguistics Revue Internationale de Linguistique Générale Interim editor H. Whitaker Please note that the articles in this issue were handled by the previous editorial team: Johan Rooryck, Anikó Lipták, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Chung-hye Han and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli Volume 169 ( 2016 ) Amsterdam – Boston – London – New York – Oxford – Philadelphia – San Diego – St. Louis From Open Access to Open Science Open Science is the idea Open Access “that scientific knowledge of Open (Research) all kinds should be openly Data / Materials shared as early as is Open Source / practical in the research Open Methods process. Katja Mayer Open Instructions Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Foto: Ralf Rebmann, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katja_Mayer_1.jpg, CC BY-SA 4.0 International Open Access Open (Research) Data / Materials Open Source / Open Methods Open Instructions Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Screenshot:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov Open Access Open (Research) Data / Materials Open Source / Open Methods Open Instructions Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Screenshot: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/covid-19-coronavirus-data Open Access Open (Research) Data / Materials Open Source / Open Methods Open Instructions Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Screenshot:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov Open Access Open (Research) Data / Materials Open Source / Open Methods Open Instructions Open Education O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Screenshot:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov Open Access Preprint server ‣ Scientific peers Open (Research) ‣ Media audiences Data / Materials Open Source / Open Methods Open peer review Open ‣ Open identities Instructions ‣ Open reports Open Education ‣ Open participation O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Credit: CC-BY-SA AJ Cann, via https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/learning/open-peer-review Open Access Open (Research) Data / Materials Open Source / Open Methods Open Instructions How to organize science Open Education more openly? O P E N S C I E NCE CI S E N P O Open Evaluation Citizen Science Organizing Open Strategies in Science Goals Levels ‣ Sharing and collaboration ‣ Transparency and reproducibility ‣ Re-usability and new applications ‣ Societal participation and feedback loops Source: Presentation by Maximilian Heimstädt and Katja Mayer Source: Taken from Brian Nosek https://osf.io/r9v3p/ and https://cos.io/blog/strategy-culture-change Contact E-Mail: [email protected] Twitter: @leonidobusch Web: bit.ly/LD-UIBK // dobusch.net Research blogs: osconjunction.net governancexborders.com References ‣ Dobusch, L., & Heimstädt, M. (2019). Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review. Management Learning, 50(5), 607-619. ‣ Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: one term, five schools of thought. In Opening science (pp. 17-47). Springer. ‣ Mayer, K. (2018): Open Science, all or nothing?, https://zenodo.org/record/ 1889751#.XpnCHlMzYWo ‣ Merton, R. K. (1973) [1942]. The Normative Structure of Science. In: Merton, R. K. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754 !22.