Scan the questions sections for #OpenScience, #Science20, #OpenAccess and you will notice that the vast majority by far, are spending significant Q&A on what is wrong with Open Science, what does not work, and what could (or has) horribly gone wrong. Makes you wonder how high the h-index on those questions gets, and how representative that is of reality.
Although exposing fraud, plagiarism, bad publisher service, and poor quality is essential to prevent other falling victim, it is hardly as inspiring or motivating. Actually, it can give the wrong impression to the novice, and be dangerous.
So, let's balance the discussion and focus on the what works, by apply the scientific method to gauge the positive side of #OpenScience (if any). There are many shining examples of how #OpenScience can boost your career profile, on the way to that tenure.
OS practioners, we know you are out there, so don't be shy and tell us how you integrate OS in your daily workflow, and in what measurable ways does #OpenScience contribute to your profile and impact?
I agree. We need easier ways to help researchers to share data and publications and to get credit for their work. Impactstory could be helpful in this respect.
'Impactstory is an open-source, web-based tool that helps researchers explore and share the diverse impacts of all their research products—from traditional ones like journal articles, to emerging products like blog posts, datasets, and software. By helping researchers tell data-driven stories about their impacts, we're helping to build a new scholarly reward system that values and encourages web-native scholarship.'
https://impactstory.org/about
I research on data sharing in academia; a case in which I find your thought of openness as part of scientific method extremely relevant. Regarding sharing research data, openness can be associated with a higher citation rate, as Piwowar et al. showed: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000308
Sharing research data furthermore makes research reproducible and allows to use old data for novel rqs; a colleague of mine and I wrote an article about the pros (and cons): http://www.ratswd.de/dl/RatSWD_WP_236.pdf
Looking forward to more replies to that question!
"..and in what measurable ways does #OpenScience contribute to your profile and impact?"
I think OS contributes to my profile and impact in lots of ways which aren't measurable. That doesn't really make it any less important.
Hi Cornelius, you are dead right!
But when it comes to making OS part of the daily research workflow, we the convinced, have to demonstrate to the sceptics that OS can contribute to what they dearly care about (e.g. imapct the way it is measured now, IF, citations, things that count towards tenure, and better chances for funding to estabish and sustain a research group).
If we believe in OS, we have to advocate for it in more than just our belief for it. We have to apply the scientific method and offer quantitative effidence that what we believe can contribute to what the sceptics care about.
Many thanks for your contribution!
Ivo
- Badges
- Science topic