According to Wikipedia: Open science is the umbrella term of the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. It encompasses practices such as publishing open research, campaigning for open access, encouraging scientists to practice open notebook science, and generally making it easier to publish and communicate scientific knowledge. Here (in this remixed on purpose) we will explore some of the key dimensions and opportunities behind the open science and its opportunities for digital scholars.

1. digital scholarship:
how open publication and co-creation
could transform science
@cristobalcobo
Oxford Internet Institute,
Oxford University, England 1

2. 2

3. 3
JISC. (2012, September 4). Amberthomas openness he. Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16znWvI

4. 6

5. 5

6. 4

7. 7

8. 10

9. 9

10. 11

11. 8

12. 13
Ron Mader. (2013, July 21). Set the default to open #openaccess #oer #openjournalism. Technology.
Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BTtRN

13. 17

14. 28

15. 37
Cameron Neylon. (2011, July 4). Open Research: Pipedream or growing
reality. Education. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zm85S

16. 38

17. 39

18. 42

19. 43

20. 44

21. 45

22. 46

23. 47

24. 48

25. 49

26. 18
Source: Cameron Neylon. (2009, January 29). Open Access, Open Data. Open Research? Retrieved from http://
www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/open-access-open-data-open-research-presentation?from_search=1

27. 19

28. 20

29. 21

30. 22

31. 23

32. 24

33. 25

34. 26
Julien Sicot. (20131). Open Science, Open Access, Science2.0 : de nouvelles modalités pour... Technology.
Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BSxNm

35. 29
Carl-Christian Buhr. (2012, October 22). Open Science at the European Commission. Technology.
Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BTKEm

36. 30

37. Two
features
define
an
open-­‐access
publica3on:
1.
Published
contents
are
freely
accessible
through
Internet.
2.
Readers
are
given
copyright
permission
to
republish
or
reuse
the
content
as
they
like
so
long
as
the
author
and
publisher
receive
proper
aOribu3on.
Why
Full
Open
Access
Ma<ers
What
is
open
access?
(that
does
not
mean
openly
licensed)
Public
Domain
All
Rights
Reserved
Least
restricAve
à
Most
restricAve
hOp://www.slideshare.net/mrgarin/o-­‐a-­‐w-­‐e-­‐e-­‐k2009

38. 31

39. 32
john wilbanks. (2010, March 2). Nfais Wilbanks. News & Politics. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BUs4o

40. 33

41. 34
Open data
Open source software
Open discussion
Open resources
Open review

42. Two relevant dimensions: knowledge generation (wikis,
e-science, online education, distributed R&D, open
innovation, open science, peer-based production, UGC)
+ new models of knowledge distribution (e-journals,
open repositories, open licenses, dataweb archive).
50

43. ••Today's initiatives in cyber- infrastructure, e-
Science, e-Humanities or e-Learning emerged
from a period combining technological advances
and economic-institutional redefinitions (Borgman, 2007)
51

44. •Exponential transformation of information is
remarkable from the quantitative perspective,
but also there fragmentation of mechanisms to
create, access and distribute information.
52

45. ••New modes of scholarship of collaborative,
trans-disciplinary and computationally
engaged research, teaching and publication.
(Burdick, et al, 2012).
53

46. •••Digital scholarship communities collaborate in
dynamic, flexible/open-ended networks, exchanging
in innovation, creativity/co-authoring.
(i.e open Science Federation)
54

47. •Radical decentralization: Open values, ideology
and potential of technologies born of peer-to-
peer networking and wiki-ways. (Benkler, 2006)
i.e. BioMed Central, Public Library of Science
55

48. connect
supply
and
demand

49. Publishing
journals
Publishing
books
Post in
conferences
Blogging
Tweeting
DOAJ - OCW
YouTube Channel
Webinar
Print-on-demand

50. First
Monday:
(1ST
of
its
kind)
15-­‐year-­‐old
open
access
journal
about
the
internet.
PLoS
ONE:
peer-­‐reviewed,
open-­‐access
resource
from
the
Public
Library
Of
Science

51. SciELO
-­‐
ScienAfic
Electronic
Library
Online
(1998):
facilitate
coopera3ve
electronic
publishing
of
scien3fic
(peer
review)
journals.
SiELO
network
(federa3on)
is
based
on
na3onal
infrastructures
(future
sustainability).
Goal:
To
foster
the
na3onal
scien3fic
research
(expanding
the
visibility,
accessibility
and
credibility)
of
the
LA&C
scien3fic
publica3ons.
SciElo
enables:
-­‐
Searching,
-­‐
Preserving
and
-­‐
Monitoring
scien3fic
literature.
It
includes
over
760
journals,
~300,000
ar3cles.
Impact
factor:
Over
6
million
granted
cita3on.
Over
than
12
million
ar3cles
accessed
per
month.
SiELO:
Compa3ble
with
interna3onal
standards
(Web
of
Science,
Scopus,
Crossref,
Google
Scholar,
PubMed,
DOAJ).
15
na3ons
+
South-­‐South
Coopera3on

52. hOp://figshare.com/

53. 59
Source: Cameron Neylon. (2010, January 22). Science in the Open. Business & Mgmt.
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/science-in-the-open?from_search=2

54. 60

55. 62

56. 63

57. 64

58. 65

59. 66

60. 68

61. 69

62. 70

63. 71

64. 72

65. 73

66. 74

68. 78

69. 79
Scientific publishing

70. 80
Jonathan Eisen. (2012, July 13). Jonathan Eisen talk on “Open Science at #BOSC2012
#ISMB. Entertainment. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16znpdq
Existing Barriers:
Impact Factor
Money raising efforts
Immobilism ‒ Lobby
False positive:
1. Lack of peer review or quality
2. Only Journal copyright protects authors
3. Poor distribution

71. 81

72. 82
Björn Brembs. (2011, August 30). What s wrong with scholarly publishing today? II. Business &
Mgmt. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/14BT7L5

73. 83

74. 84

75. 85

76. 86
Where you publish is
more important to us
than what you
publish
“Not everything
that can be
counted counts, and
not everything that
counts can be
counted

77. 35

78. 87
Current tensions that face the
academic community:
• • Tradition (800 centuries and counting......)
• • Proprietary value of information.
• • Revenues (sure?)
• • Plagiarism (yes, but...)
• • Misunderstanding (access vs open or
quality)
• • Funding model
hOp://www.flickr.com/photos/franganillo/3554010670/sizes/z/in/photostream/
Cornelius Puschmann. (2008). New Paradigms In Scholarly Communication (Ibm).
Technology. Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zocuJ

79. 88
How is 'impact'
measured?
“ Your article
was published in a
journal with an
Impact Factor
of X
hOp://www.flickr.com/photos/macrj/7678960512/sizes/l/in/photostream/

80. 89
How could 'impact' be measured? Authority 3.0 (Michael Jensen)
• • X citations (de-duped from Google Scholar, Scopus, WoSc)
• • prestige of the publisher + peer pre-reviewers, commenters
• • citations (scholarly, hyperlinks, social bookmarks)
• • expert ratings (f1000.com; Peer Reviewers)
• • community rating& commenting (Digging; Rating)
• • social media coverage (bookmarked/discussed/commented)
• • it was viewed X times in X journal/communities
• • proportion-quoted-by-others: out in Web/ valued-links
• • author's participation in other valued projects
• • inclusion in in syllabi and other indexes
Authority
2.0
and
3.0
(PDF)
originally
presented
at
50th
anniversary
celebra3on
of
Hong
Kong
University
Press,
11/2006.
hOp://bit.ly/17jDV1f
Björn Brembs. (2009, January 21). Reputation, authority and incentives. Or: How to
get rid of the Imp... Retrieved from http://slidesha.re/16zoylf

81. drivers
90

82. •EU Commission + ESRC: Accelerate open access.
OA journals + databases facilitating mechanism of
open peer revision + visibility/impact (avoid duplication).
1. Technology: Coordination mechanisms - exchange and
codification of tacit knowledge, simplifying its
translation into more findable and interchangeable
resources (Heimeriks & Vasileiadou, 2008).
(i.e. PeerJ, Rubriq)
91

83. •Books become a dialogical tool not simply
“finished + “published but open to dynamics +
iterations (i.e. versioning, crowd-source, peer
reviewed, remix). Burdick (et al., 2012)
2. Co-creation: Networking +Coordination +Cooperation +
Collaboration. (Rheingold, 2012)
The higher the level of negotiation the more
complex the set of skills required.
(i.e. Flat World Knowledge, Creative Crowdwriting)
92

84. •Do-it-yourself publishing: Blogs, photos + videos
(Nielsen, 2011).
Less clear distinction between popular and more
specialized scholarship (Burdick, 2012).
3. Dissemination: New open-access policies (open
repositories/journals) almost anyone anywhere.
“If it doesn t spread, it s dead Jenkins et al. (2010).
4 R: reuse, revise, remix and redistribute. (Wiley, 2010).
(i.e. CreateSpace or Blurb)
93

85. •~20 mill. papers over 50y:
cross Disciplinary teams dominate solo authors
and frequently more cited than individuals
(Wuchty, 2007)
•4. Co-Authorship/beta: From solitary genius toward the
virtually boundless community of digital scholars
(Burdick, et al, 2012)).
94

86. •a) the existing practices of peer-review to
assure the quality of knowledge creation /
dissemination
b) Mode 2, post-normal science + technoscience
(Burdick, et al, 2012).
Critique: Need to recognize distinction between DIY
scholarship and high scholarship.
••
(i.e Wikipedia)
95

87. •Stick or the carrot: academic mechanisms of
recognition (in many cases) are limited to metrics
such as h-index' affecting to possibilities to
facilitate peers based collaboration (Hirsch, 2005)
96

88. •the current academic assessment systems
which reward scholarship are dysfunctional
and potentially cause more harm than good.
(Adler and Harzing, 2009)
97

89. Due to these elements of exclusiveness/
individualism, knowledge-sharing in academic
organizations are often inefficient (Seonghee and
Boryung, 2008)
The highly competitive environment enhance lack of
partnership (Kanwar, Kodhandaraman, and Umar, 2010).
98

90. Will universities institutionalize approaches (learning and
research) grounded in collaboration instead of celebrity
and competition?
99

91. The shift in knowledge landscape is disturbing to
people familiar with the earlier paradigm .
Chesbrough (2006)
100

92. •More appropriate institutional recognition are needed
(i.e. A tenure evaluation system that recognizes the
value of more flexible mechanisms of knowledge
creation and new publication formats).
Is not easy to determine to what extent traditional
and new practices of scholarship will coexist.
(i.e. Reinventing Discovery)
101

93. Appropriating these tools/practices requires a new set
of skills (i.e. Curation, Editing, and Modelling) to work
across an information ecosystem full of new
intermediaries.
102

94. New cultural practices: institutional flexibility (i.e.
diversifying tenure track, re- understand concepts
such as academic visibility or digital influence).
103

95. 104

96. 105
Sources
Cameron
Neylon.
(2010,
January
22).
Science
in
the
Open.
Business
&
Mgmt.
Retrieved
from
hOp://www.slideshare.net/
CameronNeylon/science-­‐in-­‐the-­‐open?from_search=2
Cameron
Neylon.
(2009,
January
29).
Open
Access,
Open
Data.
Open
Research?
Retrieved
from
hOp://www.slideshare.net/
CameronNeylon/open-­‐access-­‐open-­‐data-­‐open-­‐research-­‐presenta3on?from_search=1
Julien
Sicot.
(2013,
May
21).
Open
Science,
Open
Access,
Science2.0 :
de
nouvelles
modalités
pour...
Technology.
Retrieved
from
hOp://www.slideshare.net/jsicot/open-­‐science-­‐open-­‐access-­‐science20-­‐de-­‐nouvelles-­‐modalits-­‐pour-­‐la-­‐communica3on-­‐
scien3fique?from_search=3
Björn
Brembs.
(2011,
August
30).
What’s
wrong
with
scholarly
publishing
today?
II.
Business
&
Mgmt.
Retrieved
from
hOp://
slidesha.re/14BT7L5
Ron
Mader.
(2013,
July
21).
Set
the
default
to
open
#openaccess
#oer
#openjournalism.
Technology.
Retrieved
from
hOp://
slidesha.re/14BTtRN
Carl-­‐Chris3an
Buhr.
(2012,
October
22).
Open
Science
at
the
European
Commission.
Technology.
Retrieved
from
hOp://slidesha.re/
14BTKEm
John
Wilbanks.
(2010,
March
2).
Nfais
Wilbanks.
News
&
Poli3cs.
Retrieved
from
hOp://slidesha.re/14BUs4o
Cameron
Neylon.
(2011,
July
4).
Open
Research:
Pipedream
or
growing
reality.
Educa3on.
Retrieved
from
hOp://slidesha.re/
16zm85S
Jonathan
Eisen.
(2012,
July
13).
Jonathan
Eisen
talk
on
“Open
Science”
at
#BOSC2012
#ISMB.
Entertainment.
Retrieved
from
hOp://
slidesha.re/16znpdq
JISC.
(2012,
September
4).
Amberthomas
openness
he.
Technology.
Retrieved
from
hOp://slidesha.re/16znWvI
Cornelius
Puschmann.
(2008).
New
Paradigms
In
Scholarly
CommunicaRon
(Ibm).
Technology.
Retrieved
from
hOp://slidesha.re/
16zocuJ
Björn
Brembs.
(2009,
January
21).
ReputaRon,
authority
and
incenRves.
Or:
How
to
get
rid
of
the
Imp...
Retrieved
from
hOp://
slidesha.re/16zoylf

98. @cristobalcobo
hOp://3ny.cc/ppts
Oxford
Internet
Ins3tute
Research
Fellow.
106

99. 107

100. 108