ЮФУ
ул. М. Горького, 88, к. 211
г.Ростов-на-Дону, Россия
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.

TERRA ECONOMICUS

Преимущества и проблемы практик «открытой науки»


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Том 21 (номер 3),
Цитирование: Дежина И.Г. (2023). Преимущества и проблемы практик «открытой науки». Terra Economicus 21(3), 70–87. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-3-70-87

В статье анализируются особенности продвижения практик открытой науки и их связь с ценностями, провозглашенными в концепции открытой науки. Основные ценности открытой науки появились как отклик на давно существующие проблемы в системе производства научного знания и включают такие понятия, как открытость, прозрачность, справедливость, равенство (инклюзивность), кооперация, воспроизводимость и научная добросовестность. Эти ценности встроены в практики открытой науки. Пока распространение практик открытой науки происходит неравномерно, в том числе в региональном, дисциплинарном, гендерном и институциональном аспектах. На основе анализа международного опыта показано, что практики открытой науки начинают менять принципы научной деятельности на всех этапах исследовательского цикла: от появления идеи до обнародования и распространения результатов научных исследований. Более детальное изучение четырех наиболее распространенных практик открытой науки – предоставления открытых данных, открытого рецензирования, предварительной регистрации и открытого доступа – показало, что все практики, решая одни проблемы, одновременно создают новые, связанные с их имплементацией в существующую систему отношений в науке. Новые практики требуют не только изменения принципов и структуры финансирования и трудозатрат, но и системы оценки и вознаграждения за результаты. Наибольшая трудность состоит в необходимости изменения культуры научной деятельности, чтобы она отвечала ценностям открытой науки. Применительно к России, где пока распространена в основном только практика открытого доступа, обсуждается потенциал использования и других практик с учетом сложившихся в сфере науки условий и отношений.


Ключевые слова: открытая наука; открытые данные; открытый доступ; открытое рецензирование; предварительная регистрация; ценности

Список литературы:
  • Дежина И.Г. (2021). «Выбор победителей» в современной научной политике России. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления (3), 53–74. [Dezhina, I. (2021). Picking winners in modern Russian science policy. Public Administration Issues (3), 53–74 (in Russian)].
  • Abele-Brehm, A., Gollwitzer, M., Steinberg, U., Schonbrodt, F. (2019). Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing: A survey among members of the German psychological society. Social Psychology 50(4), 252–260. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000384
  • Anglada, L., Abadal, E. (2023). Open access: a journey from impossible to probable, but still uncertain. Profesional de la Información 32(1), e320113. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2023.ene.13
  • Armeni, K., Brinkman, L., Carlsson, R., Eerland, A., Fijten, R. et al. (2021). Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: the role of open science communities. Science and Public Policy 48(5), 605–611. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab039
  • Beer, J., Eastwick, P., Goh, J. (2023). Hits and misses in the last decade of open science: Researchers from different subfields and career stages offer personal reflections and suggestions. Social Psychological Bulletin. In press. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/504114b1e4b0b97fe5a520af/t/64221b375b8c2754bae23881/1679956792020/BeerEastwickGoh_InPress.pdf (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • Berezko, O., Medina, L., Malaguarnera, G. et al. (2021). Perspectives on open science and scholarly publishing: A survey study focusing on early career researchers in Europe [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 10, 1306. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.74831.1
  • Besançon, L., Rönnberg, N., Löwgren, J., Tennant, J., Cooper, M. (2020). Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review 5, Article 8. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z
  • Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H. et al. (2012). In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics”. Scientometrics 93, 915–929. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0731-8
  • Brainard, J. (2023). Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common. Science 380(6645), 568–569. DOI: 10.1126/science.adi6523
  • Budden, A., Tregenza, T., Aarsen, L. et al. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(1), 4–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
  • Burgelman, J.-C., Pascu, C., Szkuta, K., Von Schomberg, R., Karalopoulos, A. et al. (2019). Open science, open data, and open scholarship: European policies to make science fit for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Big Data 2(43). DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00043
  • Cole, N., Reicjmann, S., Ross-Hellauer, T. (2023). Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers. Royal Society Open Science 10, 221460. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221460
  • Decoursey, T. (2006). Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature04991
  • De Rosa, R., Aragona, B. (2021). Open science and the academic profession. JeDEM – EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government 13(2), 184–205. DOI: 10.29379/jedem.v13i2.661
  • Dominik, M., Nzweundji, J., Ahmed, N., Carnicelli, S., Mat Jalaluddin, N., et al. (2022). Open science – For whom? Data Science Journal 21(1), 1–8. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2022-001
  • Emery, C., Lucraft, M., Monaghan, J., Stuart, D., Winter, S. (2021). Going for gold: Exploring the reach and impact of Gold open access articles in hybrid journals [white paper]. Figshare. Journal contribution. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.16860229.v2
  • Fang, F., Steen, R., Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(42), 17028–33. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  • Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44(4), 311–326. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
  • Gabelica, M., Bojčić, R., Puljak, L. (2022). Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 150, 33–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019
  • Gownaris, N., Vermeir, K., Bittner, M.-I., Gunawardena, L., Kaur-Ghumaan, S. et al. (2022). Barriers to full participation in the open science life cycle among early career researchers. Data Science Journal 21(2), 1–15. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2022-002
  • Grant, S., Wendt, K., Leadbeater, B., Supplee, H., Mayo-Wilson, E. et al. (2022). Transparent, open, and reproducible prevention science. Prevention Science 23, 701–722. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-022-01336-w
  • Gogotsi, Y. (2023). Pay to publish? Open access publishing from the viewpoint of a scientist and editor. Graphene and 2D Materials 8, 1–3. DOI: 10.1007/s41127-023-00057-3
  • Gonzales, J., Cunningham, C. (2015). The promise of pre-registration in psychological research. Psychological Science Agenda. https://osf.io/7pd5u/download (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • He, Y., Tian, K., Xu, X. (2023). A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Scientometrics 128, 587–607. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04552-x
  • Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Harney, J., Cadwallader, L. (2021). A survey of researchers’ needs and priorities for data sharing. Data Science Journal 20(1), 31. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2021-031
  • Ioannidis, J. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS Biol 16(3), e2005468. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
  • Jarolimkova, A., Drobikova, B. (2019). Data sharing in social sciences: Case study on Charles University. In: Kurbanoğlu, S. et al. (eds.) Information Literacy in Everyday Life. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp. 556–565.
  • Jones, N. (2022). Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer reviewers. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-03256-9
  • Know, D. (2022). Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w
  • Kosmopoulos, C. (2022). From open access publishing to open science: An overview of the last developments in Europe and in France. In: Alemneh, D. (ed.) Handbook of Research on the Global View of Open Access and Scholarly Communications. IGI Global, pp. 1–22. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-9805-4.ch001
  • Kravitz, R., Franks, P., Feldman, M. et al. (2010). Editorial peer reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 5(4), e10072. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072
  • LaPlante, D., Louderback, E., Abarbanel, B. (2021). Gambling researchers’ use and views of open science principles and practices: A brief report. International Gambling Studies 21(3), 381–394. DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2021.1891272
  • Ledgerwood, A., Hudson, S., Lewis, N., Jr., Maddox, K., Pickett, C. et al. (2022). The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and inclusive. Perspectives on Psychological Science 17(4), 937–959.
  • Leonelli, S. (2021). Open science and epistemic diversity: Friends or foes? Philosophy of Science 89(5), 1–21. DOI: 10.1017/psa.2022.45
  • Lund, A., Zukerfeld, M. (2020). Corporate Capitalism’s Use of Openness: Profit for Free? Springer Nature.
  • Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Trofimovich, P., Ellis, N. (2018). Introducing registered reports at language learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning 68, 309–320.
  • McKiernan, E., Bourne, P., Brown, C., Buck, S., Kenall, A. et al. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5, e16800. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16800.001
  • Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M., Šupak Smolčić, V. (2017). Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia medica 27(3), 447–452. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030201
  • Näre, L. (2022). Is open science good for research and researchers? Nordic Journal of Migration Research 12(1), 1–3. DOI: 10.33134/njmr.553
  • Nature (2022). Nature is trialling transparent peer review – The early results are encouraging. Nature 603, 8. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00493-w
  • Nature (2023). Nature welcomes Registered Reports. Nature 614, 594. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00506-2
  • Nelhans, G., Nolin, J. (2022). Anti-transparency within the EU shift to open science. Science and Public Policy scac039. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scac039
  • Nosek, B. et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science 348(6242), 1422–1425. DOI: 10.1126/ science.aab2374
  • Nosek, B., Ebersole, C., DeHaven, A., Mellor, D. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(11), 2600–2606. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114
  • Olejniczak, A., Wilson, M. (2020). Who’s writing open access (OA) articles? Characteristics of OA authors at Ph.D. – granting institutions in the United States. Quantitative Science Studies 1(4), 1429–1450. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00091
  • Pham, M., Oh, T. (2021). Preregistration is neither sufficient nor necessary for good science. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31, 163–176.
  • Park, M., Leahey, E., Funk, R. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613, 138–144. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
  • Pasquetto, I., Sands, A., Borgman, C. (2015). Exploring openness in data and science: What is “open,” to whom, when, and why? In Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Impact: Research in and for the Community. Article № 141. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2857070.2857211 (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • Peters, D., Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2), 187–195. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00011183
  • Redkina, N. (2022). The information ecosystem of open science: Key aspects of development. Science and Technical Information Processing 49(3), 151–158. DOI: 10.3103/S0147688222030042
  • Reichmann, S., Wieser, B. (2022). Open science at the science–policy interface: Bringing in the evidence? Health Research Policy and Systems 20(70). DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00867-6
  • Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J. (2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science 31(8), 1046–1062. DOI 10.1177/09636625221100686
  • Ross, J., Gross, C., Desai, M. et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 295(14), 1675–1680. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675
  • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] F1000Research 6, 588. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  • Sanderson, K. (2023). Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges. Nature 616(7958), 641–641. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-01391-5
  • Schares, E. (2023). Impact of the 2022 OSTP memo: A bibliometric analysis of U.S. federally funded publications, 2017–2021. Quantitative Science Studies. Advance Publication. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00237
  • Simard, M.-A., Ghiasi, G., Mongeon, P., Larivière, V. (2022). National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature. PLoS ONE 17(8), e0272730. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272730
  • Simmons, J., Leif, N., Simonsohn, U. (2021). Pre-registration: Why and how. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31(1), 151–162.
  • Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4), 178–182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
  • Spinello, A., Giglitto, D., Lockley, E. (2021). Management of open access research infrastructures in large EU projects: The “CultureLabs” case (CNR-IRCrES Working Paper 9/2021). Istituto di Ricerca sulla Crescita Economica Sostenibile. DOI: 10.23760/2421-7158.2021.009
  • Steinhardt, I., Bauer, M., Wünsche, H. et al. (2022). The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers. Quality & Quantity. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4
  • Teixeira da Silva, J., Nazarovets, S. (2022). The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly 38, 760–781. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0
  • Tennant, J., Jacques, D., Collister, L. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.1
  • Tenopir, C., Christian, L., Allard, S., Borycz, J. (2018). Research data sharing: Practices and attitudes of geophysicists. Earth and Space Science 5, 891–902. DOI: 10.1029/2018EA000461
  • Turrini, T., Dörler, D., Richter, A., Heigl, F., Bonn, A. (2018). The threefold potential of environmental citizen science-Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biological Conservation 225, 176–186. DOI: 10.1016/j. biocon.2018.03.024
  • Van Noorden, R. (2022). An open-access history: The world according to Smits. Nature 603, 384–385. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00717-z
  • van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. et al. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 318(7175), 23–27. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
  • van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., Evans, S. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341, c5729. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c5729
  • Verma, A., Sonkar, S. (2021). Growth of open access scholarly communication in BRICS countries. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6453 (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • Vicente-Saez, R., Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research 88, 428–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
  • Wachholz, P. (2022). Transparency, openness, and reproducibility: GGA advances in alignment with good editorial practices and open science. Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging 16, e0220027.
  • Walker, R., Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience 9, 169. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169
  • Wallach, J., Boyack, K., Loannidis, J. (2018). Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017. PLoS Biology 16(11), e2006930. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930
  • Wang, Y., Wang, H., Tang, C. (2012). Discussion and suggestion on review mechanism of nonconsensus projects. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China 2, 74–78. DOI: 10.16262/j.cnki.1000-8217.2012.02.002
  • Zarghani, M., Nemati-Anaraki, L., Sedghi, S. et al. (2023). Iranian researchers’ perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication. BMC Health Service Research 23, 437. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09420-9
  • Zhang, L., Ma, L. (2023). Is open science a double-edged sword?: Data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles. Scientometrics 128, 2803–2818. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04684-8
  • Zhang, L., Wei, Y., Huang, Y., Sivertsen, G. (2022). Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research. Scientometrics 127, 7653–7679. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04407-5
Издатель: Южный Федеральный Университет
Учредитель: Южный федеральный университет
ISSN: 2073-6606