Open Science por defecto. La nueva normalidad para la investigación

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799002

Palabras clave:

Open Science, ciencia en abierto, política científica, acceso abierto, conocimiento abierto, COVID-19, Europa

Resumen


Este trabajo aborda el nuevo paradigma de la Open Science o ciencia en abierto desde la perspectiva europea, pero destacando su necesario alcance global. Se analiza el concepto, origen y evolución de la Open Science y se discuten sus retos y la demora de su completa implementación. Se parte de la hipótesis de que la Open Science debería de ser el paradigma de comunicación científico por defecto en el siglo XXI. En primer lugar, se revisa el concepto y alcance de Open Science frente a Open Access y en su interacción con Open Knowledge, así como la necesidad de mantener la denominación como «marca». En segundo lugar, se recogen los requisitos, reflexiones y parámetros para hacer de la ciencia un bien común y se describen los retos de la Open Science en Europa, que se han convertido en los principales pilares y/o elementos constitutivos de la ciencia en abierto. Se reflexiona sobre su puesta en práctica, detallando dos aproximaciones: 1) la creación de políticas y estrategias formales a nivel Estados miembros (top-down), y 2) la implementación bottom-up a través de Compromisos Prácticos de Implementación (PCIs). Asimismo, se destacan los problemas reales que alejan a los agentes implicados de protagonizar el cambio sistémico hacia la Open Science. Finalmente se reflexiona sobre el efecto de la COVID-19 que ha corroborado la necesidad urgente de la ciencia en abierto. Este artículo recoge, a modo de ensayo, la experiencia y el trabajo realizado en los últimos cuatro años en la European Open Science Policy Platform, donde la autora ha presidido el segundo mandato desde 2018 a 2020. La autora expone algunas de sus principales teorías en torno a la Open Science y defiende su tesis de los compromisos prácticos de implementación y la confluencia de aproximaciones de prácticas de los agentes implicados y políticas de ciencia abierta, así como su categórica aproximación a la Open Science como marca, actitud y derecho.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Albers, Bianca; Shlonsky, Aron y Mildon, Robyn (2020). Implementation Science 3.0.

ALLEA (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised Ed. Berlin: ALLEA - All European Academies. https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.

Allen, Christopher y Mehler, David M. A. (2019). Open Science Challenges, Benefits and Tips in Early Career and Beyond. PLOS Biology 17 (5): e3000246.

Arrizabalaga, Olatz et al. (2020). Open Access of COVID-19-Related Publications in the First Quarter of 2020: A Preliminary Study Based in PubMed. F1000Research 9 (agosto): 649.

.

Ayris, Paul et al. (2018). Open Science and its role in universities: A roadmap for cultural change. LERU. Advice Paper 24. https://www.leru.org/files/LERUAP24-Open-Science-full-paper.pdf.

Barbour, Virginia y Borchert, Martin (2020). Open science: after the COVID-19 pandemic there can be no return to closed working. Policy & Features. Australian Academy of Sciences. https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/open-science-after-covid-19-pandemicthere-can-be-no-return-closed-working.

Beaudry, Jennifer, Jordy Kaufman, Tom Johnstone, y Lisa Given. 2019. Swinburne Open Science Survey (2019).

Belli, Simone et al. (2020). Coronavirus Mapping in Scientific Publications: When Science Advances Rapidly and Collectively, Is Access to This Knowledge Open to Society? Scientometrics, 124 (3): 2661-85.

Besançon, Lonni et al. (2020). Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. bioRxiv. The Preprint Server for Biology.

Bezjak, Sonja et al. (2018). Open Science Training Handbook. Zenodo.

Bücheler, Thierry y Sieg, Jan Henrik (2011). Understanding science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation in the scientific method. Procedia Computer Science, 7: 327-329.

Burgelman, Jean-Claude; Osimo, David y Bogdanowicz, Marc (2010). Science 2.0 (change will happen....). First Monday, 15 (7).

Burgelman, Jean-Claude 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 (diciembre): 43.

Capps, Benjamin (2020). Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30 (1): 11-24.

Chan, Leslie (ed.) (2019). Contextualizing openness: situating open science. Perspectives on open access. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Chretien, Jean-Paul; Rivers, Caitlin M. y Johansson, Michael A. (2016). Make Data Sharing Routine to Prepare for Public Health Emergencies. PLOS Medicine 13 (8): e1002109.

Committee on Toward an Open Science Enterprise, Board on Research Data and Information, Policy and Global Affairs, y National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision

for 21st Century Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Council of the European Union (2015). Council conclusions on open, data-intensive and networked research as a driver for faster and wider innovation. 9360/15 RECH 183 TELECOM 134 COMPET 288 IND 92. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9360-2015-INIT/en/pdf.

David, Paul A. (2008). The Historical Origins of “Open Science”: An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution. Capitalism and Society 3 (2).

David, Paul A. (2014). The Republic of Open Science: The institution’s historical origins and prospects for continued vitality. EconPapers. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/sipdpaper/13-037.htm.

David, Paul A.; Den Besten, Matthijs y Schroeder, Ralph (2006). How Open is e-Science? En 2006 Second IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science’06), 33-33. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEEE.

Delaney, Niamh et al. (2020). European Commission, y Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. 2020. Science with and for Society in Horizon 2020: Achievements and Recommendations for Horizon Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://op.europa.eu/publication/manifestation_identifier/PUB_KI0120165ENN.

ECSA (2015). Ten principles of Citzen Science. UCL Press.

European Commission (2015a). Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition. Febrero de 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_final_report.pdf.

European Commission (2015b). A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. COM (2015) 192 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52015DC0192.

European Commission (2016). Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World: A Vision for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission Expert Group on FAIR Data (2018). Turning FAIR into Reality: Final Report and Action Plan from the European Commission Expert Group on FAIR Data. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

Fecher, Benedikt y Friesike, Sascha (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. En Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, Sönke Bartling y Sascha Friesike, (ed.). Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.17-47.

Gezelter, Dan (2011). An Informal Definition of OpenScience. The OpenScience Project (blog). 2011. http://openscience.org/an-informal-definition-of-openscience.

Gobierno de España. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. 2020. EECTI: Estrategia Española de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2021-2027. Madrid: Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. https://www.ciencia.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Ministerio/FICHEROS/EECTI-2021-2027.pdf.

Guédon, Jean Claude et al. (2019). Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication: Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate- General for Research and Innovation. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/836532.

Heise, Christian, y Pearce, Joshua M. (2020). From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication. SAGE Open 10 (2): 215824402091590.

Hocquet, Alexandre (2020). Open Science in Times of Coronavirus: Introducing the Concept of “Real-Time” Publication. Substantia, 4(1), 937.

Jhangiani, Rajiv S., y Biswas-Diener, Robert (ed.) (2017). Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science. London: Ubiquity Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Fourth edition, 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.

Kwon, Diana (2020). How Swamped Preprint Servers Are Blocking Bad Coronavirus Research. Nature 581 (7807): 130-31.

Lamprecht, Anna-Lena et al. (2020). Towards FAIR principles for research software. Paul Groth y Michel Dumontier (ed.). Data Science 3 (1): 37-59.

Laursen, Keld y Salter, Ammon J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy 43 (5): 867-78.

Leonelli, Sabina; Spichtinger, Daniel y Prainsack; Barbara (2015). Sticks and carrots: encouraging open science at its source. Geo: Geography and Environment, 2(1): 12–16.

Masuzzo, Paola y Martens, Lennart (2017). Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. PeerJ Preprints 5:e2689v1

Mayer, Katja (2015). From Science 2.0 to Open Science - Turning rhetoric into action? STCSN e-letter 3. https://sites.google.com/a/ieee.net/stc-social-networking/e-letter/stcsn-e-letter-vol-3-no-1/from-science-2-0-to-open-science.

Méndez, Eva (2003). La descripción de documentos electrónicos a través de metadatos: una visión para la Archivística desde la nueva eAdministración. Revista d’Arxius, vol. 2003: 47-82. http://arxiversvalencians.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/revista2003_mendez.pdf ; https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/handle/10016/878.

Méndez, Eva, et al. (2020). Towards a shared research knowledge system: final report of the open science policy platform. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

Merton, Robert K. (1974). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miedema, Frank (2012). Science 3.0: real science, real knowledge. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Ministère de L’Enseignement Supérieur de la Recherche et de L’Innovation (2020). A global strategy for open science: France’s proposal on Open Science put forward in the framework of the Unesco consultation. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Recommendation-UNESCO-Open-Science-France-Proposal.pdf.

Mons, Barend et al. (2016). Realising the European Open Science Cloud: First Report and Recommendations of the Commission High Level Expert Group on the European Open Science Cloud. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:-KI0116872:EN:HTML.

Montgomery, Lucy et al. (2018). Open Knowledge Institutions. MIT Press OA Books, julio.

Muscella, Silvana et al. (2018). Prompting an EOSC in Practice: Final Report and Recommendations of the Commission 2nd High Level Expert Group on the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), 2018. LU: Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/112658.

National Research Council (2012). The Future of Scientific Knowledge Discovery in Open Networked Environments: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Neylon, Cameron et al. (2019). Open Scholarship and the need for collective action. Zenodo.

Nielsen, Michael (2011a). Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Nielsen, Michael (2011b). Open Science Now! TedXWaterloo. https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_nielsen_open_science_now.

O’Carroll, Connor et al. (2017a). Evaluation of Research Careers Fully Acknowledging Open Science Practices: Rewards, Incentives and/or Recognition for Researchers Practicing Open Science. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

O’Carroll, Connor et al. (2017b). Providing Researchers with the Skills and Competencies They Need to Practise Open Science. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

Ochoa-Gutiérrez, Jaider y Uribe-Tirado, Alejandro (2018). Ciencia abierta y bibliotecas académicas: Una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Open Science and Academic Library: A Systematic Literature Review. SSRN Electronic Journal.

OECD (2015). Making Open Science a Reality. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, vol. 25.

OSPP-REC (2018). Open Science Policy Platform Recommendations. Luxembourg: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

Pardo Martínez, Clara y Poveda, Alexander (2018). Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia. Information 9 (11): 292.

Pomerantz, Jeffrey y Peek, Robin (2016). Fifty shades of open. First Monday, 21(5).

Research and Information Network (2010). RINNews. RINews: Autumn 2010, Issue 11, http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/RINews_Issue_11_0.pdf.

Roman, Mona; Liu, Jingwei y Nyberg, Timo (2018). Advancing the Open Science Movement through Sustainable Business Model Development. Industry and Higher Education 32 (4): 226-34.

Saenen, Breg et al. (2019). Research Assessment in the Transition to Open Science: 2019 EUA Open Science and Access Survey Results. European University Association. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/research%20assessment%20in%20the%20transition%20to%20open%20science.pdf.

Scheliga, Kaja y Friesike, Sascha (2014). Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma? First Monday, 19(9).

Shaver, Lea Bishop (2009). The Right to Science and Culture. Wisconsin Law Review, 2010, 1: 121-84.

Simeth, Markus, y Raffo, Julio D. 2013. What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy? Research Policy 42 (9): 1531-43.

Stahl, Bernd C. (2013). Responsible Research and Innovation: The Role of Privacy in an Emerging Framework. Science and Public Policy 40 (6): 708-16.

Stodden, Victoria (2010). Open science: policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation. Journal of Science Communication 09 (01).

Teif, Vladimir B. (2014). On the Sociology of Science 2.0. En Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, Sönke Bartling y Sascha Friesike (ed.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 309-311.

Tennant, Jonathan (2020). The [R]Evolution of Open Science.

Tennant, Jonathan et al. (2019). Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development. Preprint MetaArXiv.

Tyfield, David (2013). Transition to Science 2.0: “Remoralizing” the Economy of Science. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 7 (1): 29-48.

United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

Vicente-Saez, Rubén y Martinez-Fuentes, Clara (2018). Open Science Now: A Systematic Literature Review for an Integrated Definition. Journal of Business Research 88 (julio): 428-36.

Vignoli, Michela; Kraker, Peter y Sevault, Alexis (2015). Paving the Way for Science 2.0: Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches. Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2015.

Von Schomberg, René (2012). Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. En Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methode, Wiiesbaden: Springer VS. pp., 39-61. https://app.box.com/s/f9quor8jo1bi3ham8lfc.

Von Schomberg, René (2019). Why Responsible Innovation? En International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, René von Schomberg and Jonathan Hankins (ed.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 12-32.

Waldrop, Mitchell (2008). Science 2.0-- Is Open Access Science the Future? Scientific American 298 (5): 68-73.

Wehn, Uta et al .(2020). Global Citizen Science perspectives on Open Science: Written input by the CSGP Citizen Science & Open Science Community of Practice to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. https://osf.io/6qjyg/?direct%26mode=render%26action=download%26mode=render

Wilkinson, Mark D. et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3, 160018.

Willinsky, John (2005). The Unacknowledged Convergence of Open Source, Open Access, and Open Science. First Monday 10 (8).

Wilsdon, James et al. (2017). Next-Generation Metrics: Responsible Metrics and Evaluation for Open Science. Luxembourg: Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/337729.

World Health Organization (2015). Developing Global Norms for Sharing Data and Results During Public Health Emergencies. Statement arising from a WHO Consultation held on 1–2 September 2015. https://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/blueprint_phe_data-share-results/en/.

Wouters, Paul et al. (2019). Indicator Frameworks for Fostering Open Knowledge Practices in Science and Scholarship. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.

Wyndham, Jessica M., y Weigers Vitullo, Margaret (2018). Define the Human Right to Science. Science 362 (6418): 975-975.

Zastrow, Mark (2020). Open Science Takes on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Nature 581 (7806): 109-10.

Publicado

2021-04-13

Cómo citar

Méndez, E. . (2021). Open Science por defecto. La nueva normalidad para la investigación. Arbor, 197(799), a587. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799002

Número

Sección

Artículos