Excellent news: Our study of the different meanings scientists ascribe to concepts such as openness and reproducibility is published today in PLoS ONE. It’s an excellent read. And it’s in an open access journal, so everyone can read it (just click the title):

On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study

Alicia Grubb and Steve M. Easterbrook

Abstract: This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved.

1 Comment

  1. Very readable, very interesting and important work.

Join the discussion: