Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Open Science & Altmetrics

Keynote at 4th Annual KnowEscape Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria (Feb 24, 2017). http://knowescape.org/knowescape2017/

Yes, we’re open: Open science & altmetrics

Abstract: Open Science is en vogue – especially after Carlos Moedas, EU-Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, has outlined his vision for Europe along the lines of ‘open innovation, open science, open to the world’. Open science describes the transition of ‘publishing as fast as possible’ towards ‘sharing knowledge as fast as possible’. Several reasons explain the move towards openness, it is expected, for example, that open science will increase the efficiency of science. Of course, digital media and web-based environments are keys to this development, but it also requires a systemic change to transform open science from a nice-to-have-feature into the default way of performing research. Altmetrics, i.e. social media-based metrics, are often considered drivers of open science and essential tools for changing the reward system in science. When looking closer, though, severe tensions between features as well as expectations of open science and altmetrics become apparent. The talk will argue that open science only can enfold its potential if ‘openness’ is fully embraced and supported by open metrics.

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Open Science & Altmetrics

  1. 1. Open Science & Altmetrics Professor Dr. Isabella Peters, Web Science
  3. 3. Motivation I: Social media & the Web are all over the place Source: http://www.domo.com/learn/data-never-sleeps-2
  4. 4. Allgemeine und berufliche Nutzung von Online-Toolsn use in scientific workflows metrics & information gathering just profile, no use VanNoorden,R.(2014).Scientistsandthesocialnetwork.Nature,512,126–129.doi:10.1038/512126a
  5. 5. Motivation II: Social media in scholarly communication https://101innovations.wordpress.com/
  6. 6. Motivation II: Social media in scholarly communication
  8. 8. Drivers: Open science push Carlos Moedas Commissioner for Research, Science & Innovation „:the way that science works is fundamentally changing and an equally important transformation is taking place in how companies and societies innovate. Put simply, the advent of digital technologies is making science and innovation more open, collaborative, and global.“ • Mai 2016 • Directorate-General for Research & Innovation • DOI: 10.2777/061652
  9. 9. Open science in the EU Video: https://www.leibniz- science20.de/de/die-european-open- science-cloud-in-den-digitalen-medien/
  10. 10. Open science in the EU High Level Expert Group on the European Open Science Cloud: metaphor to help convey both seamlessness and the idea of a commons based on scientific data https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/realising_the_european_open_science_cloud_2016.pdf
  11. 11. 2. Analysis, discussion in blogs, wikis1. Publication of gene sequence 3. Scientific publication EHEC Escherichia coli bacterium
  12. 12. Open science: Examples & success stories http://punkish.org/ A-lawyer-a- scientist-and-a-kid https://github.com/leereilly/swot
  13. 13. Open science: Examples & success stories • Early feedback https://www.icahdq.org/pubs/calls/Jour nalOfMedia.asp
  14. 14. Open science: Examples & success stories Page 14 • Early feedback http://riojournal.com/
  15. 15. Open science: Examples & success stories
  16. 16. EC, 2016, DOI: 10.2777/061652 Open science: Definitions • Open Science opens up the entire research enterprise (inner circle) by using a variety of means and digital tools (outer circle) • From publishing as fast as possible to sharing as fast as possible
  17. 17. Open science: Definition The Open Definition (http://opendefinition.org) • Relates to open source software • Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness.
  18. 18. Benefits of open science • Science system vs. individual researcher • Quality • Efficiency • Reproducibility • Credibility • Visibility http://whyopenresearch.orgEC, 2016, DOI: 10.2777/061652
  19. 19. Benefits of (online) open science: Visibility Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Wilde, E. (2010). Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO): Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar and Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176–190. doi: 10.3138/jsp.41.2.176
  20. 20. Benefits of (online) open science: Visibility Page 20 http://de.slideshare.net/growkudos/authors- use-of-social-media
  21. 21. Benefits of (online) open science: Visibility Page 21 Swan, A. (2010). The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date (Technical Report). URL: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/268516
  22. 22. Benefits of open science: paradigm shift
  23. 23. Risks (?) of open science • Blogging is a waste of precious time that could be spent on “legitimate” publishing • Because it’s a form of self-publishing that lacks peer review, blogging isn’t usually viewed as a legitimate form of scholarship • Dismissal of my work because it’s online [and] criticisms that my work isn’t good enough to be published anywhere else. • Sometimes blogging is even seen as disseminating one’s ideas too freely. In a competitive academic field, research ideas could be “scooped” from a blog, while established journals may not want to publish work that’s available in some form online. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/11/3 0/should-you-enter-the-academic-blogosphere/
  24. 24. ALTMETRICS
  25. 25. Doom of metrics: Academia fights back San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (http://am.ascb.org/dora) • “The declaration intends to halt the practice of correlating the journal impact factor to the merits of a specific scientist's contributions. [:] this practice creates biases and inaccuracies when appraising scientific research. [:] the impact factor is not to be used as a substitute ‘measure of the quality of individual research articles, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions’” Altmetrics Manifesto (http://altmetrics.org/manifesto) • “Altmetrics expand our view of what impact looks like, but also of what’s making the impact. [:] Unlike citation metrics, altmetrics will track impact outside the academy, impact of influential but uncited work, and impact from sources that aren’t peer-reviewed. [:] The speed of altmetrics presents the opportunity to create real-time recommendation and collaborative filtering systems”
  26. 26. Altmetrics in open science
  27. 27. Altmetrics in open science The call for open metrics • research products and data sources for metric development need to be logically selected, open documented, and chosen in line with the disciplinary norms; • data that underlies metrics, indicators, and measurements need to be open and accessible (preferably via automatic processes, e.g. API); • provision of software that was used for calculations; • logical, scientific, and documented explanation of how data were derived and metrics calculated. Herb, U. (2016). Impactmessung, Transparenz & Open Science: Open Metrics. Online: https://www.scinoptica.com/2016/09/impactme ssung-transparenz-open-science/
  29. 29. Conclusions
  30. 30. Conclusions Science of open science
  31. 31. Conclusion Open science is science http://imgur.com/74I7MBx?r science qualityopen
  32. 32. Seite 32 Conclusions http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachel-cleetus/you-cant-delete-climate-change
  33. 33. Professor Dr. Isabella Peters ZBW – Leibniz Information Center for Economics & Kiel University i.peters@zbw.eu Thank you!
  34. 34. • Gillet, D., El Helou, S., Joubert, M., & Sutherland, R. (2009). Science 2.0: Supporting a Doctoral Community of Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning using Social Software. In Science2.0 for TEL, Workshop at the 4th European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (ECTEL’09), Nice, France. • Shneiderman, B. (2008). COMPUTER SCIENCE: Science 2.0. Science, 319(5868), 1349-1350. doi: 10.1126/science.1153539 • Underwood, J., Luckin, R., Smith, H., Walker, K., Rowland, D., Fitzpatrick, G., Good, J., Benford, S. (2009): Reflections on Participatory Science for TELSci2.0, In: Science2.0 for TEL, Workshop at the 4th European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (ECTEL’09), Nice, France. • Waldrop, M. M. (2008). Science 2.0. Scientific American, 298(5), 68. References