Talk given at Lynch School of Education, Boston College, April 25, 2017.

1. Being an Open Scholar
in a Connected World
Stian Håklev (CC BY)
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
April 25, 2017

6. “Gold” (journal) and “green” (self-archiving)
versions of traditionally authored and peer-
reviewed journal articles

7. OA makes articles more accessible,
even for those who already have access

8. Giving the broader public
access to our research

9. Are the public really interested in
access? A few examples...

11. Wikipedia is a great academic resource
- as a starting point for further research

12. 22,000+ students are accessing OA
articles as part of their course

13. 13
a story enabled by openness

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

23. Openness enables surprising reuse of your data
Requires:
-legal license (Creative Commons, etc)
-access to the data
-re-usable data format

24. New models:
- The function of journals
- The function of peer review
- The time line/sequence
- Quality measurements

25. ~22.000 papers
published in 2016

26. Alt-metrics
• cited in non-SSCI journals
• cited in monographs
• cited in curricula
• translated
• …
• per-paper citation index vs Impact Factor

30. “What would a student grading system look like, if it was never
revealed to anyone outside school, but only used to provide helpful
feedback to students?”
“What would an academic publishing system look like, if hiring/
tenure/promotion/grants did not rely on it, and its only purpose was
to get relevant and useful information to other scientists as
efficiently as possible?”

35. Epistemological questions
How important is speed vs.
correctness
Sharing work in progress vs only
publishing “perfected final
version”
Reviewers or social media as
filters

39. Where is the Open Streetmap for Google Scholar?

41. Demo of social sharing of research notes

42. Demo of social sharing of research notes

43. Text mining

44. Text mining
Content mining

45. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

46. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

47. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

48. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

49. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

50. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

51. Slides courtesy of Peter Murray-Rust

52. What if we didn’t have to reverse-
engineer PDFs,
but we changed the way we published
papers in the first place?

53. Adding meaning to articles, enabling
knowledge to be mapped out

54. http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito/source.html#objectproperties

55. Replication crisis
• Outright errors in calculations/data
handling
• Abuse of p-values (large data sets)
• P-fishing
• Poorly described experiment
• Overly generalised conclusion
• Significant result bias (not publishing
negative findings)

57. https://osf.io/s5pwv/

63. • What would this look like for other
research methodologies/approaches
(qualitative, critical…)

64. “The Open Scholar, as I'm defining this person, is
not simply someone who agrees to allow free
access and reuse of his or her traditional scholarly
articles and books; no, the Open Scholar is
someone who makes their intellectual projects
and processes digitally visible and who invites
and encourages ongoing criticism of their work
and secondary uses of any or all parts of it--at any
stage of its development.”
Gideon Burton, www.academicevolution.org

76. Ryan Muller, http://learnstream.org/wiki

77. Niklas Karlsson, http://kollaboration.se/wiki

78. After publication

87. MA thesis

98. Many things we haven’t talked about:
• better social networks for researchers
• sharing tools (code)
• better aligned incentive systems for researchers
• sharing analytic frameworks, coding schemes…
• more open research collaborations
• considerations about privacy and data sharing
• updated approach to research ethics / IRBs
• citizen science
• new venues for conducting research (MOOCs, social
networks)
• integrating research and teaching in new ways

99. • In a time of unprecedented opportunity, due to
technology and connectivity, and a huge growth in the
number of people able to participate in the scientific
process,
• but at the same time an increasing commercialisation
and closing down of public spaces, and distrust and
abuse of science for political purposes,
• it is incumbent upon us to work towards a better and
more transparent, open and networked scientific
process,
• without forgetting our disciplinary perspectives, ethical,
philosophical and methodological commitments, to
experiment with new ways of being scholars and
communities of scholars.
Thank you! Stian Håklev, stian.haklev@epfl.ch