Talk:Open science

Active discussions

Should open specifications be mentioned in this article?Edit

Request for sourcesEdit

What are the fundamental articles and books on the subject of open science? Who has ideas for outlining the field in this article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bluerasberry. Someone could start with the article I cite on this page in Nature Chemistry, which is open access and quite general. I also wanted to explain the undo I just applied to your edit of the page. You removed links to projects with no supporting sites, is that right? The open source drug discovery for malaria project and the Synaptic Leap are both bona fide open science projects, as you can see from the links provided, so they should be linked on this page. Both have published research outputs. I can't personally vouch for the others you deleted.Latimer741 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel that all of the external links were to minor open science project which did not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria so I removed them. Some guidelines about this are at Wikipedia:Embedded_list#Appropriate_use_of_lists and the recommendation is that internal lists could be modeled after the See also section of articles. There are a huge number of open science projects and not all of them can be listed, and I think that limiting this to links to Wikipedia articles would make this list the most WP:NPOV.
Wikipedia's criteria for deciding what is "bona fide" are at WP:NOTABILITY. A project is considered to be notable when people other than the coordinators of the project begin publishing about it. See here for a summary. Here is some external coverage of the malaria project and likewise on the Synpatic Leap mainpage they list some of their press, but the articles I checked are either self-authored, about the coordinators and not the project, or about other projects. I would love to start Wikipedia articles about these projects but I do not think they are well established yet. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The nature article you cited is really good and gives a lot of insight which this article was lacking. Thanks - I will incorporate some of it into this article. It also has the Synaptic Leap coordinator talking about his own project. Since this is vetted by Nature and others, it is a citable source, but to make a Wikipedia article about Synaptic Leap there really ought to be a minimum of 1-2 good sources which are not authored by the person behind the project. Do you know of any? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Full disclosure: I'm the person running both projects at the moment, but there is external peer-reviewed coverage of The Synaptic Leap: http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001827. No need for a separate page, but it's a real thing. It's also possible to view the active notebooks (http://malaria.ourexperiment.org/) and To Do list (https://github.com/OSDDMalaria/OSDDMalaria_To_Do_List/issues?state=open) for the malaria project, i.e. it's clear that it's also real and currently acive, not just talk about a project.Latimer741 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

resourceEdit

Cracking Open the Scientific Process by Thomas Lin published NYT January 16, 2012; excerpt ...

Dr. Nielsen and other advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction. Open access archives and journals like arXiv and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years. Galaxy Zoo, a citizen-science site, has classified millions of objects in space, discovering characteristics that have led to a raft of scientific papers. On the collaborative blog MathOverflow, mathematicians earn reputation points for contributing to solutions; in another math experiment dubbed the Polymath Project, mathematicians commenting on the Fields medalist Timothy Gowers’ blog in 2009 found a new proof for a particularly complicated theorem in just six weeks. ...

99.181.142.231 (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Citations in ledeEdit

WP:CITELEAD describes how citations in the lede are neither required nor restricted, but should be used when it increases the clarity of the article. User:Ingmar.lippert suggested that the lede contained "grand statements... which seem biased". I am happy to talk with anyone about making the article better, but I think the content which is there now is simple enough and backed by sources. I added the citations where requested by copying them from the body of the article. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Develop this article Friday 19 September 2013Edit

Hello! On Friday 19 September 2013 some attendees at OKCon, a conference of the Open Knowledge Foundation, will be participating in an effort to improve this Wikipedia article and others related to the concept of open science. Anyone who would like to contribute to this article as part of this drive to improvement should do so! Details of the event are at Wikipedia:Workshop/Open_Science_Workshop_(Geneva)/References#Main_References. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
I've made a first global look to OS core references. So far, it appears to me that the articles structure could be enhanced in these directions :
  • Create a definition section. There have been numerous discussions on the extent of OS. So far they do not really appear here.
  • Expand the Historical Politics sections, that are otherwise rather fine.
  • Perhaps replace the pro/cons with thematic sections on the effects of OS (on economics, epistemics and so on…).
Alexander Doria (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the pro/con section should go and that the content in it should be integrated in the article. Do you have any source which gives a definition of the term? I have not checked all of the sources but in the sources I have read I have not seen the term defined and contrasted with other terms. I wish all the sections could be expanded! I do what I can. Let me know if you want to collaborate on something. This is important to me and I paused a year ago because I could not find more sources - I am glad that new ones have been identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A model for this pageEdit

I just read this article and liked it.

I thought that this could be used for ideas on developing this Wikipedia article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples and organizationsEdit

I just removed this sentence.

  • Matthew Todd's papers on the successful open science project in the synthesis of a drug for a neglected tropical disease argue that the openness of the project accelerated the research.[1]
  1. ^ Woelfle, M.; Olliaro, P.; Todd, M. H. (2011). "Open science is a research accelerator". Nature Chemistry. 3 (10): 745–748. doi:10.1038/nchem.1149. PMID 21941234.

In the past I have also removed minor projects from this page, and have preferentially included projects which meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for article creation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a (non-wikipedia) list of these references? For this subject, having a link to "other projects" and moving the minor references would better serve the community. While this would not be the default Wikipedia goal, a movement based on not marginalizing the minor sources should have a small degree of leeway. Charles Merriam (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Different Understandings of Open ScienceEdit

This section of the article is critical as, without it, the term itself remains ambiguous and too pluralistic in meaning. I propose to move this section to between the "Background" and "History" section of the pages. I will contribute to the section by enriching the discussion of the five schools of thoughts concerning the meaning of Open Science. I will also add information regarding newer sociological examinations of open science and its implications for the field. Sumervaid (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sumervaid I might say delete the "Different understandings about open science" section. This section is a theory from one paper, and not well integrated with the rest of the article. This one particular paper is no so influential that it merits so much space all to itself in this article.
Otherwise, the second could be expanded if the "five schools" theory really is something that lots of researchers discuss. Preferably, the article's sections would make room for a range of general concepts instead of focusing on one perspective. I encourage you to do whatever you think looks best - you probably have better ideas about this than me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Bluerasberry I agree with everything you've said. The five schools are decently influential - the paper in which they are mentioned has been cited 50 times till date. Regardless, the framework does present a good way of organizing the many meanings this confusing term can mean. I will word my descrptions in such a way that these schools don't sound authoritative or parochial. I think this section is important, because Open Science means so many different things. A section describing the many different interpretations of this term appears to be relevant to this page. Without this, future readers and contributors might misinterpret the context in which Open Science is being discussed. Sumervaid (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, go for it. If there already is a set of popular definitions of open science then it would be right for this article to reflect it, and also useful to have the framework. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere I think it is important to get at the geopolitics of open science. I've written a little bit about them recently here and might add a "school" to the list accordingly, unless someone has another approach they'd prefer instead. Rschon (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Popular ScienceEdit

I am adding an additional sub-section in the History section of this page titled "Popular Science". I think we can all agree that the popular science writing movement is somehow related to the notion of Open Science. While there does exist an entire page on Popular Science as a phenomenon in itself, I think it is valuable to contextualize popular science in the background of Open Science, as they are very related to each other. I will primarily discuss popular science ina historical context. Sumervaid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

PoliticsEdit

There is considerably more to the notion of open science and politics than is listed on the current page. I will specifically contribute summaries of national security's relationship with open science, and how immigrants without American citizenship are often unable to visit these labs. I will use US government websites as my primary sources and other new/op-ed articles as secondary sources. Sumervaid (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Preprint ServersEdit

I will add a section under "Organizations and Projects Open Science" called pre-print servers. The nature of these servers and their role in scientific publishing is very relevant to any discussion of Open Science. In-fact, servers like arXiv and SSRN are considered at the heart of the Open Science initaitve, so it seems relevant to have a section about them on this page. My sources will include information from the respective website of these pages and secondary sources describing them. Sumervaid (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOVEdit

This article currently dedicates equal amounts of text to arguments for and against open science in the open science#Reactions section. Since opinion is overwhelmingly in support of open science, with just a few voices against it, the article should give more weight to positive reactions than negative ones. We should discuss trimming down the "arguments against" section.

The arguments against section includes the argument that "Too much unsorted information overwhelms scientists". It seems absurd to me that more access to data would harm research. Is this argument taken seriously, or is just used by a few people? Unless we can show that there is a serious argument that this is true, I think we should delete it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of undue weight for the arguments against it. Can we find a source that states the percentage amount of scientist that are in favor of open science?--Megaman en m (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Open science is a huge number of initiatives, each one of which has different levels of support and opposition. While most will admit that some of these initiative have downsides, the only groups that I am aware of which are flatly against open science are publishers with paywalls and pharmaceutical companies that will experience financial losses if the movement is successful. Perhaps instead of "support" and "opposition" we could label the sections "pros" and "cons". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, I'd also be for removing the "Too much unsorted information overwhelms scientists" and "Increasing the scale of science will make verification of any discovery more difficult" paragraph. Or at least combining them, since they're so similar.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm for deleting them. It seems like we have a consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes! In addition, the section on "Low-quality science" is specifically on paper publications and not so much about Open Science as such. Does it really fit into the open science#Disadvantages section? Michael.riessler (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Open science" page.