The Promises of Responsible Open Science: Is Institutionalization of Openness and Mutual Responsiveness Enough?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i6.95876Keywords:
open science, Robert K. Merton, Covid 19, research values, scientific integrity, research assessmentAbstract
Von Schomberg offers a compelling examination of key open science principles and their potential role in fostering responsible research and innovation (RRI). Utilizing Merton's Ethos of Science framework, the paper constructs a series of arguments supporting a central thesis: “the transition towards open science is vital to facilitate RRI.” This transition necessitates significant institutional reforms within the scientific community and adjustments to incentive structures that promote the adoption of open and mutually responsive practices.
The manuscript reframes the discourse surrounding responsibility and responsiveness in light of the evolving landscape of open science, shifting the focus from normative commitments to actionable frameworks in research and open science practices. Overall, the position paper strives to bridge the gap between idealised models of scientific communities based on RRI principles and the reality of actual scientific endeavour (Anderson et al., 2007; Politi, 2021, 2024).
However, it is important to acknowledge certain omissions that could enrich the analysis. Firstly, a more comprehensive examination of the profound crisis facing science amidst the increasing marketisation and commodification of academia and research would provide valuable context beyond discussions of system failures related to productivity and reproducibility. Secondly, a more nuanced and critical approach to conceptualising open science would enrich the discussion, considering its multifaceted nature and potential pitfalls. Thirdly, the validity of the Mertonian framework and its selective analysis of values, particularly its exclusive focus on the norm of communism. Lastly, a deeper exploration of the challenges and promises inherent in the pursuit of responsible Open Science within ongoing institutional processes.References
Agarwal, S., & Mishra, S. (2021). Responsible AI. Springer International Publishing.
Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & de Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 3-14.
Anderson M. S., Ronning, E. A., de Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.
Bauwens, T., Reike, D., & Calisto-Friant, M. (2023). Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 48, 100749.
Begley, C. G. (2013). Reproducibility: six red flags for suspected work. Nature, 497, 433-434.
Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Buhmann, A., & Fieseler, C. (2021). Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence. Technology in Society, 64, 101475.
Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. eds. (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. JHU Press.
Carafoli, E. (2015) Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei, 26, 369-382.
Carvalho, T., Diogo, S., & Vilhena, B. (2022). Invisible researchers in the knowledge society – The Uberisation of scientific work in Portugal. European Journal of Higher Education, 1-22.
Chan, L., Okune, A., Hillyer, R., Albornoz, D., & A. Posada (eds.). (2019) Contextualizing Openness: Situating Open Science. University of Ottawa Press, IDRC.
Churchman, D. (2002). Voices of the academy: Academics’ responses to the corporatizing of academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5-6), 643-656.
De Peuter, S., & Conix, S. (2023). Fostering a research integrity culture: actionable advice for institutions. Science Public Policy, 50, 133-145.
Diver, C. (2022). Breaking Ranks. How the Rankings Industry Rules Higher Education and What to Do about It. JHU Press.
ECSA (2024). ECSA annual report 2023. Berlin, European Citizen Science Association, March 2024. https://www.ecsa.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECSA_Annual-report-2023_online.pdf
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5), e5738.
Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In Bartling, S. & Friesike, S. (eds.), Opening Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Fernández Pinto, M. (2020). Open Science for private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 588331. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.588331
Field, S. M., Thompson, J., De Rijcke, S., Penders, B., & Munafò, M. R. (2024). Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 11(1), 230624.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., King, T. C., et al. (2020). How to design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1771-1796.
Fuller, S. (2007). New frontiers in science and technology studies. Polity.
Ghotbi, N. (2024). Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Research and Education. In Eaton, S. E. (eds.) Second Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Cham, Springer International Handbooks of Education.
Guédon, J. C. (2017). Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind. Budapest Open Access Initiative. https://openaccessprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/Guedon_BOAI15_FINAL.pdf
Hackett, E. J. (2014). Academic capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39, 635-638.
Hasselberg, Y. (2012). Demand or discretion? The market model applied to science and its core values and institutions. Ethics in Science and Environmental Policy, 12, 35-51.
Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Innovation in open science, society and policy–setting the agenda for citizen science. In C. Moedas (Ed.), Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy (p. 1-23). UCL Press.
Herrmann, H. (2023). What's next for responsible artificial intelligence: a way forward through responsible innovation. Heliyon, 9(3), e14379.
Hess, D. J. (2016). Undone science: Social movements, mobilized publics, and industrial transitions. MIT Press.
Hess, D. J. (2015). Undone science and social movements: A review and typology. The Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies (p. 141-154). Routledge.
Hofmann, B. (2022). Open science knowledge production: Addressing epistemological challenges and ethical implications. Publications, 10(3), 24.
Hosseini, M., Senabre Hidalgo, E., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Güttinger, S., & Penders, B. (2022). Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625
Jessop, B. (2018). On academic capitalism. Critical policy studies, 12(1), 104-109.
Kagan, J. (2009). The three cultures: natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities in the 21st century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kalleberg, R. (2007). A Reconstruction of the Ethos of Science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 137-160.
Kauppinen, I. (2012). Towards transnational academic capitalism. Higher Education, 64(4), 543-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9511-x.
Kim, S. Y., & Kim, Y. (2018). The Ethos of Science and Its Correlates: An Empirical Analysis of Scientists’ Endorsement of Mertonian Norms. Science, Technology and Society, 23, 1-24.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (2013). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Elsevier, 1985.
Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2023). Governing research: New forms of competition and cooperation in academia. In K. Sahlin & U. Eriksson-Zetterquist (eds.), University collegiality and the erosion of faculty authority (p. 31-57). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Knöchelmann, M. (2021). The Democratisation Myth: Open Access and the Solidification of Epistemic Injustices. Science & Technology Studies, 34, 65-9.
Konig, N.; Borsen, T., & Emmeche, C. (2017). The Ethos of P-normal Science. Futures, 91, 12-24.
Lam, A. (2010). From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’? Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University-industry Boundaries. Social Studies of Science 40, 307-340.
Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 67-78.
Macleod, M. R., et al. (2014). Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet, 383(9912), 101-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6
Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Oliván, J. A., & Arquero-Avilés, R. (2021). Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5143-5164.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635-659.
Politi, V. (2021). Formal models of the scientific community and the value-ladenness of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(4),1-23.
Politi, V. (2024). Who ought to look towards the horizon? A qualitative study on the collective social responsibility of scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 14(2), 19.
Radder, H. (2010). The commodification of academic research. Science and the modern university. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Sidler, M. (2014). Open science and the three cultures: Expanding open science to all domains of knowledge creation. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (p. 81-85). Springer Open.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S. (2020). Academic capitalism, conceptual issues. In The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions (p. 1-6). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2008). The academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime. In A. S. Chan & D. Fisher (eds.), The exchange university: Corporatization of academic culture (p. 19-48). UBC Press.
Smuha, N. A. (2021). From a ‘race to AI’ to a ‘race to AI regulation’: Regulatory competition for artificial intelligence. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1), 57-84.
Stracke, C. M. (2020). Open Science and Radical Solutions for Diversity, Equity and Quality in Research: A Literature Review of Different Research Schools, Philosophies and Frameworks and Their Potential Impact on Science and Education. In D. Burgos (Ed.), Radical Solutions and Open Science (p. 17-37). Springer Open.
Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and engineering ethics, 27(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of business research, 88, 428-436.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
NOvation is an open-access journal under a Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 license, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement (and preservation) of the author's authorship and intellectual property rights.
To this extent, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
1. Authors retain the rights and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work published under the Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows [...].
2. Authors have authorization for distribution, of the version of the work published in this journal, in an institutional repository, thematic, databases and in other works as a book chapter, with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in the journal;
3. Papers published in this journal will be indexed in databases, repositories, portals, directories and other sources in which the journal is and will be indexed.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
