[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Definitions of "openness"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Definitions of "openness"
- From: Sandy Thatcher <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:43:18 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
A similar finding came a few years back about the lack of consensus over the interpretation of what "commercial" and "noncommercial" use mean (in reference, for example, to Creative Commons licenses that employ this distinction). Sandy Thatcher >Picked this up on Twitter. Here is the link and abstract: > >http://microblogging.infodocs.eu/?p=946 > >Hans Dillaerts 9 09 42 08428 on 19 aout 2011 >Connectez-vous pour laisser un commentaire >Tags: open access ( 312 ), open access definition, openness ( 4 ) > >On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An >Empirical Study : > >"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." > >URL : http://goo.gl/pEvoH >doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023420 > >Joe Esposito
- Prev by Date: Re: Librarians who pay for nothing (Re: Economics of Green OA)
- Next by Date: Re: Librarians who pay for nothing (Re: Economics of Green OA)
- Previous by thread: Definitions of "openness"
- Next by thread: survey on the application of data to collections work