“它是混乱的,它是巨大的”:在后covid时代,开放科学辩论是如何发展的?

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
F1000Research Pub Date : 2025-05-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.162577.1
Melanie T Benson Marshall, Stephen Pinfield, Pamela Abbott, Andrew Cox, Juan Pablo Alperin, Natascha Chtena, Alice Fleerackers
{"title":"“它是混乱的,它是巨大的”:在后covid时代,开放科学辩论是如何发展的?","authors":"Melanie T Benson Marshall, Stephen Pinfield, Pamela Abbott, Andrew Cox, Juan Pablo Alperin, Natascha Chtena, Alice Fleerackers","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.162577.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the global adoption of open science (OS) practices. However, as the pandemic subsides, the debate around OS continues to evolve. This study investigates how the pandemic has shaped the OS discourse and identifies key issues and challenges. Interviews were conducted with influential stakeholders across the research and publishing communities. The findings show that while many areas of debate remained constant, the ways in which they were discussed exposed underlying systemic challenges, which must be addressed if OS is to progress. These issues included the scope and definition of OS; regional variations in its implementation; the relationship between OS and fundamental questions of the purpose and practice of science; and the need to reform incentives and reward structures within the research system. A more complex understanding of OS is required, which takes into account the importance of equity and diversity and the challenges of implementing OS in different cultural and geographical contexts. The study emphasises the importance of shifting scientific culture to prioritise values such as quality, integrity, and openness, and reforming rewards structures to incentivise open practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"14 ","pages":"500"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171716/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"It's messy and it's massive\\\": How has the open science debate developed in the post-COVID era?\",\"authors\":\"Melanie T Benson Marshall, Stephen Pinfield, Pamela Abbott, Andrew Cox, Juan Pablo Alperin, Natascha Chtena, Alice Fleerackers\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/f1000research.162577.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the global adoption of open science (OS) practices. However, as the pandemic subsides, the debate around OS continues to evolve. This study investigates how the pandemic has shaped the OS discourse and identifies key issues and challenges. Interviews were conducted with influential stakeholders across the research and publishing communities. The findings show that while many areas of debate remained constant, the ways in which they were discussed exposed underlying systemic challenges, which must be addressed if OS is to progress. These issues included the scope and definition of OS; regional variations in its implementation; the relationship between OS and fundamental questions of the purpose and practice of science; and the need to reform incentives and reward structures within the research system. A more complex understanding of OS is required, which takes into account the importance of equity and diversity and the challenges of implementing OS in different cultural and geographical contexts. The study emphasises the importance of shifting scientific culture to prioritise values such as quality, integrity, and openness, and reforming rewards structures to incentivise open practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F1000Research\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"500\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171716/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F1000Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162577.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162577.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2019冠状病毒病大流行加速了全球对开放科学实践的采用。然而,随着疫情的消退,围绕操作系统的争论仍在继续。本研究调查了大流行如何塑造了OS话语,并确定了关键问题和挑战。对研究和出版界有影响力的利益相关者进行了采访。调查结果表明,虽然许多领域的争论仍然存在,但讨论这些问题的方式暴露了潜在的系统性挑战,如果操作系统要取得进展,就必须解决这些挑战。这些问题包括操作系统的范围和定义;执行情况的区域差异;操作系统与科学目的和实践的基本问题之间的关系;改革科研体系内的激励和奖励结构的必要性。需要对操作系统有更复杂的理解,考虑到公平和多样性的重要性,以及在不同文化和地理背景下实施操作系统的挑战。该研究强调了将科学文化转变为优先考虑质量、诚信和开放等价值观,以及改革奖励结构以激励开放实践的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"It's messy and it's massive": How has the open science debate developed in the post-COVID era?

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the global adoption of open science (OS) practices. However, as the pandemic subsides, the debate around OS continues to evolve. This study investigates how the pandemic has shaped the OS discourse and identifies key issues and challenges. Interviews were conducted with influential stakeholders across the research and publishing communities. The findings show that while many areas of debate remained constant, the ways in which they were discussed exposed underlying systemic challenges, which must be addressed if OS is to progress. These issues included the scope and definition of OS; regional variations in its implementation; the relationship between OS and fundamental questions of the purpose and practice of science; and the need to reform incentives and reward structures within the research system. A more complex understanding of OS is required, which takes into account the importance of equity and diversity and the challenges of implementing OS in different cultural and geographical contexts. The study emphasises the importance of shifting scientific culture to prioritise values such as quality, integrity, and openness, and reforming rewards structures to incentivise open practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信