User:Mtzhiro/sandbox/オープンサイエンス コピー
Open_scienceの記事からの複製 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science オープンサイエンス 日本語
オープンサイエンス
オープンサイエンスとは科学的研究を 運動である。 to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. It encompasses practices such as publishing
Open science began in the 17th century with the advent of the academic journal, when the societal demand for access to scientific knowledge reached a point where it became necessary for groups of scientists to share resources with each other so that they could collectively do their work.[4] In modern times there is debate about the extent to which scientific information should be shared.[5] The conflict is between the desire of scientists to have access to shared resources versus the desire of individual entities to profit when other entities partake of their resources.[6]
Background
Science is broadly understood as collecting, analyzing, publishing, reanalyzing, critiquing, and reusing data. Proponents of open science identify a number of barriers that impede or dissuade the broad dissemination of scientific data.[7] These include financial paywalls of for-profit research publishers, restrictions on usage applied by publishers of data, poor formatting of data or use of proprietary software that makes it difficult to re-purpose, and cultural reluctance to publish data for fears of losing control of how the information is used.[7]
Open science can often include aspects of the
History
The widespread adoption of the institution of the scientific journal marks the beginning of the modern concept of open science. Before this time societies pressured scientists into secretive behaviors.
Before journals
Before the advent of scientific journals, scientists had little to gain and much to lose by publicizing scientific discoveries.
The system of not publicizing discoveries caused problems because discoveries were not shared quickly and because it sometimes was difficult for the discoverer to prove priority. Newton and
These cases are representative of a system of aristocratic patronage in which scientists received funding to develop either immediately useful things or to entertain.[4] In this sense, funding of science gave prestige to the patron in the same way that funding of artists, writers, architects, and philosophers did.[4] Because of this, scientists were under pressure to satisfy the desires of their patrons, and discouraged from being open with research which would bring prestige to persons other than their patrons.[4]
Emergence of academies and journals
Eventually the individual patronage system ceased to provide the scientific output which society began to demand.[4] Single patrons could not sufficiently fund scientists, who had unstable careers and needed consistent funding.[4] The development which changed this was a trend to pool research by multiple scientists into an academy funded by multiple patrons.[4] In 1660 England established the Royal Society and in 1666 the French established the French Academy of Sciences.[4] Between the 1660s and 1793, governments gave official recognition to 70 other scientific organizations modeled after those two academies.[4][11] In 1665, Henry Oldenburg became the editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the first academic journal devoted to science, and the foundation for the growth of scientific publishing.[12] By 1699 there were 30 scientific journals; by 1790 there were 1052.[13] Since then publishing has expanded at even greater rates.[14]
Collaboration among academies
In modern times many academies have pressured researchers at publicly funded universities and research institutions to engage in a mix of sharing research and making some technological developments proprietary.[6] Some research products have the potential to generate commercial revenue, and in hope of capitalizing on these products, many research institutions withhold information and technology which otherwise would lead to overall scientific advancement if other research institutions had access to these resources.[6] It is difficult to predict the potential payouts of technology or to assess the costs of withholding it, but there is general agreement that the benefit to any single institution of holding technology is not as great as the cost of withholding it from all other research institutions.[6]
Politics
In many countries, governments fund some science research. Scientists often publish the results of their research by writing articles and donating them to be published in scholarly journals, which frequently are commercial. Public entities such as universities and libraries subscribe to these journals.
In December 2011, some United States legislators introduced a bill called the Research Works Act, which would prohibit federal agencies from issuing grants with any provision requiring that articles reporting on taxpayer-funded research be published for free to the public online.[16] Darrell Issa, a co-sponsor of the bill, explained the bill by saying that "Publicly funded research is and must continue to be absolutely available to the public. We must also protect the value added to publicly funded research by the private sector and ensure that there is still an active commercial and non-profit research community."[17] One response to this bill was protests from various researchers; among them was a boycott of commercial publisher Elsevier called The Cost of Knowledge.[18]
Arguments against open science
People have proposed various arguments for keeping a certain amount of exclusivity in science.
- Too much unsorted information overwhelms scientists.
Some scientists find inspiration in their own thoughts by restricting the amount of information they get from others.[19] Alexander Grothendieck has been cited as a scientist who wanted to learn with restricted influence when he said that he wanted to "reach out in (his) own way to the things (he) wished to learn, rather than relying on the notions of consensus."[20]
- Science will be used for bad things.
In 2009 scientists' email regarding climate research was stolen, starting the
- The public will misunderstand science data.
In 2009 NASA launched the
- Increasing the scale of science will make verification of any discovery more difficult.
When more people report data it will take longer for anyone to consider all data, and perhaps more data of lower quality, before drawing any conclusion.[28]
Arguments for open science
A recent controversy around scientific publication illustrates potential benefits of open science.
- Open access publication of research reports and data allows for rigorous peer-review
An article published by a team of NASA astrobiologists in 2010 in
In January 2014 J. Christopher Bare published a comprehensive "Guide to Open Science".[33]
Science is publicly funded so all results of the research should be publicly available[34]
Public funding of research has long been cited as one of the primary reasons for providing Open Access to research articles.
Open Science will make science more reproducible and transparent
Increasingly the reproducibility of science is being questioned and the term "reproducibility crisis" has been coined.[36] Open Science approaches are proposed as one way to help increase the reproducibility of work.[37]
Open Science has more impact
There are several components to impact in research, many of which are hotly debated.[38] However, under traditional scientific metrics parts Open science such as Open Access and Open Data have proved to outperform traditional versions.[39][40]
Projects promoting open science
Big scientific projects are more likely to practice open science than small projects.[41]
Open science projects
- Allen Brain Atlas
- The Encyclopedia of Life
- Galaxy Zoo
- International HapMap Project
- Open Science Framework
- OpenWorm
- Polymath Project
- Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Social initiatives
- The Budapest Open Access Initiative was a conference held in December 2001 at which dozens of research institutions committed to promote open access to information.[42]
- The Cost of Knowledge
Organizations practicing or promoting open science
- Allen Institute for Brain Science[43]
- Center for Open Science
- Public Library of Science
- Science Commons
- Open Knowledge Foundation
- F1000Research
- figshare
- Ibercivis
- Experiment.com
- Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network
See also
- List of open access journals
- e-Science
- Open science data
- Science 2.0
- Data publishing
- Open Access
References
- ^ Was ist Open Science? online 23.06.2014 from OpenScience ASAP
- ^ "FOSTER". Retrieved 12 August 2015.
- ^ Nancy Pontika; Petr Knoth; Matteo Cancellieri; Samuel Pearce (2015). "Fostering Open Science to Research using a Taxonomy and an eLearning Portal". Retrieved 12 August 2015.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ .
- ^ Nielsen 2011, p. 198-202.
- ^ JSTOR 40752435.
- ^ PMID 22162946.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link - ^ Glyn Moody (26 October 2011). "Open Source, Open Science, Open Source Science". Retrieved 3 January 2012.
- PMID 22521137.
- ^ a b c d e Nielsen 2011, p. 172-175.
- ISBN 978-0-231-05996-1.
- ^ Groen 2007, p. 215-216.
- ^ Kronick 1976, p. 78.
- ^ Price 1986.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
- ^ Howard, Jennifer (22 January 2012). "Who Gets to See Published Research?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
- ^ Rosen, Rebecca J. (5 January 2012). "Why Is Open-Internet Champion Darrell Issa Supporting an Attack on Open Science? - Rebecca J. Rosen". The Atlantic. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
- ^ Dobbs, David (30 January 2012). "Testify: The Open-Science Movement Catches Fire". wired.com. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
- ^ Nielsen 2011, p. 198.
- ISBN 978-0-618-55105-7.
- ^ Enserink, Martin (November 23, 2011). "Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies". Retrieved April 19, 2012.
- ^ Malakoff, David (March 4, 2012). "Senior U.S. Lawmaker Leaps Into H5N1 Flu Controversy". Science Insider - AAAS.ORG. Retrieved April 19, 2012.
- ^ Cohen, Jon (January 25, 2012). "A Central Researcher in the H5N1 Flu Debate Breaks His Silence". Science Insider - AAAS.ORG. Retrieved April 19, 2012.
- ^ Nielsen 2011, p. 200.
- ISBN 9780520239043. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
- ^ Wade, Nicholas (March 19, 2015). "Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 May 2015.
- ^ Nielsen 2011, p. 201.
- ^ Nielsen 2011, p. 202.
- PMID 21127214. Retrieved 2014-07-20.
- ^ Zimmer, Carl (May 27, 2011). "The Discovery of Arsenic-Based Twitter". Slate.com. Retrieved April 19, 2012.
- PMID 22773140. Retrieved April 19, 2012.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ Redfield, Rosie (February 1, 2012). "Open peer review of our arseniclife submission please". RRResearch - the Redfield Lab, University of British Columbia. Retrieved April 19, 2012.
- ^ http://digitheadslabnotebook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/guide-to-open-science.html
- ^ "Academic Publishing: Survey of funders supports the benign Open Access outcome priced into shares" (PDF). HSBC. Retrieved 2015-10-22.
- PMID 16888657.
- PMID 24217925.
- PMID 26168127.
- ^ "Specials : Nature". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2015-10-22.
- PMID 17375194.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link - ^ Swan, Alma. "The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date." (2010).
- ^ Nielsen 2011, p. 109.
- BBC. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
- Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
Sources
- Belhajjame, Khalid; et al. (2014). "The Research Object Suite of Ontologies: Sharing and Exchanging Research Data and Methods on the Open Web". )
- ISBN 978-0-691-14890-8.
- Groen, Frances K. (2007). Access to medical knowledge : libraries, digitization, and the public good. Lanham, Mar.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810852723.
- Kronick, David A. (1976). A history of scientific & technical periodicals : the origins and development of the scientific and technical press, 1665-1790 (2d ed.). Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810808447.
- Price, Derek J. de Solla (1986). Little science, big science-- and beyond (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231049566.
- )
External links
- Open Science Group at the Open Knowledge Foundation
- a TED talk video by Michael Nielsen on open science
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?hpw
- Open Science a website dedicated to open science, open access and open data
- Open science and development goals: reshaping research questions & Open science and development: roundup and the way forward by OpenUCT Initiative