A romantic notion of Open Access is that once all knowledge is free, the injustice in the world caused by the knowledge advantage of some will be eliminated. But what if that doesn’t happen and OA actually reinforces existing patterns of inequality? In the guest article, Nicki Lisa Cole and Thomas Klebel share their findings from the ON-MERRIT project.
From Google’s English:
“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…
We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.
We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.
Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.
We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”
From Google’s English:
“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…
We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.
We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.
Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.
We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”
Abstract: Open Access, is often understood as referring to the free circulation of research outputs from and to all parts of the planet. It is argued that this definition is deceptive because it ignores the fact that the imposition of the epistemological paradigm of the hegemonic culture on the indigenous people of Africa translates to the partial destruction of their epistemological paradigm. The thesis that this author defends is that Open Access ought to be preceded by the “open production of knowledge.” This is necessary so that the research that becomes freely available globally through Open Access genuinely reflects the diversity of its knowledges and producers
Abstract: Knowledge can be public, yet undiscovered, if independently created fragments are logically related but never retrieved, brought together, and interpreted. Information retrieval, although essential for assemblingn such fragments, is always problematic. The search process, like a scientific theory, can be criticized and improved, but can never be verified as capable of retrieving all information relevant to a problem or theory. This essential incompleteness of search and retrieval therefore makes possible, and plausible, the existence of undiscovered public knowledge. Three examples intended to throw light on the logic of undiscovered knowledge are constructed and analyzed. The argument is developed within the framework of a Popperian or critical approach within science and on Popper’s distinction between subjective and objective knowledge — the distinction between World 2 and World 3.