In this editorial, we describe the work that has been undertaken by the ESTS editorial collective (EC) over the last two years towards establishing a publishing infrastructure for open research data. A broad movement in the scholarly community is pushing towards data sharing or “open data,” particularly in the natural sciences and medicine. Recognizing that there are compelling reasons why scholars are wary of data sharing and careful to protect their work, our EC has pursued experiments towards establishing a publishing infrastructure. The goal is to better understand the possible benefits for the STS community from data sharing and the role that a scholarly-run journal like ESTS could play in realizing such opportunities. The sharing of data could serve as an archive of work in/for STS; offer greater recognition of diverse contributions to scholarly research beyond individual author(s); enable reuse of data for new insights and pedagogical opportunities; and engender new forms of scholarly community in the field.
“The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) are scholarly organisations that have seen an increase in the number, and broad range in the quality, of membership applications. Our organisations have collaborated to identify principles of transparency and best practice for scholarly publications and to clarify that these principles form the basis of the criteria by which suitability for membership is assessed by COPE, DOAJ and OASPA, and part of the criteria on which membership applications are evaluated by WAME. Each organisation also has their own, additional criteria which are used when evaluating applications. The organisations will not share lists of or journals that failed to demonstrate that they met the criteria for transparency and best practice.
This is the third version of a work in progress (published January 2018); the first version was made available by OASPA in December 2013 and a second version in June 2015. We encourage its wide dissemination and continue to welcome feedback on the general principles and the specific criteria. Background on the organisations is below….”
A revised version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing has been released by four key scholarly publishing organizations today. These guiding principles are intended as a foundation for best practice in scholarly publishing to help existing and new journals reach the best possible standards.
The fourth edition of the Principles represents a collective effort between the four organizations to align the principles with today’s scholarly publishing landscape. The last update was in 2018, and the scholarly publishing landscape has changed. Guidance is provided on the information that should be made available on websites, peer review, access, author fees and publication ethics. The principles also cover ownership and management, copyright and licensing, and editorial policies. They stress the need for inclusivity in scholarly publishing and emphasize that editorial decisions should be based on merit and not affected by factors such as the origins of the manuscript and the nationality, political beliefs or religion of the author.
“An in-depth study among 50 Harvard lawyers shows that downloading and streaming pirated content is widely tolerated and even supported by some. It is certainly not seen as a form of theft by these legal experts. Based on these findings, the researchers call for a paradigm shift where entertainment providers focus more on convenience, accessibility and affordability….”
Abstract: Contrary to a popular belief of lawyers having the most strict perception of law, law professionals actually strongly skew toward more favorable views of digital sharing. According to our qualitative study, relying on in-depth interviews with 50 Harvard lawyers, digital piracy is quite acceptable. It is considered fair, especially among friends and for noncommercial purposes. We argue that this not only can indicate that the existing law is becoming outdated because of its inability to be enforced, but also that ethically it is not corresponding to what is considered fair, good service, or being societally beneficial. The common perception of relying on a fixed price for digital content is eroding. We show that on the verges of business, society, and law, there is a potential for the new paradigm of digital commons to emerge.
“Our study reveals that law professionals, with raised professional ethics standards and expectations toward lawabiding behavior, highly above average understanding of law, and higher than average socio-economic status, do not equate digital piracy with physical theft, and are generally very tolerant or even supportive of it….
There is the shared sense that digital goods differ from physical goods, and that this constitutes a basis for new societal norms to emerge: while they ‘would never do anything illegal elsewhere’ [Interview 36], pirating digital content is treated morally differently and morally acceptable….”
Abstract: The concept of open educational resources (OER) is an emerging phenomenon that encourages modern teaching and learning in the higher education sector. Although many institutions are promoting the adoption and creation of OER, they are still lacking in the policies and development guidelines related to the creation. This could perpetrate the potential ethical problems that affect the development of OER. This study aimed to find out ethical procedures and peer-review processes associated with the adoption and development of OER. A qualitative approach was used to gather data from OER developers in the academic space. Structuration theory was considered the main theoretical underpinning of this study. The commonly used big data virtual spaces for OER, such as social media and learning management systems (LMS), were identified. The study articulates three major causalities of OER’s ethical problems, as follows: non-compliance to openness, transactional purchases of OER, non-incentives for developers. Also, the scholars’ ideas and OER outputs cannot be undermined; however, there is a need for a peer-review process in the creation of OER. Institutions are expected to formulate the standards and requirements to be followed in the creation of OER because OER contributes to the rising of big data in the education domains. The study recommends that OER be developed for a specific purpose and aligned with the specific subject content, and the resource must be precise and peer reviewed for quality measures.
Handbook of Research on the Global View of Open Access and Scholarly Communications
Daniel Gelaw Alemneh (University of North Texas, USA)
ISBN13: 9781799898054|ISBN10: 1799898059|EISBN13: 9781799898078
Funding Information: This book is being published under Platinum Open Access through IGI Global’s Transformative Open Access Initiative with University of North Texas, USA.
In an information and knowledge society, access to information and knowledge is a basic human right, making equitable and fair access to information and knowledge paramount. Open Access (OA) plays a huge role in addressing inequities as well as broad-based and inclusive scientific progress. On the surface, the number of publications discussing OA issues from various angles are on the rise. However, what is missing is a comprehensive assessment of the extent of OA implementation and a discussion of how to proceed in integrating OA issues from various perspectives.
The Handbook of Research on the Global View of Open Access and Scholarly Communications articulates OA concepts and issues while demystifying the state-of-the-art knowledge domain in the areas of OA and scholarly communications from diverse perspectives as well as implications for the information and knowledge society. Covering topics such as ethics, copyright challenges, and open access initiatives, this book is a dynamic resource for publishers, librarians, higher education administrators, policymakers, students and educators of higher education, researchers, and academicians.
Abstract: In this talk, I discuss open science as a framework to ensure that all our research components can be easily accessed, openly examined and built upon by others. I will introduce The Turing Way – an open source, open collaboration and community-driven guide to reproducible, ethical and inclusive data science and research. Drawing insights from the project, I will share best practices that researchers should integrate to ensure the highest reproducible and ethical standards from the start of their projects so that their research work is easy to reuse and reproduce at all stages of the development. All attendees will leave the talk understanding the many dimensions of openness and how they can participate in an inclusive, kind and inspiring open source ecosystem as they collaboratively seek to improve research culture. All questions and contributions are welcome at the GitHub repository: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/the-turing-way.
Abstract: In this chapter, the authors interrogate the discursive terrain of the open access phenomenon to position the processual as well as the discourse communities that open access is inevitably enmeshed in. The essay explores the current climate of open access and investigates the ethical dilemmas that its subversive sibling of guerrilla open access foregrounds. Further, the essay also recommends a viable model that can be deployed by state players as an exemplar of academic socialism that is flexible, accommodative, and a true reflection of the open-access philosophy which also counters the development of otherwise illegal and ‘pirate’ models of open access.
“Research ethics guide the production of scholarly inquiry the world over. While there are differences in research standards in different regions of the world, and different perspectives between different groups of people (see Australia’s NHMRC as one example), standards exist, and human subjects rules guide researchers in their work. As we increasingly move to a more open access research environment, there are considerations to tackle as we share research instrumentation, data, and published output.
Join us as we consider these issues with librarians who have already been involved in adapting practices to a new open access environment.”
Abstract: Animal science researchers have the obligation to reduce, refine, and replace the usage of animals in research (3R principles). Adherence to these principles can be improved by transparently publishing research findings, data and protocols. Open Science (OS) can help to increase the transparency of many parts of the research process, and its implementation should thus be considered by animal science researchers as a valuable opportunity that can contribute to the adherence to these 3R-principles. With this article, we want to encourage animal science researchers to implement a diverse set of OS practices, such as Open Access publishing, preprinting, and the pre-registration of test protocols, in their workflows.
Abstract: Questionable research practices (QRPs) among researchers have been a source of concern in many fields of study. QRPs are often used to enhance the probability of achieving statistical significance which affects the likelihood of a paper being published. Using a sample of researchers from 10 top research-productive management programs, we compared hypotheses tested in dissertations to those tested in journal articles derived from those dissertations to draw inferences concerning the extent of engagement in QRPs. Results indicated that QRPs related to changes in sample size and covariates were associated with unsupported dissertation hypotheses becoming supported in journal articles. Researchers also tended to exclude unsupported dissertation hypotheses from journal articles. Likewise, results suggested that many article hypotheses may have been created after the results were known (i.e., HARKed). Articles from prestigious journals contained a higher percentage of potentially HARKed hypotheses than those from less well-regarded journals. Finally, articles published in prestigious journals were associated with more QRP usage than less prestigious journals. QRPs increase in the percentage of supported hypotheses and result in effect sizes that likely overestimate population parameters. As such, results reported in articles published in our most prestigious journals may be less credible than previously believed.
Abstract: The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with Patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.
From the body of the paper: “According to some surveys, ?95% of patients and members of IRBs believe that patients should be informed of the results of the research study. Nevertheless, this is a fairly uncommon practice, and the usual situation is that after participating in a study, patients are not notified of the results.”
“The keynote event of the APS’s Library & Museum’s 4th annual Digital Knowledge Sharing workshop was hosted by the APS’s Center for Native American and Indigenous Research (CNAIR) and the Native American Scholars Initiative (NASI), supported by the Mellon Foundation.
This virtual keynote conversation event featured Stephen Curley, Director of Digital Archives for the National Native American Boarding Schools Healing Coalition, in conversation with Brian Carpenter, Curator of Indigenous Materials at the APS’s Library & Museum. The conversation covered topics such as processes for Tribal and non-Tribal archives to reach out to each other to foster ethical stewardship and curation of Indigenous archival materials, current efforts in the digital curation of Native American boarding school resources, the centrality of honoring and acknowledging relationships versus academic tendencies of individualistic work, and a look back and look forward at developments in the archives field surrounding ethical best practices in culturally responsive care and curation of Indigenous archival collections.”