Document Type
Article
Publication Date
8-22-2011
Publication Title
PLoS ONE
Abstract
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.
Volume
6
Issue
8
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0023420
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Rights
© 2011 Grubb, Easterbrook.
Recommended Citation
Grubb, Alicia M. and Easterbrook, Steve M., "On the Lack of Consensus over the Meaning of Openness: An Empirical Study" (2011). Computer Science: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/csc_facpubs/220
Comments
Archived as published.