Re: The Open Rorschach Test
Margaret Winker
The Rathenau report is an interesting way to pull some compelling ideas under the Open umbrella. Some related concepts already exist in medicine, including:
Patient, family, advocacy involvement: (US) Patient Centered Outcomes Research Initiative, BMJ patient partnership in peer review, priorities, publication
Language: Many journals publish in more than one language; Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication promotes multilingualism; The World Association of Medical Editors' Promoting Global Health policy states, "WAME encourages all medical journal editors to encourage authors to provide abstracts in the language of the location where the research took place and that journals should make those abstracts available to readers when provided."
Readability (in English, in this case): Several medical journals provide plain language summaries of research, including Annals of Internal Medicine, Cancer, Circulation, JAMA, and Cochrane; PLOS Medicine has plain(er) language author summaries. National Library of Medicine has special tagging for Patient Summaries
Nation-based free information access: Norway purchased country-wide site licenses and made most of the information freely available to all via The Library -- a comprehensive but costly approach to "open" access.
The Health Information for All (HIFA) website and listserve address related topics internationally.
Thus, while they seem like new concepts for Open, several have been around for years in medicine using other terminology.
Margaret
Margaret Winker, MD
Trustee, WAME
wame.org
-Opinions are my own
--If you have a second…
I was reading a report today on open science from the Rathenau Institut in the Netherlands (https://www.rathenau.nl/en/inclusive-science/moving-forward-together-open-science). This is really neat group, and their report is very interesting. But what it made abundantly clear to me is that there are really several disconnects in our global conversation about open science, and these disconnects are making us talk past each other:
- Definitions of open: The Rathenau report talks about open science as being “democratized” science, not open access and open data. Democratized science is science developed with help from the public, reflects public interests and concerns, benefits from contributions by the public, and is accessible by the public (written in plain language). In this sense, an OSI-ish approach to open science that focuses just on open access and open data is a threat to the more society-focused version of open science in the sense that it reduces the society focus to just access---i.e., our obligation to make science more open ends with simply making everything more visible. In this sense, the Rathenau version of open isn’t even on the DARTS spectrum---it’s on a different spectrum entirely, with axes like inclusion, normative influences, and participation. Access is a common axis. So maybe we need to come up with a broader DARTS spectrum to account for this?
- Definitions of science: I wrote about this many years ago for SCI. Basically, the definition of “science” now exists in the wild. It doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. In the Rathenau report, science means things like monitoring water quality and developing psychiatric treatments---definitely science, but not of the same ilk as searching for Higgs-Boson particles or developing new COVID vaccines. So, when we talk about opening science, this makes infinitely more sense for some types of “scientific” endeavors than others. We knew this already, but this report brought home the really starkly different conversation happening here between, say, psychologists, who might see a clear path to open science, and clinical researchers working on the next lifesaving vaccine, who see a path strewn with barriers related to IP rights and so on. There is variation by field, obviously---we knew that---but more fundamentally, there is variation by how each of us sees and defines “science.” And finally,
- The EU is way ahead: Here again, we already knew this too, but the EU seems at least a decade ahead of the rest of the world in terms of thinking about open and creating and experimenting with open policies. To the extent the EU’s knowledge and enthusiasm can translate into effective and sustainable global policies for open, great. But so far, anyway, it seems to be more the case that the EU’s solutions aren’t entirely applicable to a global audience. And that’s fine, as long as these solutions aren’t intended for a global audience. But this third pinch point might help explain some of the tensions in this policy space----i.e., that the EU is much farther down the road than everyone else, but that road may not be the right one for everyone else to follow.
That’s it---just want to get this on paper for you. If you have a chance to skim the report I’d love to hear what you think, on or off list.
Best,
Glenn
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BN6PR1701MB1732BF030A245D9BC5C01104C5049%40BN6PR1701MB1732.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.
Glenn Hampson
Thank you for these great details Margaret---very interesting. Yes---the same is true in my field of science communication where there have been numerous efforts for years (long pre-dating open access) to make science more accessible. I think this perspective is helpful for seeing open access and open data in context, not as some enlightened movement born out of nothing in 2002, but as part of a long continuum of efforts to make science (and all research) more accessible. PLOS was putting open into practice in 2000, two years before BOAI; the Open Source Initiative was practicing open in 1998, SciElo in 1997, PubMed in 1996, arXiv in 1991, and so on. More broadly, our movement toward scientific openness was influenced by the Royal Society (1660), Rousseu’s social contract (1762), Karl Popper’s open society philosophy (1945), the US Freedom of Information Act (1966), modern peer review (1975), Napster (1999), the Panton Principles (2008) and so much more. Added to this, the movement toward scientific inclusiveness and understanding has an even longer and richer history.
Anyway….maybe there’s another report in all this?
Thanks again for the details,
Glenn
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/4D00D31A-6473-43F8-B47F-3430945E3898%40gmail.com.