Recent years have seen greater adoption of practices aiming to improve the reproducibility and transparency of research. These practices, however, are still not universally endorsed. Moreover, issues surrounding the research culture, its openness and diversity, persist. This free half-day conference intends to highlight the importance of open research in improving the academic ecosystem. We will hear from a diverse set of speakers, ranging from early career researchers to senior academics, from around the world discussing the future of open research practices. This event is interdisciplinary and open to all.
Dr Lonni Besançon Open science saves lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
In the last decade open science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of open science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the open science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of open science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of open science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly.
Dr Malvika Sharan Arguments against open science that you can win
Open science invites all researchers to share their work, data, and research components openly so that others can read, reuse, reproduce, build upon and share them. Particularly in computational research and software development projects, open source principles are promoted as good practices. However, it is important to acknowledge that open science practices, communities and culture possess inherent systemic barriers that exist in science at large. Furthermore, applying open and inclusive methods to all our (research) work requires time, intention, resources and collaboration, which can be overwhelming, and in some cases impossible, for many. Therefore, if you are building an open science community and care about inclusiveness and accessibility like me, you might want to be prepared to respond to the arguments that may come up when advocating for open science. In my talk, I will share a few common arguments that I have come across (and experienced first hand) and what we as open science practitioners can do while committing to being an ally and make our workplace and communities more inclusive.
Madeleine Pownall et al. Navigating open science as early career feminist researchers
Open science aims to improve the rigour, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some Early Career Researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, ten feminist ECRs in psychology, from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens, to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grassroots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with six practical recommendations for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.
Prof Leslie Chan Open science for and with communities
Debates about the how and why of Open Science have tended to focus on the technicality, standards, and conditions about what is and what isn’t “open”. More importantly, the guidelines and principles on open science that have been proliferating are centered on largely Western and Global North perspectives. The more crucial questions of by whom and for whom should science be open, and who has the power to set the agenda of open science are often not addressed. In this talk, I like to highlight some of the values and benefits of openness to knowledges and ways of knowing from communities and knowledge makers who have been historically excluded from “main-stream science.” I like to share ideas on how a pluriversal open science commons based on epistemic justice principles and solidarity, drawn from Indigenous and other knowledge traditions, can be sustained and governed by communities and for communities in various contexts.
Dr Sandersan Onie Open scholarship in the Global South
Dr Moin Syed Stop talking about “diversity” in open science
There have been scattered comments and discussions of the need to consider “diversity” within the open science movement. But what does this mean, and why is it important? This presentation outlines some reasons for why the open science movement, if it is to be a successful structural reform movement within the field, must move away from broad and diffuse discussions of “diversity” and towards greater specificity. In particular, we must understand how diversity of researchers, samples, and perspectives are distinct, yet interrelated, dimensions that should all be at the core of the movement.
Elisabet Blok et al. How senior academics can support reproducible and open research
Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, open research is yet to be widely adopted, with early career researchers being the notable exception. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy change and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that – like all researchers – senior academics are in part motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include a) change hiring criteria, b) change how scholarly outputs are credited, and c) change to funding and publishing with open research. The guidance we provide is accompanied by live, crowd-sourced material for further reading.
About the organiser
The RIOT Science Club is a seminar series that raises awareness and provides training in Reproducible, Interpretable, Open & Transparent science practices. Started in mid June 2018 at King’s College London, the initiative is entirely early-career researcher-led and has now expanded from Denmark Hill Campus to St Thomas’ Hospital and Rotterdam, with other interested sites in London. All talk slides are stored on our Open Science Framework Page, recordings are uploaded to our YouTube Channel. Keep up to date by following us on Twitter @riotscienceclub, joining our mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org, or visiting our website.