So, I learn a couple of new things, and I liked a lot the preprint. As somebody that came from a wet lab, I can not stress enough the importance of the "experimental setup" that was already mentioned in a previous comment. This part is also relevant, as there are a lot of tricks that nobody writes (I think is called "Dark data") and equivalent to make the code open. After all, this experimental setup is necessary as for peer review pre- and post- publication.
To another point, when you talk about the preprints itself in the open access section there a contrast that maybe you can consider. I would like to read something as the opposition to them, but in the perspective that it can become a source of noise due to a large number of preprints published making harder to find the important data/code/tool. This point was raised by one of my colleagues when I make a case to preprint our work; he spent too munch time looking to preprints in arXiv to find the one that was relevant to the code. But that's up to you.
So, during the reading you mention these badges, in table three you mention Publons, as these guys give the award of "sentinel of science" just last year maybe it be worth mention. At least it was a splendid idea to recognize the peer review effort (even my advisor liked, and he is ancient school and he's not that old). Also, you could expand a couple of lines to the bad side, I don't remember which journal was ready to put like ranking to the reviewers for how fast they review and how many.
Keep the good work
Barcelona Supercomputing Center
While I like this preprint, I have some suggestions to expand its reach and make it more applicable:
1 - Open Science isn't just for reproducibility; it's also for credit. I think you should include some discussion of citation, at least where it's not common today (data citation: https://www.force11.org/group/joint-declaration-data-citation-principles-final; and software citation: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86.
2 - Open Science isn't just four pillars; there are a lot of other things that should be identified and made open/reproducible/credited, such as protocols, workflows, reagents, cell lines, etc.
3 - Open science isn't just science; it also applies to engineering, humanities, etc. I understand that open science is the buzzword you have to use, but the intro should at least say that this is really open research, not just open science.
I think it is a very timely article that should be distributed widely and discussed to a great extend! I understand it is impossible to cover the whole Open science controversy and reach in the introduction, but I would modestly suggest (on top of what Daniel has said before) that you comment on a few things:
- You mostly consider the part of Open science that is by and for researchers only. I agree Open research is a more appropriate term in this context, but still, Open science is useful as it covers more than Open research. The other aspects of Open science should be discussed very quickly in the introduction to give the reader an overview of the potential. You cite the book chapter by Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike on the five schools, but bury this important aspect in the "four pillars" chapter. Maybe adding a section "Open science: more than Open research" or something similar would allow to explain this quickly.
- The paragraph on the "history of Open science" is a bit naive (no offense). Some historians of science are uneasy with this simplistic view (Science was closed, then open, then closed again). Maybe it is not so important to discuss this, as it is to point to the reasons for the current crisis (paywalls, pre-digital formats still in use, slow process of knowledge dissemination).
- Having 4 pillars is convenient, but I would no underestimate the importance of tools, both software (not to confuse with code) and hardware. Could these fall under a fifth pillar ("experimental setup") with software, reagent, workflows, material, methods, etc.
- "Papers" is a popular term that refers to the actual 20th century paper support. Wouldn't it be interesting to look for an alternative? I do not have a suggestion here, but is something published on a platform such as PeerJ still a "paper"?
- Maybe you should reuse the terms you used to describe the 4 pillars in the titles of the next chapters, not to confuse the reader (when you go from "paper" -> "open access", etc.)
- When you write "One of the basic premises of science is that it should be based on a global, collaborative effort, building on open communication of published methods, data, and results" you only account for an idealistic view of science. In reality, Open science has an enormous opportunity cost for 1. researchers themselves (hence the importance of credit and citation) 2. institutions 3. countries (somehow secrecy is believed to be a competitive advantage). In the past (and still today to a large extend), science was done for the benefit (prestige, economic or power advantage) of researchers, but also benefactors, universities, nations, etc. not the whole community. I love the idea that we need to insist on the "communism" dimension of research, but we should not ignore the obstacles to Open science and the fact that funders are mostly national agencies supporting national interests. One paragraph about the opportunity costs should not justify inaction, but show the complexity of the topic.
Box 1 is great! And could be expended a very little, with a minimal addition of details.
Also a lexicon would be very useful.
And of course, feel free to ignore my comments if not relevant.
Looking forward to see how this manuscript evolve! I'll certainly use it in my own work.
This is a nice overview of resources for open science, and I learned a few things as well. Here are my comments/suggestions:
1- I agree with the previous comment that "open research" or "open scholarship" might work better, although "open science" has more demonstrated usage.
2- I also agree that "paper" is a bit outdated. Other possibilities might be "report" or "peer-reviewed article."
3- The usage of the "goo.gl" shortlinks reminded me of research showing that many of these links used in legal decisions no longer work. There are so many links here that it is perhaps inevitable that some will not work in the future. However, journals might consider a best practice of using more persistent links in papers that refer to web pages. This preprint could serve as an exemplar by utilizing perma.cc or one of the other persistent link services (at least for the shortlinks).
4- In the open access section, you state that preprints have DOIs assigned, but I think this is not always true. You could say "some preprints." In any case, I think there would be a timestamp in the repository regardless of whether there was a DOI.
5- It is probably impossible to have a comprehensive list of preprint servers, but you could include OSF and the services built on it like SocArXiv, as well as preprints.org from MDPI. Also in this table, you use the Australian mirror URL for arXiv, when it should just be arxiv.org.
6- The list of resources for open access seems very wide-ranging, and I am not sure if the listing is in any order. To place more emphasis on useful tools, you could move DOAJ and Sherpa/Romeo to the beginning.
7- The section on open peer review is far more susceptible to misunderstandings than the other sections, since it is defined so many ways. Your table helps clarify this somewhat, but you could also refer to/borrow from the schema at the end of this OpenAIRE blog post: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1371.
Thanks for this useful work- hope these comments help.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily