4.2 Article

Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: The role of open science communities

Journal

SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 605-611

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab039

Keywords

open science; science policy; community management; open access; open source

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [406-17-568]
  2. European Research Council [726361]
  3. foundation HealthHolland LSH-T KI [LSHM16053-SGF]
  4. Philips Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the increasing availability of Open Science infrastructure and policies, OS practices are not yet widespread, with most researchers still sticking to traditional methods. Open Science Communities (OSCs) are playing a crucial role in promoting OS practices, bridging communication gaps among scholars and policymakers, but their long-term viability and effectiveness rely on support from universities.
Despite the increasing availability of Open Science (OS) infrastructure and the rise in policies to change behaviour, OS practices are not yet the norm. While pioneering researchers are developing OS practices, the majority sticks to status quo. To transition to common practice, we must engage a critical proportion of the academic community. In this transition, OS Communities (OSCs) play a key role. OSCs are bottom-up learning groups of scholars that discuss OS within and across disciplines. They make OS knowledge more accessible and facilitate communication among scholars and policymakers. Over the past two years, eleven OSCs were founded at several Dutch university cities. In other countries, similar OSCs are starting up. In this article, we discuss the pivotal role OSCs play in the large-scale transition to OS. We emphasize that, despite the grassroot character of OSCs, support from universities is critical for OSCs to be viable, effective, and sustainable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available