Abstract
The risk of scooping is often used as a counter argument for open science, especially open data. In this case study I have examined openness strategies, practices and attitudes in two open collaboration research projects created by Finnish researchers, in order to understand what made them resistant to the fear of scooping. The radically open approach of the projects includes open by default funding proposals, co-authorship and community membership. Primary sources used are interviews of the projects’ founding members. The analysis indicates that openness requires trust in close peers, but not necessarily in research community or society at large. Based on the case study evidence, focusing on intrinsic goals, like new knowledge and bringing about ethical reform, instead of external goals such as publications, supports openness. Understanding fundaments of science, philosophy of science and research ethics, can also have a beneficial effect on willingness to share. Whether there are aspects in open sharing that makes it seem riskier from the point of view of certain demographical groups within research community, such as women, could be worth closer inspection.
Highlights
IntroductionScooping is a research community slang term for having someone else claim priority, usually through publishing, to a research idea or result you yourself have been working on
I think this causes a lot of stress to the scientists, and it has happened to me. [...] you try not to think about it, you still think that what if someone else is doing the same thing and this is useless work, so it takes your energy.’ (From the interview of research participant NMR Lipids Project (NMRLP) A)
Journals are the veins through which academic merit flows, so not making it to the high-impact journal of one’s dreams could mean losing c ompetitive edge in the race for tenure or funding
Summary
Scooping is a research community slang term for having someone else claim priority, usually through publishing, to a research idea or result you yourself have been working on This is considered a problem, because according to a widespread belief, academic journals value novelty and are reluctant to publish results that don’t have a high enough novelty factor (Chambers 2016). These fears affected especially early career researchers, but senior researchers were not entirely immune either (Van den Eynden & Bishop 2014). Those wishing to make open data more mainstream should subject these expressions of concern under careful analysis. Sometimes it is easier to study and understand a thing through its absence: why someone is not afraid of scooping, or shares despite the fear
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
