Abstract

This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved.

Highlights

  • Over the past quarter century, the amount of information available to society has grown dramatically

  • Public Perception and Understanding of Science Our study shows that scientists have conflicting views of how the general public perceives their work, all respondents tend to believe the public does not have good knowledge of their work

  • Work This study explored the opinions of scientists involved in various advocacy efforts that are aimed at increasing access to the products of scientific research

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over the past quarter century, the amount of information available to society has grown dramatically. People expect instant access to a variety of information about products, people, politics, and financial markets. The details of scientific research are a notable exception, as the majority of scientific artifacts are not freely available to the general public. Most scientific publications are available only through subscriptions, and even it is rare that the supporting evidence (e.g., raw data, statistical analysis, algorithms, and results) is available at all. Scientific results filter through to the public via mainstream media, opening them up to distortion. The lack of access to scientific artifacts is sometimes interpreted as an indication that scientists have something to hide, decreasing their credibility

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call