IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsw/rswwps/rswwps218.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought

Author

Listed:
  • Benedikt Fecher
  • Sascha Friesike

Abstract

Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses a multitude of assumptions about the future of knowledge creation and dissemination. Based on a literature review, this paper aims at structuring the overall discourse by proposing five Open Science schools of thought: The infrastructure school (which is concerned with the technological architecture), the public school (which is concerned with the accessibility of knowledge creation), the measurement school (which is concerned with alternative impact measurement), the democratic school (which is concerned with access to knowledge) and the pragmatic school (which is concerned with collaborative research).

Suggested Citation

  • Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike, 2013. "Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought," RatSWD Working Papers 218, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    • Handle: RePEc:rsw:rswwps:rswwps218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.konsortswd.de/wp-content/uploads/RatSWD_WP_218.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy Gowers & Michael Nielsen, 2009. "Massively collaborative mathematics," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7266), pages 879-881, October.
    2. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    3. Lennart Björneborn & Peter Ingwersen, 2001. "Perspective of webometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(1), pages 65-82, January.
    4. Michael W Carroll, 2011. "Why Full Open Access Matters," Working Papers id:4638, eSocialSciences.
    5. Michael W Carroll, 2011. "Why Full Open Access Matters," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-3, November.
    6. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    7. Eric Hand, 2010. "Citizen science: People power," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7307), pages 685-687, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anita Pipere & Kristīne Mārtinsone, 2023. "Shaping an Image of Science in the 21st Century: The Perspective of Metamodernism," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Birgit Schmidt & Astrid Orth & Gwen Franck & Iryna Kuchma & Petr Knoth & José Carvalho, 2016. "Stepping up Open Science Training for European Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Michael Weinhardt, 2021. "Big Data: Some Ethical Concerns for the Social Sciences," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    2. Amy Forrester, 2015. "Barriers to Open Access Publishing: Views from the Library Literature," Publications, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    4. Dolores Modic & Borut Lužar & Tohru Yoshioka-Kobayashi, 2023. "Structure of university licensing networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 901-932, February.
    5. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    6. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.
    7. Richard Wellen, 2013. "Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    8. Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    9. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    10. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    11. Jan Resenga Maluleka & Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha & Isola Ajiferuke, 2016. "Factors influencing research collaboration in LIS schools in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 337-355, May.
    12. Malte Hückstädt, 2022. "Coopetition between frenemies–interrelations and effects of seven collaboration problems in research clusters," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5191-5224, September.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    14. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    15. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    16. Christopher S. Hayter, 2016. "A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 633-656, October.
    17. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    18. Malte Hückstädt, 2023. "Ten reasons why research collaborations succeed—a random forest approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1923-1950, March.
    19. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    20. Christoph Markmann & Alexander Spickermann & Heiko A. von der Gracht & Alexander Brem, 2021. "Improving the question formulation in Delphi‐like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behavior," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ratswd; ratswd working paper; data sharing; data management; germany; data availability; open access; research infrastructure; data; replication; data privacy; metadata; research data centre; infrastructure; psychdata; data management; psychology; science cooperation; open science; open access; assessment and review; science 2.0; open data; citizen science; schools of thought; altmetrics; science communication;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
    • H44 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Goods: Mixed Markets
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • L17 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Open Source Products and Markets
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsw:rswwps:rswwps218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RatSWD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rtswdde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.