IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/4106747.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Case Studies in Open Science of South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Sung-Uk Park

    (Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information)

Abstract

According to European Commission, As scientific research becomes a more open endeavor, all stakeholders of the research ecosystem must redefine their role and their approach to science. Researchers will have to adapt to new possibilities to new tools and to new responsibilities. The innovation ecosystem will also change by embracing more openness and being more inclusive. Funders, academic institutions and policy makers will need to fund, inform, and legislate to accelerate the transition.Open Science practices are breaking barriers that prevent the free flow of knowledge produced by researchers. The adoption of such practices is bound to redefine the relationships between the stakeholders of research ecosystem and between researchers and society.In this paper I studied about Open Science include Open Access, Open Data and Open Collaboration. Especially I suggested the National Science & Technology Information Service(NTIS) with Open Science Case in South Korea.

Suggested Citation

  • Sung-Uk Park, 2016. "Case Studies in Open Science of South Korea," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 4106747, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:sek:iacpro:4106747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/25th-international-academic-conference-oecd-paris/table-of-content/detail?cid=41&iid=048&rid=6747
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oecd, 2015. "Making Open Science a Reality," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 25, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. FUSTER MARTI Enric & Elisabetta Marinelli & PLAUD Sabine & QUINQUILLA Arnau & MASSUCCI Francesco, 2020. "Open Data, Open Science & Open Innovation for Smart Specialisation monitoring," JRC Research Reports JRC119687, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    3. Christian M. Stracke & Daniel Burgos & Gema Santos-Hermosa & Aras Bozkurt & Ramesh Chander Sharma & Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres & Andreia Inamorato dos Santos & Jon Mason & Ebba Ossiannilsson & Jin Gon, 2022. "Responding to the Initial Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of International Responses and Impact in School and Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    5. Naomi Fukuzawa, 2017. "Characteristics of papers published in journals: an analysis of open access journals, country of publication, and languages used," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1007-1023, August.
    6. Laura Saraite Sariene & Carmen Caba Pérez & Antonio M López Hernández, 2020. "Expanding the actions of Open Government in higher education sector: From web transparency to Open Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.
    8. Omar Díaz & Gabriela Riquelme & Gibrán Rivera, 2021. "Sharing Research Data: An Analysis of the Interest of Social Scientists in the Context of a Mexican University," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Kirillova, Ksenia & Wang, Dan, 2016. "Smartphone (dis)connectedness and vacation recovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 157-169.
    10. Meissner Dirk & Narkhova Anastasiia & Plekhanov Dmitry, 2016. "The Meaning of Digitalization for Research Skills: Challenges for Sti Policy," HSE Working papers WP BRP 69/STI/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Teresa Gomez-Diaz & Tomas Recio, 2020. "A policy and legal Open Science framework: a proposal," Working Papers hal-02962399, HAL.
    12. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    13. Núria Bautista-Puig & Daniela De Filippo & Elba Mauleón & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, February.
    14. Adom, Philip Kofi & Amuakwa-Mensah, Franklin, 2016. "What drives the energy saving role of FDI and industrialization in East Africa?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 925-942.
    15. Mariana Cernicova-Buca & Katalin Luzan, 2020. "Open Academic Book Publishing during COVID-19 Pandemic: A View on Romanian University Presses," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, November.
    16. Gabrielle Samuel & Federica Lucivero, 2020. "Responsible Open Science: Moving towards an Ethics of Environmental Sustainability," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-7, December.
    17. Majid ESMAEILPOUR & Mohammad RANJBAR, 2017. "Investigating The Impact Of Commitment,Satisfaction, And Loyalty Of Employees On Providing Highquality Service To Customer," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 12(1), pages 82-98, March.
    18. Brown, A. & Fishenden, Jerry & Thompson, M. & Venters, Will, 2017. "Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF)," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 73864, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Malcolm Wolski & Louise Howard & Joanna Richardson, 2017. "A Trust Framework for Online Research Data Services," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open Science; Open Access; Open Data; Open Collaboration; NTIS;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:sek:iacpro:4106747. 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: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    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.