Tempo di lettura ca.: 5 minuti, 51 secondi
Written by Eszter Fay with Niklas Dreier.
In the fast-evolving landscape of scientific research, the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) Academic Freedom Roundtable ‘Research Integrity in Open Science for Europe’ brought together researchers and European policymakers to discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by Open Science. Amidst insightful discussions on Open Science’s challenges and ethical dimensions, the event, held on 21 February 2024, invited us to question who truly benefits from Open Science’s promise of transparency and societal impact? How does Open Science reshape our understanding of research excellence?
Open Science as a policy priority for the European Union
As we navigate a time where scepticism toward science is prevalent, STOA Vice-Chair Ivars Ijabs (Renew, Latvia) underscored the need to increase transparency and trustworthiness in scientific endeavours by facilitating Open Science. EU Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education, and Youth Iliana Ivanova reaffirmed the EU’s policy commitment to promoting Open Science. Yet, in this very endeavour, Commissioner Ivanova emphasised the importance of developing assessment methods that measure research excellence beyond traditional measures such as citations. The evaluative focus, she noted, should be on rewarding and fostering research with a positive societal impact. These introductory remarks thus raised the question: Who benefits from Open Science research?
Open Science for and by whom?
Professor Frank Miedema, from the University of Utrecht, stressed in his keynote on ‘Science in Transition’ the need to question why and for whom we should pursue Open Science. He advocated for a shift from ‘science for science’ to ‘science for society’, echoing Commissioner Ivanova’s position. While advocating for more data accessibility, Professor Miedema also highlighted the importance of considering scenarios where withholding research data might be pertinent. Likewise, Marcel Bogers, Professor of Open & Collaborative Innovation at Eindhoven University of Technology, cautioned against excessive data openness, drawing parallels between Open Science and his expertise in open innovation. Referring to a recent open innovation study, he demonstrated that beyond an optimal threshold, excessive openness may detrimentally affect performance. Professor Bogers asserted that advancing Open Science would require a reassessment of how research is incentivised, alluding to challenges linked to fostering and evaluating the excellence of Open Science research.
Assessing research quality: Challenges to Open Science
The subsequent panel discussed the challenges hindering the transition to Open Science. Dr Elizabeth Gadd, Head of Research Culture & Assessment at Loughborough University, underscored the need to revamp the incentive and assessment system for research. Dr Gadd introduced the INORMS SCOPE Framework as a solution to assess research quality beyond traditional citation metrics, thereby also mitigating global inequalities in scientific output assessment. The SCOPE framework, an acronym for START, CONTEXT, OPTIONS, PROBE, and EVALUATE, offers a comprehensive five-stage model for responsible research evaluation, guiding evaluators in planning and assessing research endeavours. This framework is based on three principles advocating a discerning and strategic approach to evaluation. First, evaluating only where necessary, stressing the importance of considering alternative strategies. Second, evaluating with the evaluated, emphasising collaboration and inclusivity by involving the communities or individuals under evaluation. Third, drawing on evaluation expertise, underscoring the necessity for a thorough and informed evaluation process aligned with academic research standards to ensure validity, reliability and comprehensive understanding.
Signe Mezinska, Associate Professor at the University of Latvia, emphasised the social disparities within the scientific community and across countries, especially regarding the economic costs associated with publishing according to Open Science principles. Elaborating on these inequalities, Henriikka Mustajoki, Head of Development, Open Science, Finland, grounded the justification for the Open Science movement in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While advocating for data accessibility to all, she acknowledged the potential systemic pressures that widespread openness might pose to Open Science researchers’ academic freedom and freedom of speech. Kadri Simm, Chair of Practical Philosophy at the University of Tartu, and Olivier Le Gall, Chair of the French Advisory Board on Research Integrity, further identified potential challenges arising from emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, particularly regarding confidentiality in handling diverse data sources. To address these challenges, the experts on the panel delved into the ethical dimensions of Open Science and discussed the Responsible Open Science in Europe (ROSiE) guidelines as a potential solution to ethical conflicts.
An ethical framework for Open Science: Responsible Open Science in Europe (ROpen ScienceiE) general guidelines and academic freedom
Professor Rose Bernabe from the University of Oslo presented the ROSiE guidelines project and advocated for their inclusion in the European definition of academic freedom. Funded by the EU’s research and innovation programme Horizon 2020, the project aims to collaboratively develop and foster foundational tools that facilitate responsible Open Science and research integrity. As Dr Simm noted that specific approaches to Open Science conflict with each other, she also emphasised that the ROpen ScienceiE guidelines represent a promising initial move towards establishing a comprehensive ethical framework for Open Science.
The STOA Academic Freedom Roundtable highlighted the complexity and urgency of navigating the Open Science landscape. The event not only underscored the benefits of Open Science but also called attention to the challenges, which demand collaborative solutions. As we chart a course towards Open Science, embracing diverse perspectives and establishing responsible guidelines will be crucial to ensuring a future where research serves society while preserving academic freedom and ethical integrity.
For more details, you can watch the event recording.
Read the ESMH interview with Teodora Konach from the ROSiE project on ‘Paving the way towards responsible open science‘.
Your opinion matters to us. To let us know what you think, get in touch viastoa@europarl.europa.euand follow us on X at @EP_ScienceTech.
[[{“value”:”
Written by Eszter Fay with Niklas Dreier.
In the fast-evolving landscape of scientific research, the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) Academic Freedom Roundtable ‘Research Integrity in Open Science for Europe’ brought together researchers and European policymakers to discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by Open Science. Amidst insightful discussions on Open Science’s challenges and ethical dimensions, the event, held on 21 February 2024, invited us to question who truly benefits from Open Science’s promise of transparency and societal impact? How does Open Science reshape our understanding of research excellence?
Open Science as a policy priority for the European Union
As we navigate a time where scepticism toward science is prevalent, STOA Vice-Chair Ivars Ijabs (Renew, Latvia) underscored the need to increase transparency and trustworthiness in scientific endeavours by facilitating Open Science. EU Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education, and Youth Iliana Ivanova reaffirmed the EU’s policy commitment to promoting Open Science. Yet, in this very endeavour, Commissioner Ivanova emphasised the importance of developing assessment methods that measure research excellence beyond traditional measures such as citations. The evaluative focus, she noted, should be on rewarding and fostering research with a positive societal impact. These introductory remarks thus raised the question: Who benefits from Open Science research?
Open Science for and by whom?
Professor Frank Miedema, from the University of Utrecht, stressed in his keynote on ‘Science in Transition’ the need to question why and for whom we should pursue Open Science. He advocated for a shift from ‘science for science’ to ‘science for society’, echoing Commissioner Ivanova’s position. While advocating for more data accessibility, Professor Miedema also highlighted the importance of considering scenarios where withholding research data might be pertinent. Likewise, Marcel Bogers, Professor of Open & Collaborative Innovation at Eindhoven University of Technology, cautioned against excessive data openness, drawing parallels between Open Science and his expertise in open innovation. Referring to a recent open innovation study, he demonstrated that beyond an optimal threshold, excessive openness may detrimentally affect performance. Professor Bogers asserted that advancing Open Science would require a reassessment of how research is incentivised, alluding to challenges linked to fostering and evaluating the excellence of Open Science research.
Assessing research quality: Challenges to Open Science
The subsequent panel discussed the challenges hindering the transition to Open Science. Dr Elizabeth Gadd, Head of Research Culture & Assessment at Loughborough University, underscored the need to revamp the incentive and assessment system for research. Dr Gadd introduced the INORMS SCOPE Framework as a solution to assess research quality beyond traditional citation metrics, thereby also mitigating global inequalities in scientific output assessment. The SCOPE framework, an acronym for START, CONTEXT, OPTIONS, PROBE, and EVALUATE, offers a comprehensive five-stage model for responsible research evaluation, guiding evaluators in planning and assessing research endeavours. This framework is based on three principles advocating a discerning and strategic approach to evaluation. First, evaluating only where necessary, stressing the importance of considering alternative strategies. Second, evaluating with the evaluated, emphasising collaboration and inclusivity by involving the communities or individuals under evaluation. Third, drawing on evaluation expertise, underscoring the necessity for a thorough and informed evaluation process aligned with academic research standards to ensure validity, reliability and comprehensive understanding.
Signe Mezinska, Associate Professor at the University of Latvia, emphasised the social disparities within the scientific community and across countries, especially regarding the economic costs associated with publishing according to Open Science principles. Elaborating on these inequalities, Henriikka Mustajoki, Head of Development, Open Science, Finland, grounded the justification for the Open Science movement in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While advocating for data accessibility to all, she acknowledged the potential systemic pressures that widespread openness might pose to Open Science researchers’ academic freedom and freedom of speech. Kadri Simm, Chair of Practical Philosophy at the University of Tartu, and Olivier Le Gall, Chair of the French Advisory Board on Research Integrity, further identified potential challenges arising from emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, particularly regarding confidentiality in handling diverse data sources. To address these challenges, the experts on the panel delved into the ethical dimensions of Open Science and discussed the Responsible Open Science in Europe (ROSiE) guidelines as a potential solution to ethical conflicts.
An ethical framework for Open Science: Responsible Open Science in Europe (ROpen ScienceiE) general guidelines and academic freedom
Professor Rose Bernabe from the University of Oslo presented the ROSiE guidelines project and advocated for their inclusion in the European definition of academic freedom. Funded by the EU’s research and innovation programme Horizon 2020, the project aims to collaboratively develop and foster foundational tools that facilitate responsible Open Science and research integrity. As Dr Simm noted that specific approaches to Open Science conflict with each other, she also emphasised that the ROpen ScienceiE guidelines represent a promising initial move towards establishing a comprehensive ethical framework for Open Science.
The STOA Academic Freedom Roundtable highlighted the complexity and urgency of navigating the Open Science landscape. The event not only underscored the benefits of Open Science but also called attention to the challenges, which demand collaborative solutions. As we chart a course towards Open Science, embracing diverse perspectives and establishing responsible guidelines will be crucial to ensuring a future where research serves society while preserving academic freedom and ethical integrity.
For more details, you can watch the event recording.
Read the ESMH interview with Teodora Konach from the ROSiE project on ‘Paving the way towards responsible open science‘.
Your opinion matters to us. To let us know what you think, get in touch viastoa@europarl.europa.euand follow us on X at @EP_ScienceTech.
“}]]