Présentation PowerPoint - STM

Science 2.0 A new modus operandi for science and research?

DG RTD: Launching the policy debate in Europe JC.Burgelman, R. Von Schomberg and S. Luber (DG R&I) (data support from Open evidence & Inno Group)

2013 Seminar e-Science, we-Science and the latest evolutions in e-publishing STM Seminar, London 4-12-2013 Personal views which do not necessarily represent the EC. Not for circulation

Our perspective Citizens science

Dataintensive Open labbook s/ wflows Open data

Open annotat ion

Open code Preprint

Analysis

Data gathering

Conceptu alisation

Scientific blogs

Open access

Publication

Alternative Reputation systems

Review

Collaborative bibliographies

2

An emerging "ecosystem "of services and standards Citizen Scistarter.com s DataFigshare.com science intensive

Open Myexperiment. labboo org ks / wflows Open Datadryad.org

Runmycode Open .org

code

ArXiv Preprint

Analysis

Data gathering

Open access

Publicatio n

Roar.eprints.org

data

Open Openannotation. annotat org ion

Conceptu alisation

Scientif Researchgate. com ic blogs

Alternativ e Altmetric.com Reputatio n systems

Review

Collaborativ e Mendeley.com bibliographi

3

Growing at different speed (social sciences lagging way behind) Trend

Status

Data

Pre-print

Mature

694.000 articles in arXiv

Open access

Fast growing

Exponential growth of OA journals. 8/10% of scientific output is OA

Data intensive

Fast growing

52% of science authors deals with datasets larger than 1Gb

Citizen scientist

Medium growth

880K Zoouniverse users 500 similar projects on SciStarter

Open data

Medium growth

20% scientists share data 15% journals require data sharing

Reference sharing

Medium-fast growth

2, 7 Million users of Mendeley (*2008)reference-sharing tools. 500 million docs uploaded)

Open code

Sketchy growth

21% of JASA articles make code available 7% journals require code

Open Notebook

Sketchy growth

Isolated projects

4

But: much more than Open Access!

Analysis

Data gathering

Conceptu alisation

Open access

Publicatio n

Review

5

Observable impact: More productive science •New type of scientific outputs such as datasets, code, contributions to wiki (e.g NSF now assesses CV based on "outputs" not "articles") •Using the same data sets for multiple research. 50% of Hubble papers came from data re-users. •Crowdsourcing works: see peer-to-patent •Faster circulation of high-quality ideas: 70% of publications discussed in blogs are from high-impact journals •“We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.” (Anderson 2007) Better science •Greater falsifiability: move towards reproducible science thanks to publishing data + code in addition to article (e.g. Science Exchange start up) •Easier to follow the process, no need to wait for the product •Rapidly uncover mistaken findings (Excel gate) •Greater availability of data collection and datasets increases the utility of inductive methods. Gnome project as new paradigm?

6

Understanding the potential policy implications Some easy to predict impacts: All science will be global Will Nature et al remain as important?...11% of world output in Open access journals New gatekeepers (intermediaries) will emerge. New ways to determine reputation, CV’s? (Mendeley rankings? DFG – only 5 publications to mention, NSF asks PI to list research “products”) More Creative Commons (already 400 million CC licenses)? Open access becoming a barrier? More citizen (as scientist) science? Faster science (Google scholar…), beta science a valid status? New metrics needed? New ways to fund research? Evaluate projects? …… The "Scientific Powers That Be", disappear or adapt? Perez.

Outlook for universities The way we process data, define problems, publish outcomes, share findings, comment results, build reputations & careers, allocate grants etc is changing (on a global scale)…..as a result, •the educational system, populated by digital natives worldwide, has/will follow: •More openess (courses, bib, learning, tutoring…) in teaching and research, MOOR (the networked firm…the networked research) •Reputation no longer institutional only (e.g. Kahn academy) •Career’s, CV’s on “products” (not only high impact publications) •New curricula needed? With more attention to multi-disciplinarity? And to product development (+/- 10% of all scientific work goes to SW dev, Nature) •Multi-disciplinarity as standard •Data scientists, visualisation as discipline (statistics) •Knowledge manager skills and services vital part of education? •Due to data abundance: more time to think the questions, but also “Learn to think”? •Problem driven, deductive thinking as basic competence.

A quick survey Usage and Perceived Impact 90.00%

80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

Usage Perceived Positive Impact

Science 2.0 interests and willingness to share 120.00% 100.00% 80.00% 60.00%

Do you think open access to the following would be useful for your research

40.00%

20.00% 0.00%

Would you be ready to share publicly the following elements of your research?

Perceived barriers What are the main constraints to adopting an open science approach ? Inertia of the science system

60.36%

Assessing quality & impact of the research results

51.35%

Funding

48.65%

Skills of the researchers in using the tools

34.23%

Time consumed in participation in Open Science

29.73%

Public interest/involvement 0.00%

15.32% 10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

What is the attitude of your research community to open science ? I am encouraged to pursue it

12% 10%

38%

Neutral, no specific reactions I am facing reluctance from my superiors

40%

I am facing reluctance from my peers

70.00%

Policy Options Do you think the European Commission should be directly involved in supporting “open science” by operating its own social website for researchers ?

Because of their impacts on the future of research activities, do you think open science platforms/ institution should be public rather than private?

Yes it should be public

18%

11.71%

Yes

31.53%

No

56.76%

Other

No it should stay private

19% 63%

Private but with public funding involved

 45.95% had more to say at the end of the survey…

DG RTD plan: green paper No reason why Europe cannot co-lead (we have strong actors and players) 1. Study launched on the business model and policy implications of Science 2.0. 2. High-level expert workshop, involving all relevant stakeholders in Europe, in order to have a common understanding of the policy dimension and challenges of Science 2.0. 04 November 2013. 3. The outcome of this seminar is used to write up a Green Paper on Science 2.0, in association with a broad on-line stakeholder consultation. The latter should focus on whether, and which policy actions, stakeholders would like the European Commission to take or

not.

4. Green Paper by spring 2014 5. If well received: follow up (setting up of a monitor etc.)

Contribute! Thank you