DG RTD: Launching the policy debate in Europe

Transcription

1 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 evidence & Inno Group) 2013 Seminar e-science, we-science and the latest evolutions in e-publishing STM Seminar, London Personal views which do not necessarily represent the EC. Not for circulation

2 Our perspective Dataintensive Citizens science code labbook s / wflows Analysis Preprint data Data gathering Publication access annotat ion Conceptu alisation Review Alternative Reputation systems Scientific blogs Collaborative bibliographies 2

3 Preprint An emerging "ecosystem "of services and standards Citizen Scistarter.com Dataintensive s Figshare.com science labboo org ks / wflows Myexperiment. data Datadryad.org Data gathering Analysis.org code Runmycode Publicatio n ArXiv access Roar.eprints.org annotat org ion annotation. Scientif com ic blogs Researchgate. Conceptu alisation Review Collaborativ e Mendeley.com bibliographi 3 Alternativ e Reputatio n systems Altmetric.com

4 Growing at different speed (social sciences lagging way behind) Trend Status Data Pre-print Mature articles in arxiv 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 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) code Sketchy growth 21% of JASA articles make code available 7% journals require code Notebook Sketchy growth Isolated projects 4

5 But: much more than Access! Analysis Data gathering Publicatio n access Conceptu alisation Review 5

6 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

7 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 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)? 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.

8 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.

9 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

10 Science 2.0 interests and willingness to share % % 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?

11 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 Funding 51.35% 48.65% Skills of the researchers in using the tools Time consumed in participation in Science 29.73% 34.23% Public interest/involvement 15.32% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% What is the attitude of your research community to open science? 10% 12% 40% 38% I am encouraged to pursue it Neutral, no specific reactions I am facing reluctance from my superiors I am facing reluctance from my peers

12 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? 11.71% 18% Yes it should be public 31.53% 56.76% Yes No Other 19% 63% No it should stay private Private but with public funding involved 45.95% had more to say at the end of the survey

13 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 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 November 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 If well received: follow up (setting up of a monitor etc.)

14 Contribute! Thank you