There's some more talk about free software in the open access circles
recently. This paper attempts to recap a few aspects (in almost 100 pages).
It's CC-BY-4.0 and this URL opens without JavaScript:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/download
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] New paper: A tale of two 'opens': intersections
between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship
Data: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:50:30 +0800
Mittente: Jon Tennant (via scholcomm Mailing List)
Dear all,
Apologies in advance for any cross-posting. We are delighted today to
announce the publication of a new paper, entitled "A tale of two
'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open
Scholarship".
It is currently available as a preprint on SocArXiv, and open for
additional comments/annotations: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/
It's a bit of a monster, so best not to be tackled without an
appropriate caffeine level.
Abstract: There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source
Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and
fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we
critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two
movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several
key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of
practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and
collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the
principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within
scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology.
Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and
compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration
towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a
concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs
beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to
achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional
mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders
to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the
communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key
research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such
a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a
system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources
(including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more
efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous,
verified, and reproducible.
Also, of potential interest, is that we wrote this paper in a way that
inspired the concept of a "MOOP", more details here:
https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak
Special thanks to the brilliant co-authors: Ritwik Agarwal, Ksenija
Baždarić, David Brassard, Tom Crick, Daniel Dunleavy, Thomas Evans,
Nicholas Gardner, Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Daniel Graziotin, Bastian
Greshake Tzovaras, Daniel Gunnarsson, Johanna Havemann, Mohammad
Hosseini, Daniel Katz, Marcel Knöchelmann, Leo Lahti, Christopher Madan,
Paolo Manghi, Alberto Marocchino, Paola Masuzzo, Peter Murray-Rust,
Sanjay Narayanaswamy, Gustav Nilsonne, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Bart
Penders, Olivier Pourret, Michael Rera, John Samuel, Tobias Steiner,
Jadranka Stojanovski, Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, Rutger Vos, Simon
Worthington, and Tal Yarkoni.
Best,
Jon