PIRSA:18030106

What’s not to like? Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously

APA

Redfield, R. (2018). What’s not to like? Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously. Perimeter Institute. https://pirsa.org/18030106

MLA

Redfield, Rosie. What’s not to like? Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously. Perimeter Institute, Mar. 27, 2018, https://pirsa.org/18030106

BibTex

          @misc{ pirsa_18030106,
            doi = {10.48660/18030106},
            url = {https://pirsa.org/18030106},
            author = {Redfield, Rosie},
            keywords = {Other},
            language = {en},
            title = {What{\textquoteright}s not to like?  Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously},
            publisher = {Perimeter Institute},
            year = {2018},
            month = {mar},
            note = {PIRSA:18030106 see, \url{https://pirsa.org}}
          }
          

Rosie Redfield University of British Columbia (UBC)

Abstract

The Open Science movement focuses on the broad benefits to the scientific enterprise, but its success will depend on the actions of individual scientists. Unless the short-term benefits to the researcher outweigh the costs, only the most altruistic will open up their research efforts to the world. Arguments based on hypothetical future benefits don’t carry much weight, and calls for better tools appear to be mainly driven by tool-designers, not potential users. I’ll start with two brief case histories (#arseniclife and Apple Academic Press), and then consider what the immediate costs and benefits are and how we might shift the balance between them.