Volume 36, Issue 3 (Spring 2021)
... 2021, 36(3): 595-620 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Moradi S. Providing a Model for Open Science Facilitator Policies in Iran. .... 2021; 36 (3) :595-620
URL: http://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-4455-en.html
URL: http://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-4455-en.html
Policy Evaluation and Science; Technology and Innovation Monitoring Department; National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP); Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1738 Views)
Open science is the platform for the science or scientific outputs that need to be managed transparently from the beginning to the end and be accessible to the society. This concept covers many components incluing open research data, open scholarly communication, and open access. Furthermore, several policies have been issued to provide a proper platform for open science in countries due to the importance and upon their capacities. Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide a model for open science facilitator policies in Iran, conducted with a qualitative approach based on focus groups of researchers and experts in open science. The findings demonstrated that concerning the current country’s environment, open science policies have to consider five main categories at this stage namely identifying the nature of science, removing barriers, motivating, separating open science according to the components, and performance level. Afterward, the proposed model of the policies based on the STEEP (V) analytical model with six environmental, technological, social, economic, political, and value aspects was presented along with related policy recommendations. Considering openness and providing facilitators for the science ecosystem is essential and this should be reflected in science, technology, and innovation policies.
Keywords: Open Data, Open Scholarly Communication, Open Access, Policies Assessment, Focus Group, Content Analysis, STEEP (V), Policy Recommendation
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Open Access, Open Science, and Open Data
Received: 2020/03/12 | Accepted: 2020/11/2 | Published: 2021/04/5
Received: 2020/03/12 | Accepted: 2020/11/2 | Published: 2021/04/5
References
1. ابراهیمی، قربانعلی. 1372. اجتماع علمی و ساختارهای آن. فصلنامه سیاست علمی و پژوهشی. رهیافت 5 (3): 30 -40.
2. امیری فرح‌آبادی، جعفر، سعید سلیمانی، و محمود ابوالقاسمی. 1397. واکاوی نقش سیاست‌گذاری داده باز بر بهینه‌یابی سیاستی در نظام آموزش عالی ایران. فصلنامه مدرس علوم انسانی (پژوهش‌های مدیریت در ایران) 22 (2): ۱۰۳-۱۲۶.
3. تسلیمی، محمدسعید، مهدی ثنایی، و محمد عبدالحسین‌زاده. 1396. شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی چالش‌های تحقق سیاست‌گذاری داده حکومتی باز در ایران: کاربست روش تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی و تاپسیس فازی. فصلنامه سیاست‌گذاری عمومی 3 (2): ۵۷-۸۹.
4. دبیرخانه شورای عالی عتف. 1386. سیاست‌ها و اولویت‌های پژوهش و فناوری کشور (در بازه زمانی 1396 تا 1400). تهران: شورای عالی عتف.
5. دیهیم‌پور، مهدی، و کمال میانداری. 1396. بررسی نقش شفافیت سازمانی در توسعه سرمایه اجتماعی (مورد مطالعه: شهرداری‌های غرب مازندران). مدیریت سرمایه اجتماعی 4 (2): 283-307.
6. عبدالحسین‌زاده، محمد، مهدی ثنایی، و محمدمهدی ذوالفقارزاده. 1396. مفهوم‌شناسی سیاست‌گذاری داده باز حاکمیتی و تبیین مزایا و فواید آن در عرصه‌های مختلف سیاست‌گذاری، فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی سیاست‌گذاری عمومی 7 (22): ۵۵-۷۴.
7. مجمع تشخیص مصلحت نظام. 1383 الف. سیاست کلی برای رشد و توسعه علمی و پژوهشی کشور در بخش آموزش عالی و مراکز پژوهشی (مصوب 15/12/1383). http://1404.ir/download?f=2015/05/10/0/207.pdf (دسترسی در 3/10/ 1397).
8. مجمع تشخیص مصلحت نظام. 1383 ب. سیاست کلی نظام برای رشد و توسعه فناوری (مصوب 22/01/1383). http://maslahat.ir/DocLib2/Approved%20Policies/Offered%20General%20Policies.aspx (دسترسی در 1 آبان 1397).
9. منصوری، رضا. 1395. «تولید علم»: مفهومی ابداع ایرانیان. خبرنامه انجمن ریاضی ۱۴۷.
10. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%81%D9%87%D9%88%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86-reza-mansouri/ (دسترسی در 20/12/98).
11. Alamo, T., D. G. Reina, M. Mammarella, & A. Abella. 2020. Open data resources for fighting covid-19. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06111.
12. Albert, K. M. 2006. Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94 (3): 253.
13. Ali-Khan, S. E., L. W. Harris, & E. R. Gold. 2017. Point of view: Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives. Elife 6: e29319. [DOI:10.7554/eLife.29319]
14. Almeida, A. V. D., M. M. Borges, & L. Roque. 2017. The European Open Science Cloud: A New Challenge for Europe. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 1-4). Cádiz, Spain [DOI:10.1145/3144826.3145382]
15. Alperin, J. P., C. M. Nieves, L. A. Schimanski, G. E. Fischman, M. T. Niles, & E. C. McKiernan. 2019. Meta-Research: How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? eLife 8: e42254. [DOI:10.7554/eLife.42254]
16. Berghmans, S., H. Cousijn, G. Deakin, I. Meijer, A. Mulligan, A. Plume, & L. Waltman. 2017. Open Data: The Researcher Perspective. Leiden University's Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Elsevier, and Universiteit Leiden. Online. Retrieved from: https://www. elsevier. com/data/assets/pdf_file/0004/281920/Open-data-report. pdf. (accessed May 12, 2019).
17. Borgman, C. L. 2015. Big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from: www.Mitpress.mit.edu/big-data (accessed Aug. 12, 2019). [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/9963.001.0001]
18. Cervantes, M., & D. Meissner. 2014. Commercialising Public Research under the Open Innovation Model: New Trends. Foresight Russia 8 (3): 70-81. [DOI:10.17323/1995-459x.2014.3.70.81]
19. Clay, J. M., & M. O. Parker. 2020. Alcohol use and misuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: a potential public health crisis? The Lancet Public Health 5 (5): e259. [DOI:10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30088-8]
20. David, P. A. 2008. The Historical Origins of Open Science: an essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society 3 (2): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.7499&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed Feb. 24, 2021). [DOI:10.2202/1932-0213.1040]
21. Donnelly, Martin. 2017. A new high-level policy analysis sheds more light on Europe's open data and open science policies. Impact of Social Sciences Blog (04 Sep 2017). Website. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/85036/ (accessed Jan. 10, 2020).
22. Eriksson, J., C. Lagvik, & E. Nolin. 2017. Moving towards open science? Conference report: the 9th conference on open access scholarly publishing, Lisbon, September 20-21, 2017. Nordic Perspectives on Open Science, 1.
https://doi.org/10.7557/11.4307 [DOI:10.7557/11.4307 (accessed Feb. 24, 2021).]
23. The European Commission .2016. Open innovation, Open Science, open to the world. A vision for Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. http://bookshop. europa.eu/en/open-innovation-open-science-open-tothe-world-pbKI041626 (accessed May 10, 2019).
24. Ford, E .2015. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview. F1000Research 4:6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350441/ (accessed Feb. 24, 2021). [DOI:10.12688/f1000research.6005.1]
25. FOSTER .2016. Challenges and strategies for the success of Open Science. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/content/challenges-and-strategies-success-open-science (accessed Dec. 10, 2019).
26. Foster, E. D., & A. Deardorff. 2017. Open science framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 105 (2): 203. [DOI:10.5195/JMLA.2017.88]
27. Frankenhuis, W. E., & D. Nettle. 2018. Open science is liberating and can foster creativity. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (4): 439-447. [DOI:10.1177/1745691618767878]
28. García-Peñalvo, F. J. 2017. Publishing in open access. Journal of Information Technology Research 10 (3): vi-viii.
29. Gumb, L. (2020). What's "Open" during COVID-19? In Global Pandemic, OER and Open Access Matter More than Ever. New England Journal of Higher Education. https://nebhe.org/journal/whats-open-during-covid-19-in-global-pandemic-oer-and-open-access-matter-more-than-ever (accessed Feb. 24, 2021).
30. Holland, D. 2010. Capacity-building through policymaking: developing Afghanistan's national education strategic plan. http://184.73.243.18:8080/jspui/bitstream/azu/15306/1/azu_acku_pamphlet_la1081_h65_2010_w.pdf (accessed Feb. 24, 2021).
31. Howlett, M. 2009. Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian public administration 52 (2): 153-175. [DOI:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2009.00070_1.x]
32. Hunter, P. 2019. The deal with DEAL for open access: The recent publish-and-read deals have increased momentum for open-access publishing but may not solve the challenge of open science. EMBO reports: e49794.
33. Krueger, R. A. 2006. Analyzing focus group interviews. Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing 33 (5): 478-481. [DOI:10.1097/00152192-200609000-00004]
34. Kunst, S., & A. Degkwitz. 2018. Open Science-the new paradigm for research and education? Information Services & Use 38: 203-205. [DOI:10.3233/ISU-180014]
35. Lasthiotakis, H., A. Kretz, & C. Sá. 2015. Open science strategies in research policies: A comparative exploration of Canada, the US and the UK. Policy futures in education 13 (8): 968-989. [DOI:10.1177/1478210315579983]
36. Levin, N., S. Leonelli, D. Weckowska, D. Castle, & J. Dupré. 2016. How do scientists define openness? Exploring the relationship between open science policies and research practice. Bulletin of science, technology & society 36 (2): 128-141. [DOI:10.1177/0270467616668760]
37. Lloyd, J. W., & W. J. Therrien. 2018. Preview and Introduction of Open-Science Guidelines. Exceptional Children 85 (1): 6-9. [DOI:10.1177/0014402918795348]
38. Longo, D. L., and J. M. Drazen. 2016. Data sharing. N Engl J Med 374 (3): 276-277. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMe1516564]
39. Masadeh M. A. 2012. Focus group: Reviews and practices. The Journal of Applied Science and Technology 2 (10): 63-68.
40. McKiernan, E. C., P. E. Bourne, C. T. Brown, S. Buck, A. Kenall, J. Lin, ... & J. R. Spies. 2016. Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. Elife 5: e16800. [DOI:10.7554/eLife.16800]
41. Mirowski, P. 2018. The future (s) of open science. Social studies of science 48 (2): 171-203 [DOI:10.1177/0306312718772086]
42. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Open science by design: Realizing a vision for 21st century research. Washington: National Academies Press.
43. Nosek, B. A., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, ... & M. Contestabile. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348 (6242): 1422-1425. [DOI:10.1126/science.aab2374]
44. O'Carroll, C., C. L. Kamerlin, N. Brennan, B. Hyllseth, U. Kohl, G. O'Neill, & R. Van Den Berg. 2017. Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practice Open Science. Luxembourg: European Commission. Publications Office of the European :union:. http://ec. europa. eu/research/openscience/pdf/os_skills_wgreport_final. pdf# view= fitypagemode= none. (accessed Jan. 27, 2020).
45. OECD (2015-10-15), "Making Open Science a Reality", OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25. Paris.: OECD Publishing. [DOI:10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en]
46. Perry, L. B. 2018. Assessing the performance of educational research in Australian universities: an alternative perspective. Higher Education Research & Development 37 (2): 343-358. [DOI:10.1080/07294360.2017.1355893]
47. Peters, Michael. 2019. Knowledge socialism: the rise of peer production - collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence. Educational Philosophy and Theory 0 (0): 1-9. [DOI:10.1080/00131857.2019.1654375]
48. Responsible Open Science. 2020. Responsible Open Science: An Ethics and Integrity Perspective. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-swafs-30-20-policy-briefing_en.pdf (accessed Dec. 27, 2020).
49. Ruijer, E., S. Grimmelikhuijsen, & A. Meijer. 2017. Open data for democracy: Developing a theoretical framework for open data use. Government Information Quarterly 34 (1): 45-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.001]
50. Saritas, O. 2013. Systemic foresight methodology. In Science, technology and innovation policy for the future (pp. 83-117). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-31827-6_6]
51. Scanlon, E. 2019. Learning Science Online: Inquiry Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. Pan-Commonwealth Forum, 9-12 September 2019, Edinburgh, Scotland http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/3235/PCF9_Papers_paper_57.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed Dec. 10, 2019).
52. Small, M. L. 2009. How many cases do I need?' On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5-38. [DOI:10.1177/1466138108099586]
53. Smith, I, T. Motshegwa, & S. Veldsman. 2018. Policy, Infrastructure, Skills and Incentives Driving African Data Sharing: The African Open Science Platform Project. In PV2018: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on adding value and preserving data. p. 28. Harwell, UK. [DOI:10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.25]
54. Tsunoda, H., Y. Sun, M. Nishizawa, & X. Liu. 2017. Current status of open science in Japan and China: Policy, research data repository and management. IFLA WLIC 2018 - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - Transform Libraries, Transform Societies http://library.ifla.org/2366/1/p-105-tsunoda-en_poster.pdf (accessed Jan. 10, 2020).
55. UNESCO. 2020. UNESCO mobilizes 122 countries to promote open science and reinforced cooperation in the face of COVID-19. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-mobilizes-122-countries-promote-open-science-and-reinforced-cooperation-face-covid-19 (accessed June 10, 2020).
56. Vicente-Sáez, R., & C. Martínez-Fuentes. 2018. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of business research 88: 428-436. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043]
57. Wilsdon, J. R., J. Bar-Ilan, R. Frodeman, E. Lex, I. Peters, & P. Wouters. 2017. Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Retrieved from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/113919/1/Next_Generation_Metrics (accessed Dec. 10, 2020).
58. Xu, K., H. Cai, Y. Shen, Q. Ni, Y. Chen, S. Hu, & L. Li. 2020. Management of corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19): the Zhejiang experience. Journal of Zhejiang University (medical science) 49 (1): 0-0. http://www.zjujournals.com/med/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=41126 (accessed Dec. 4, 2020).
59. Zuiderwijk, A., N. Helbig, J. R. Gil-García, & M. Janssen. 2014. Special issue on innovation through open data: Guest editors' introduction. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research 9 (2): i-xiii. [DOI:10.4067/S0718-18762014000200001]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
