Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia
2. Literature Review
- To analyse data policy research in institutions, Leaders Activating Research Networks (LEARN)  developed the study ‘Ready to manage research data?’ in Europe and Latin America. It included thirteen questions to evaluate data management in different institutions.
- To examine users’ experience with open science networks, Open Science Grid  developed the Open Science Grid PKI General User Survey study with different network users. It included nine questions on users’ experience with open science and their interactions in the network.
- To evaluate the particularities and context of research and its relationship with global changes, Belmont Forum  established the study Skills for e-infrastructures and data management in global change research worldwide. It used twenty-one questions on research contexts related to data infrastructure requirements to promote open science.
- To evaluate the knowledge and perceptions of open access in social science and the humanities, Edith Cowan University (ECU)  developed a study with thirteen questions related to knowledge of open access and its application as well as users’ experience publishing in open access contexts.
- To compare the perceptions, motivations, and behaviours of researchers in relation to open science in three areas—physics, economics, and medicine—the study called ‘Open science: one term, five schools of thought’  was developed. It included eighteen questions to analyse the degree of acceptance of open science by researchers in three different areas of knowledge.
- A study on perceptions of open access based on the experience and age of researchers was conducted on academic research faculty members possessing a PhD at U.S. universities and colleges. It included four questions on open access perceptions .
- In Spain, a study was performed to determine the perceptions of open access among PhD students, professors and researchers at a university. It included thirty-seven questions related to different elements of open access .
3.1. Study Area and Population
3.2. Sampling Technique, Sample Size, and Data Collection
3.3. Survey and Instruments
3.4. Survey Administration
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics
4.2. Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Colombian Researchers
4.3. Attitudes towards Open Science
4.4. Capacities and Abilities for Open Science
4.5. Experiences and Participation in Open Science
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Main Detailed Results of the Survey
- Borrell-Damián, L. The Importance of Open Science for Europe’s Universities. 2016. Available online: https://www.adjacentopenaccess.org/research-science-innovation-news/importance-open-science-europes-universities/29073/ (accessed on 20 July 2017).
- Oettinger, G.; Moedas, C. Open Science for a Knowledge and Data-Driven Economy. 2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/oettinger/blog/open-science-knowledge-and-data-driven-economy_en (accessed on 22 July 2017).
- Fecher, B.; Friesike, S. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In Opening Science; Bartling, S.F.S., Friesike, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; p. 340. [Google Scholar]
- García, D.; Rendueles, C. Abierto, libre… y público. Los desafíos políticos de la ciencia abierta. Argum. Razón Técnica 2014, 17, 45–64. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Salmi, J. Study on Open Science Impact, Implications and Policy Options. 2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/rise/study_on_open_science-impact_implications_and_policy_options-salmi_072015.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2018).
- Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing; Springer Open: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Foster. Open Science Taxonomy. 2015. Available online: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science (accessed on 10 February 2018).
- Open Knowledge International. Open Data Handbook. 2010. Available online: http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/ (accessed on 9 February 2018).
- Agudelo-Calderón, C.A. NECOBELAC apoya el ACCESO ABIERTO, un camino para la ciencia abierta. Rev. Salud Pública 2012, 13, 883–884. (In Spainsh) [Google Scholar]
- Forero Pineda, C.; Jaramillo Salazar, H. The access of researchers from developing countries to international science and technology. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2002, 54, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matijasevic, E. Ciencia Transparente Para Todos. Acta Médica Colomb. 2012, 37, 101. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/amc/v37n3/v37n3a01.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2016).
- LEARN. Ready to Management Data in Research? 2013. Available online: http://www.curatore.es/datos-de-investigacion-24/gestion-de-datos-de-investigacion-espana-y-america-latina/ (accessed on 6 December 2016).
- Open Science Grid. Open Science Grid PKI General User Survey. 2013. Available online: http://www.open sciencegrid.org (accessed on 13 December 2016).
- Belmont Forum. Skills for E-Infrastructures and Data Management in Global Change Research. 2014. Available online: http://www.codata.org/news/144/62/Skills-for-e-infrastructures-and-data-manage ment-in-global-change-research (accessed on 29 December 2016).
- Gross, J.; Ryan, C. Landscapes of Research: Perceptions of Open Access (OA) Publishing in the Arts and Humanities. Publications 2015, 3, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Probets, S.; Creaser, C. Towards an Understanding of the Relationship Between Disciplinary Research Cultures and Open Access Repository Behaviors. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2710–2724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rodriguez, J. Awareness and Attitudes about Open Access Publishing: A Glance at Generational Differences. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2014, 40, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano-Vicente, R.; Melero, R.; Abadal, E. Open Access Awareness and Perceptions in an Institutional Landscape. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2016, 42, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rea, L.; Parker, R. Designing and Conducting Survey Research, a Comprehensive Guide; Jossey-Bass Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Rycit. The Antigua Manual: Indicators of Perception of Science and Technology. 2015. Available online: http://www.ricyt.org/novedades/308-nueva-publicacion-manual-de-antigua (accessed on 16 December 2016).
- Open Access Academy. Open Access Awareness Study. 2015. Available online: http://www.oaacademy.org (accessed on 22 November 2016).
- European Commission. Validation of the Results of the Public Consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition. 2015. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science _2_0_final_report.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2016).
- Kaba, A.; Said, R. Open access awareness, use, and perception: A case study of AAU faculty members. New Libr. World 2015, 116, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Caso, R.; Ducato, R. Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks [Online], University of Toronto, the Trento Law and Technology Research Paper Series. 2014. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2511602 (accessed on 10 December 2016).
- Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Bukvova, H.; Nyman, L.; Björk, B.-C.; Hedlund, T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e20961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, E.; Gunashekar, S.; Lichten, C.; Parks, S.; Chataway, J.; A Framework to Monitor Open Science Trends in the EU. ECD Blue Sky III Forum, Informing Science and Innovation Policies: Towards the Next Generation of Data and Indicators. 2016. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/sti/063%20-%20OECD%20Blue%20Sky%202016_Open%20Science.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
- Wiley Drivers of Open Science. 2016. Available online: https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/10/12/7-drivers-of-open-science (accessed on 1 May 2017).
- OECD. Open Science: Policy Challenges and Opportunities, Internal Working Document, Country Studies and Outlook Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry; OECD: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Open Science Movement. 2016. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/portals-and-platforms/goap/open-science-movement/ (accessed on 11 March 2017).
- Forsström, P.; Haataja, J. Open Science as an Instrument for Effective Research. Signum 2016, 2, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
- Ritter, M. Digitalisation of Society, the Role of Universities and Its Impact on Doctoral Education and Research. 2017. Available online: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/CDE-Events-2017/eua-cde-talinn-june-2017_ritter-vzd10268ca84b96a879ce5ff00009465c7.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 16 November 2016).
- Gagliardi, D.; Cox, D.; Li, Y. Institutional Inertia and Barriers to the Adoption of Open Science. 2014. Available online: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:283336&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF (accessed on 6 May 2017).
- OECD. Making Open Science a Reality, OECD Science; Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015; Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en (accessed on 25 April 2017).
- Hampton, S.; Anderson, S.; Bagby, S.; Gries, C.; Han, X.; Hart, E.; Jones, M.; Lenhardt, C.; Macdonald, A.; Michener, W.; et al. The Tao of open science for ecology. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carey, B. Journal Science Releases Guidelines for Publishing Scientific Studies. New York Times. 25 June 2015. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/science/journal-science-releases-guidelines-for-publishing-scientific-studies.html (accessed on 12 June 2017).
- Taylor and Francis. Open Access Survey. 2014. Available online: www.oecd.org/sti/survey-of-scientific-authors.htm (accessed on 1 April 2017).
- OECD. Policies to Promote Open Science: Evidence from OECD Countries. 2015. Available online: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/attachment/PoliciesToPromoteOpenScience_GiuliaAjmoneMarsan.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2017).
- Spallek, H.; O’Donnell, J.; Clayton, M.; Anderson, P.; Krueger, A. Paradigm shift or annoying distraction—Emerging implications of Web 2.0 for clinical practice. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2010, 1, 96–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
|Category||Colombian Departments||Sample Size|
|1||Amazonas, Boyacá, Caldas, Caquetá, Casanare, Cauca, Cesar, Chocó, Córdoba, Cundinamarca, Huila, La Guajira, Magdalena, Meta, Nariño, Norte de Santander, Quindío, Risaralda, Sucre, and Tolima.||242|
|2||Atlántico, Bolívar, Santander, and Valle del Cauca.||205|
|Sociodemographic characteristics||Eleven questions: Name, age, institutional affiliation, position, years as a researcher, classification as researcher, level of education, etc.||, Authors|
|Knowledge and perceptions of open science||Seven questions: Knowledge of open science (Do you know about open science? What words do you think about when we talk about open science?), use of elements of open science (What elements of open science have you used?), information access (How informed are you about open science? Through what media platform do you mainly obtain information on open science?), use of media (Can you name a web portal/blog/journal/network that you consult/seek/use to investigate an approach of open science?)||[15,22,23], Authors|
|Attitudes towards open science||Four questions: Elements to promote open science (Availability of digital technologies and their higher capacity, Increase in the body of scientific research throughout the world, Public’s demand for rapid solutions to social challenges, Researchers seek new forms of dissemination of their results, Critiques of the current evaluation system for research results, Public recognition of scientific integrity and accountability for science and technology, and other), barriers to open science (Lack of legitimacy regarding the quality and rigour of scientific production, lack of recognition of the process and tools of open science, lack of integration between infrastructures of traditional science and open science, limited knowledge of the potential benefits of open science for researchers, lack of adequate resources for financing open science, uncertainty regarding the benefits of open science, legal restrictions related to copyrights, constraints to using the tools of open science, uncertainty regarding ethics and privacy in the open science context, and other), deficiencies of current system that open science could overcome (Restricted access and delays in disseminating academic results that limit the transfer of knowledge to researchers and other members of society, many of the research results cannot be reproduced due to a lack of underlying data, instructions regarding the process and contextual information, lack of transparency of traditional science, results of the research are often valued more for their quantity, academic communication is limited by the current incentive structures that privilege the publication of research results in indexed journals, digital technologies and their possibilities in academic communication are not used and fully applied, limited access to scientific resources and products decreases the efficiency and productivity of the research system, and other) and implications of open science (more reliable and efficient science, faster and wider innovation, greater scientific integrity, data-intensive science will become a key driver of economic growth and development, greater connection between science and society, science is more committed to solving social problems, research is more receptive to society, increase in research funding sources, greater promotion of public disclosure and social appropriation of science, technology and innovation, greater global benefits of knowledge transfer, and other).||[14,23], Authors|
|Capacities and abilities for open science||Three questions: Use of open science tools (consult public repositories to search for information and research results, include your research in the repository of your institution to disseminate your research results, publish your articles in open access publications after paying a monetary fee or without paying a monetary fee, use and update academic networks (academia, ResearchGate), exchange of information, data or research results with colleagues and/or researchers in your area of knowledge, training in open science, use and management of bibliographic managers (Zotero, RefBase, etc.), I have a researcher profile (Google academic, Orcid, Researcher ID, Scopus author ID, etc.), I consult bibliographic reference indexes (Google academic, CiteSeerx, and Scholarometer); achievements from open science (Conducted research with other researchers nationwide, Conducted research with other researchers at an international level, I have received feedback on my publications from other researchers, I have received invitations from other academic and scientific communities to share my research results, I have been invited to be evaluator of open access scientific articles, I have participated as an expert researcher in projects developed by international organizations I have exchanged information or data about my research, other);|
and applications of elements of open science in projects (some individual in society has collected information or data from your project, some individual in society has played an active role in your research project, You have jointly conducted research with the community, You have shared your research results with the community, Your research questions arise from community problems, other.
|Experiences and participation in open science||Nine Questions: Institutional topics on open science (Does your institution have open science guidelines for its researchers, in your institution, what open science tools are used?); publication in open access contexts (Approximately how many articles have you published as a researcher? Of those articles, how many have been in open access publications? Of the articles published in open access publications (open access), how many have involved you making a payment? Where do the resources for the payments to open access publications come from?); and requirements of an open science policy (Do you believe that the country should have an integrated public policy on open science? What elements should be included in a public policy of open science in the country? How do you prioritize public policy actions to promote open science?).||[16,23,24], Authors|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pardo Martínez, C.I.; Poveda, A.C. Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia. Information 2018, 9, 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110292
Pardo Martínez CI, Poveda AC. Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia. Information. 2018; 9(11):292. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110292Chicago/Turabian Style
Pardo Martínez, Clara Inés, and Alexander Cotte Poveda. 2018. "Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia" Information 9, no. 11: 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110292