Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023420. Epub 2011 Aug 17.
This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved.
本研究旨在探讨参与近期和当前多项倡导活动（如开放科学、计算溯源和可重复性研究）的人员的观点和动机，这些活动旨在使科学和科学制品更容易为更广泛的受众所接受。本研究采用探索性方法，检验了这些倡议的倡导者是否就关键概念达成共识，探讨了科学家对分享工作的各种机制的含义，以及发生这种情况的社会背景。本研究采用有针对性的抽样策略，以积极参与这些倡导活动的科学家为目标，并采用开放式问卷调查，收集有关可重复性、可信度、抢先发表、数据共享、结果共享以及同行评审过程有效性的详细意见。我们发现，在关键术语的含义上缺乏共识，在这些倡导活动的一些更广泛目标上也缺乏共识。通过更仔细地研究不同倡导活动所采用的不同目标和方法，可以解释这些结果。我们建议科学界可以从更广泛的角度讨论使科学研究更容易获得的含义，以及如何最好地实现这一目标。
