Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Dimmons Research Group, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Account Res. 2024 Jul;31(5):428-455. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625. Epub 2022 Nov 6.
Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.
尽管学术界推崇并提倡默顿科学价值观（即共产主义、普遍性、有组织的怀疑主义、无私利性），但这种遵从可能会与开放科学的规范结构和实践产生摩擦。默顿科学价值观和开放科学实践旨在改进研究的实施和交流，并得到制度参与者的推动。然而，默顿科学价值观在很大程度上仍然是理想化的，并且在地方和学科文化中具体化，而开放科学实践严重依赖于并非所有各方都能平等获得的第三方资源和技术。此外，尽管默顿科学价值观仍然很流行，但它们是在不同的制度和政治背景下发展起来的。在本文中，我们认为，新的科学规范结构需要超越怀旧情绪，考虑开放科学实践的愿望和结果。为了为这样的愿景做出贡献，我们探讨了几种开放科学实践与默顿科学价值观的交叉点，以阐明坚持这些价值观所涉及的挑战。我们表明，当众多群体的利益发生冲突和对比时，这种交叉点变得复杂起来。承认和探索这种紧张关系有助于我们理解研究人员的行为，并支持旨在改善研究人员与其他规范结构（如研究伦理和诚信框架）相互作用的努力。
