Open jpwrobinson opened 7 years ago
Thank you so much for your feedback! I thought I had defined Open Access including papers that get uploaded to websites, but perhaps it was not clear. Don't apologize, if many people raise the same issues, it means it needs change. That's exactly what we need here! :)
@jpwrobinson given your comment: On open access publications, does this include uploading published papers to personal websites, or networking sites like ResearchGate?
do you think we should consider uploading a publication to a personal website & Co. as an open access publication? As you said in most cases that is against copyright laws. I think it would be very interesting to ask that question though. @amiefairs, what do you think?
Appears to be two options for 'Other' responses to why open science is good/bad. I wasn't sure how the 'Other:' checkbox differed from the following 'If you have any other ...comments...' question.
On open access publications, does this include uploading published papers to personal websites, or networking sites like ResearchGate? If so, might be worth making this clear in the introduction to this page. Most researchers I know do this, though it can contravene the journal's copyright law.
Is it worth having a question dedicated to this? How many people ignore the copyright law (or don't check) when uploading their publications to websites, twitter, ResearchGate etc.? Would be interesting to find out.
The 3 main obstacles to practicing open research are all negative - could these be framed differently, e.g. Lack of time = time consuming. And for me, obstacles are 1) data is privately owned; 2) collaborators are unwilling (for numerous other reasons); 3) expense of OA pubs. These weren't options in this question, but the topics did come up in earlier questions.
Otherwise, great survey! Covered a broad range of topics AND applies to researchers in any field, well done on achieving that. Apologies if any of these issues were raised by other sprinters, disregard if so!