amiefairs
commented
7 years ago Hi @pherterich! Thank you so much for taking the test survey - I know you said before how busy you are so @dasaderi and I really appreciate you finding the time to do so. Thank you also so much for this feedback and all the other feedback you have provided about the project in general.
Regarding this feedback:
-
for the term 'Open Research' -> do you think this should replace Open Science or be part of the Open Science definition in the survey? I agree that people who are new to the topic might not be able to understand what Open Science is from our definition, because as you rightly say it is a bit short, but we also don't want to make it so long that people don't read it. Maybe a way around this it to have a shorter definition in the survey and then a link to more information, so that people who want to read more before filling it in can do so, but those who already understand don't need to. What do you think? maybe this would also help us to not only have OS advocates take the survey.
-
That's a really good point about the phrasing of OA being expensive and something we need to think about changing, because as you say, people can be open in a variety of ways that aren't only publishing in OA journals.
-
Your point about Open Data normally referring to Open Government Data - I didn't know that! You can tell that I spend most of my life only doing stuff in the bubble of academia... Thank you for mentioning this because we will be sure to make what we mean explicit.
-
Your point about the two sections of OS being apart and maybe it would make sense to have them closer together is a very good one. Do you think combining the sections would make it a lot easier for the survey-taker to be able to not have repetition, and to be able to formulate their thoughts on the topic a bit better?
Thank you again for all your extremely useful and valuable feedback!
pherterich
Agree that the Open Science definition is now a bit short and I don't think it covers all aspects of open science enough to provide people new to the topic with basic understanding. Also, Open Research would be the more inclusive term
Being open makes it so that publishing in scientific journals is too expensive for the researcher I have trouble with the phrasing. I understand that you technically are talking about APCs, but that's not the only way to have your papers open. There's preprints, green open access etc... I guess the disadvantage is that this might be too complex for the average researcher.
On page 5, the opion sections at the end might profit from a dropdown. At least in the case of the advantages, I could imagine that it might be one of the ones you already ask about.
The Open Data definition on page 7: Open Data is usually open government data. While these are important, I think memtioning open research data explicitly might be helpful.
Page 8: Using open source software and sharing code and scientific software ate 2 different things in my opinion. In general, the software area is very complicated, I'm not entirely sure covering it the same way as data is helpful.
Personally, I felt that the areas that prevent me from practising Open Science are fairly related to the benefits and disadvantages you asked about in the beginning. I was surprised to see these questions again, maybe closer together it would make more sense?