[open-science] Let us denonce the pseudo-open Public Library of Science

Tue Feb 14 14:58:18 UTC 2017

Heather,
thanks -  I did not intend to start a challenge :-)
But let me reply quickly-

>
> 1. Does open data facilitate replicability? I argue that it does not. At
> most, open data permits repeat analysis of the same data. This is a good
> thing, but it is not replication. To replicate a study, one must repeat the
> study, sometimes with variations to eliminate limitations of prior studies,
> gather new data.
>

to replicate a study, one must repeate the study -
ssuming that by 'study' you mean the application of a methodology

 but to replicate the result of a study, one needs the  exact data that the
study has used. what about if I get different results from the same study
(method)?  what would that imply?

>
> 2. Does replicability depend on open data? I argue that it does not.
> Studies have been replicated as long as science has existed. If I add salt
> to water, I get salt water. Anyone with salt and water can replicate this
> experiment. People figured this and many other things out a long time
> before open data became possible.
>

How much salt? what kind of water? (mineral analysis) under what
conditions? (temperature, altitude, pressure, other conditions)
so grossly speaking yes, add salt to water and you get salt water, but
subtly speaking, no, you need all the data of the experiment to replicate
it exactly

 points 4. and 5, do not relate to anything I said  - not all science is
replicable (nor falsifiable) yet some replicability may be essential to
prove the scientific validity of some claims.

Can all scientifically valid phenomena be replicated exactly?
Does all research produce scientifically valid findings?
I dont think so -

But these (interesting) points do not belong to this thread perhaps

(apologies for the typos btw-  crossing wires in the brain)

:-0

p

>
> 4. Is replicability essential to all science? I argue that it is not.
> Some kinds of studies can be replicated, but not all. Many variables change
> over time. Salt plus water = salt water is an experiment that can be
> replicated. Measuring the temperature at one moment at one place in time
> can only be done in that moment, in that place in time. Estimating the
> temperature at that moment at that place in time can happen using different
> techniques, however this is triangulation, not replication.
>
> 4. Not all knowledge involves variables that are replicable. Consider
> opinion research. There is a reason why polls are run on a frequent basis;
> what people think about a politician today is often not what they thought
> about a politician yesterday. Some important knowledges are time and
> context-specific, and not at all replicable.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
>
> On 2017-02-14, at 9:10 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A lot of issues coming up in this thread!!
>
> In my  first reply to you, I wanted to say that sometimes (as in the case
> of PLOS you mention) organisations deliberately keep their options open. to
> do or not to do what they say. which may or may not lead to the results we
> are trying to achieve.
>
> True that innovations take time, good example with education, but also
> human rights, democracy  and a lot of other stuff that exists on paper  but
> in practice is actually not at all like on paper.
>
> Unless open (research) data is accessible, its impossible to replicate or
> even verify/validate research findings, so the whole replicability of
> science becomes null. Maybe that's why Sidney Brenner, a nobel prize whom I
> interviewed both befor and after he got the prize says that 95% of all
> research is complete rubbish . (he said this as an opening comment of his
> inaugural speech at a systems biology lecture hall in 2010 in Edinburgh).
> Without open research data, your hypothesis is as good as mine.
>
> is ther a calatogue/analysis of what research data cannot be open?
> I understand 'person data' but a given result can be replicated even if
> name, and other person data are deleted/not accessible.
>
> The good news, as you say Heather, is that there is always more research
> to be done :-)  Or maybe that's the bad news.
>
> PDM
>
>
> I argue that it is not unusual for it to take some time to move from a
>> good idea to full implementation, particularly at a global level.
>>
>> It can be disheartening to realize that elementary education is not
>> universal. However in teaching policy I have learned to emphasize just how
>> much progress has been made since the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights,
>> the first global commitment to universal education, a declaration that even
>> today not all countries fully support.
>>
>> Open access is more straightforward than open data because the focus is
>> on a type of work that scholars were already publishing (making public).
>> Research data has not traditionally been published. There are a great many
>> issues to address along the road to open. There are different types of
>> issues - policy (e.g. privacy, security, credit/attribution), technical,
>> infrastructure including service, support, funding for service and support,
>> and education. It is not realistic to expect a quick transition from
>> commitment to practice.
>>
>> To me this is good news for researchers; there will be plenty to keep
>> researchers busy for many years to come. We need to understand the barriers
>> to open. I argue that one of the barriers that applies to the open data
>> movement itself is wrapping our minds around the concept that not all data
>> can be made open. In some cases, not now; in other cases, not ever. Opening
>> up data for research will require a range of open, from open to researchers
>> with special clearance only (e.g. data where there are security issues) to
>> somewhat open data (e.g. health or education data that can be made
>> available to groups of researchers where a common set of ethical standards
>> can be assumed), to fully open.
>>
>> Among policy makers, my sense is that there is a strong commitment to
>> open. I suggest that the most effective way to move forward will be to
>> focus on understanding and overcoming barriers to open. In most cases,
>> these will be specific to different types of data. Policies and procedures
>> that work well for my research group on the OA APC project involving
>> collection of data already freely available on the web will not work for my
>> colleagues who do research on records management working with organizations
>> like the Department of Defence and the Bank of Canada. An audit approach
>> either will not help, or will have the unfortunate side-effect of rewarding
>> those who are doing work that can be made open and discouraging the kinds
>> of research where data cannot be made open.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>>
>> On 2017-02-14, at 7:21 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Heather
>> my conclusion were derived from researching to a specific research
>> problem - the lack of open data in publicly funded research despite full
>> adherence of the research councils.
>>
>> So on the one hand, the research councils heralded full support to open
>> data, but I when to count the actual open data sets associated to each
>> research grant, they never heard of it.
>>
>> The conclusions and recommendations however, seem to be universal, or at
>> least, apply to wide range of situations
>>
>> when people say 'we do this' then when you audit what they do, they ve
>> got nothing to show. especially in social innovation. full of hypochrisy
>> and contradictions.
>>
>> we then have to dig further, what is causing this ubiquity?
>>
>> lack of integrated system view (with my systemist hat on) and transparent
>> accountable throughput function - I dont know how else to put it.
>>
>> to answer your questions
>> yes, I think that only when an organisational processes are coherent from
>> beginning to end, we can expect the desired system functionality - in this
>> case accountability and transformation - (the opposite is true,
>> dysfunctionality. the product of lack of coherence, actually can kill)
>>
>> My guess (hypothesis?) is that this applies to PLOS as well as to the
>> rest of the universe
>>
>> PDM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: --]
>>
>> Paola Di Maio
>> [image: https://]about.me/paoladimaio
>>
>> <https://about.me/paoladimaio?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=chrome_ext>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Heather Morrison <
>> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> hi Paolo,
>>>
>>> Thank you for this insight. It is possible that your analysis applies to
>>> PLOS. I do not know enough about PLOS to comment.
>>>
>>> Here is how I read your argument: the remedy that you propose is change
>>> in organizational structure, to align policy and practice. Am I reading
>>> this correctly? If so, is this your remedy for PLOS or do you mean to argue
>>> for universal organizational change?
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Heather Morrison
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 2017-02-14 1:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> Subject: [open-science] Fwd: Let us denonce the pseudo-open Public
>>> Library of Science
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Heather
>>>
>>> I have researched this kind of paradoxes extensively, including in my
>>> PhD thesis (2012) [1]
>>>
>>> I have concluded that what you and I perceive as 'hypocrisy' can be
>>> called 'systemic deviation'  and ' pragmatic gap', which I explain
>>> charachterised and defined in some of my talks.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, the problem can be broken down to a lack of integration
>>> and consistency between the policies and the practice
>>>
>>> The solution I propose to tackle this kind of paradox is a clearer and
>>> stronger integration between value statements (policies) and technical
>>> implementations (how things are done in practice), At the moment policy and
>>> practice are handled as separate things by separate departments in most
>>> organisation, using different logic - as if the left hand does not know
>>> what the right hand is doing
>>>
>>> Organisational processes are deliberately designed like that, so that
>>> they can be double facing. This has to change.
>>>
>>> Maybe work to be done
>>>
>>> PDM
>>>
>>> [1] http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.597113
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: --]
>>>
>>> Paola Di Maio
>>> [image: https://]about.me/paoladimaio
>>>
>>> <https://about.me/paoladimaio?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=chrome_ext>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Heather Morrison <
>>> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the sake of argument let us imagine that I am now convinced that we
>>>> cannot tolerate any person or organization that is somewhat but not
>>>> perfectly open.
>>>>
>>>> I submit that from this perspective no one deserves to be denounced
>>>> more than PLOS.
>>>>
>>>> PLOS uses open licensing for their articles, but their software is
>>>> proprietary and their terms of use make their highly protective approach to
>>>> their trademark very clear.
>>>>
>>>> PLOS' advocacy for extremes in openness is clearly hypocritical.
>>>>
>>>> I denounce thee, PLOS, hypocritical, intolerant advocate of openness
>>>> whilst actually a developer of proprietary software!
>>>>
>>>> No doubt all the members of this list dedicated to denouncing the
>>>> impure in open will reply to the list supplying this perspective?
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> Heather Morrison
>>>> Pseudo radical open cult member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170214/2d8b8282/attachment-0003.html>