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

Paola Di Maio paola.dimaio at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 15:45:52 UTC 2017 

Heather:

Can we agree that the argument of replicability does not apply to all types
> of research data?
>

I dont think I have ever (deliberately) said or implied anything different
- at the same time, there is a lot of fiction passed for research which
imho would be less spurious/arbitrary if it could be replicated, even only
to some extent.

as Thomas says (thanks T)

Thomas Kluyver
  So sharing raw data is a useful part of replication, though clearly not
the whole story.


PDM



>
> 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)
>
>
> and my general apology for many typos in many messages  ~
>
> h
>
>
> :-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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f5de1229/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list