Knowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers - a case study for Colombia

dc.contributor.authorPardo Martínez, Clara Inés
dc.contributor.authorCotte Poveda, Alexander
dc.contributor.cvlachttp://scienti.colciencias.gov.co:8081/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000214531
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1991-2662
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-28T18:16:09Z
dc.date.available2019-05-28T18:16:09Z
dc.date.issued2018-11-21
dc.description.abstractOpen science can provide researchers diverse opportunities to collaborate, disseminate their research results, generate important impacts in the scientific community, and engage in effective and efficient science for the benefit of society. This study seeks to analyse and evaluate researchers’ knowledge of open science in Colombia using a survey to determine adequate instruments with which to improve research in the framework of open science. The aim of the study is to determine researchers’ current awareness of open science by considering demographic characteristics to analyse their attitudes, values, and information habits as well as the levels of institutionalism and social appropriation of open science. A representative sample of Colombian researchers was selected from the National Research System. An anonymous online survey consisting of 34 questions was sent to all professors and researchers at Colombian universities and research institutes. Sampling was random and stratified, which allowed for a representative sample of different categories of researchers, and principal component analysis (PCA) was used for the sample design. A total of 1042 responses were received, with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 3%. The majority of respondents knew about open science, especially in relation to open science tools (software, repositories, and networks) and open data. Researchers consider open science to be positively impacted by factors such as the rise of digital technologies, the search for new forms of collaboration, the greater availability of open data and information, and public demand for better and more effective science. In contrast, a lack of resources to develop research activities within the open science approach and the limited integration between traditional and open science are identified as the most important barriers to its use in research. These results are important for building adequate open science policy in Colombia.spa
dc.description.domainhttp://unidadinvestigacion.usta.edu.cospa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.citationPardo Martínez, C. I., & Cotte Poveda, A. (2018). Knowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers - a case study for colombiaspa
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11634/16904
dc.publisher.branchCRAI-USTA Bogotáspa
dc.relation.referencesAgudelo-Calderón, C.A. NECOBELAC apoya el ACCESO ABIERTO, un camino para la ciencia abierta. Rev. Salud Pública 2012, 13, 883–884. (In Spainsh)spa
dc.relation.referencesBorrell-Damián, L. The Importance of Open Science for Europe’s Universities. 2016. Available online: https://www.adjacentopenaccess.org/research-science-innovation-news/importance-open-scienceeuropes- universities/29073/ (accessed on 20 July 2017).spa
dc.relation.referencesCaso, R.; Ducato, R. Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks [Online], University of Toronto, the Trento Law and Technology Research Paper Series. 2014. Available online: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2511602 (accessed on 10 December 2016).spa
dc.relation.referencesGarcía, D.; Rendueles, C. Abierto, libre . . . y público. Los desafíos políticos de la ciencia abierta. Argum. Razón Técnica 2014, 17, 45–64. (In Spanish)spa
dc.relation.referencesEuropean Commission. Validation of the Results of the Public Consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition. 2015. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_ final_report.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2016).spa
dc.relation.referencesForero Pineda, C.; Jaramillo Salazar, H. The access of researchers from developing countries to international science and technology. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2002, 54, 129–140. [CrossRef]spa
dc.relation.referencesFoster. Open Science Taxonomy. 2015. Available online: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/fostertaxonomy/ open-science (accessed on 10 February 2018).spa
dc.relation.referencesGross, J.; Ryan, C. Landscapes of Research: Perceptions of Open Access (OA) Publishing in the Arts and Humanities. Publications 2015, 3, 65–88. [CrossRef]spa
dc.relation.referencesGagliardi, D.; Cox, D.; Li, Y. Institutional Inertia and Barriers to the Adoption of Open Science. 2014. Available online: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw: 283336&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF (accessed on 6 May 2017).spa
dc.relation.referencesHampton, S.; Anderson, S.; Bagby, S.; Gries, C.; Han, X.; Hart, E.; Jones, M.; Lenhardt, C.; Macdonald, A.; Michener, W.; et al. The Tao of open science for ecology. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–13. [CrossRef]spa
dc.relation.referencesLaakso, M.;Welling, P.; Bukvova, H.; Nyman, L.; Björk, B.-C.; Hedlund, T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e20961. [CrossRef] [PubMed]spa
dc.relation.referencesMatijasevic, E. Ciencia Transparente Para Todos. Acta Médica Colomb. 2012, 37, 101. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/amc/v37n3/v37n3a01.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2016).spa
dc.relation.referencesOpen Science Grid. Open Science Grid PKI General User Survey. 2013. Available online: http://www. opensciencegrid.org (accessed on 13 December 2016).spa
dc.relation.referencesOECD. Open Science: Policy Challenges and Opportunities, Internal Working Document, Country Studies and Outlook Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry; OECD: Paris, France, 2011.spa
dc.relation.referencesRitter, M. Digitalisation of Society, the Role of Universities and Its Impact on Doctoral Education and Research. 2017. Available online: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/CDE-Events-2017/eua-cde-talinn-june- 2017_ritter-vzd10268ca84b96a879ce5ff00009465c7.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 16 November 2016).spa
dc.relation.referencesSpallek, H.; O’Donnell, J.; Clayton, M.; Anderson, P.; Krueger, A. Paradigm shift or annoying distraction—Emerging implications of Web 2.0 for clinical practice. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2010, 1, 96–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]spa
dc.relation.referencesTaylor and Francis. Open Access Survey. 2014. Available online: www.oecd.org/sti/survey-of-scientificauthors. htm (accessed on 1 April 2017).spa
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.5 Colombia
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/co/
dc.subject.keywordOpen sciencespa
dc.subject.keywordSurveyspa
dc.subject.keywordPerceptionsspa
dc.subject.keywordResearchersspa
dc.subject.keywordColombiaspa
dc.titleKnowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers - a case study for Colombiaspa
dc.type.categoryGeneración de Nuevo Conocimiento: Artículos publicados en revistas especializadas - Electrónicosspa

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Knowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers - a case study for colombia.pdf
Tamaño:
3.07 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:

Bloque de licencias

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
807 B
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción: