petersuber,
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

If asked to organize many strategies under just three headings, many people would say , , and . These 52 co-authors say , , and .
https://elifesciences.org/articles/89736

PS: They don't discount open access, open data, and open code (or open protocols, preregistration, and so on). They take a step back and ask what strategies will advance them.

Lupus,
@Lupus@mastodon.social avatar

@petersuber I have wondered if it should be referred to as and rather than because what is being promoted is not unique to scientific disciplines.

petersuber,
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

@Lupus
I agree. Open-research people in the humanities don't think the term "open science" covers what they do. "Open research", "open knowledge", and "open scholarship" are more inclusive terms. On the other hand, the counterparts of "open science" in many non-English languages are more inclusive than "open science" is in English.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • PowerRangers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • provamag3
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • vwfavf
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • khanakhh
  • modclub
  • cubers
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • All magazines