ArticleScience, technology & human values2017
How Does One "Open" Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research.
Article in Science, technology & human values, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- "Open science" meets commercial realities: a qualitative study of factors influencing sharing in synthetic biology research in Australia.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Are Open Science instructions targeted to ecologists and evolutionary biologists sufficient? A literature review of guidelines and journal data policies.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Openness in Scientific Research: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective.Journal of open access to law · 2023Article
- Is Open Science Neoliberal?Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023Review
- An economy of details: standards and data reusability.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Problems of knowledge, problems of order: the open science field site.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Article
- Replication and Reproduction: Crises in Psychology and Academic Labour.Review of general psychology : journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association · 2022Article
- When craft kicks back: Embryo culture as knowledge production in the context of the transnational fertility industry.Social studies of science · 2022Article
- Digital phenotyping and the (data) shadow of Alzheimer's disease.Big data & society · 2022Article
- Open Science in Africa: What policymakers should consider.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Review
- Aligning restricted access data with FAIR: a systematic review.PeerJ. Computer science · 2022Article
- A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021Article
- Openness and trust in data-intensive science: the case of biocuration.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Caring for data: Value creation in a data-intensive research laboratory.Social studies of science · 2020Article
- When more data means better results: Abundance and scarcity in research collaborations in epigenetics.Social sciences information. Information sur les sciences sociales · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open Science policies encourage researchers to disclose a wide range of outputs from their work, thus codifying openness as a specific set of research practices and guidelines that can be interpreted and applied consistently across disciplines and geographical settings. In this paper, we argue that this "one-size-fits-all" view of openness sidesteps key questions about the forms, implications, and goals of openness for research practice. We propose instead to interpret openness as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical, and social considerations. This interpretation creates a critical space for moving beyond the economic definitions of value embedded in the contemporary biosciences landscape and Open Science policies, and examining the diversity of interests and commitments that affect research practices in the life sciences. To illustrate these claims, we use three case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how--and how best--to make things open. These cases, drawn from ethnographic engagement with Open Science debates and semistructured interviews carried out with UK-based biologists and bioinformaticians between 2013 and 2014, show how the enactment of openness reveals judgments about what constitutes a legitimate intellectual contribution, for whom, and with what implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.