24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The case for openness in engineering research

      discussion

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this article, we describe our views on the benefits, and possible downsides, of openness in engineering research. We attempt to examine the issue from multiple perspectives, including reasons and motivations for introducing open practices into an engineering researcher's workflow and the challenges faced by scholars looking to do so. Further, we present our thoughts and reflections on the role that open engineering research can play in defining the purpose and activities of the university. We have made some specific recommendations on how the public university can recommit to and push the boundaries of its role as the creator and promoter of public knowledge. In doing so, the university will further demonstrate its vital role in the continued economic, social, and technological development of society. We have also included some thoughts on how this applies specifically to the field of engineering and how a culture of openness and sharing within the engineering community can help drive societal development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

          The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How open science helps researchers succeed

            Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.001
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles

              Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                11 October 2018
                2018
                : 7
                : 501
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Engineering & Technology Department, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI, 54751, USA
                [2 ]School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
                [1 ]Liberate Science, Berlin, Germany
                [1 ]EAVISE, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [1 ]Markey Cancer Center, Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
                [1 ]Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, UK
                University of Wisconsin, Stout, USA
                [1 ]Markey Cancer Center, Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
                University of Wisconsin, Stout, USA
                Author notes

                DRB and KEN contributed equally to the conceptualization and authorship of this work.

                Competing interests: DRB is the founder of engrXiv and the Journal of Open Engineering; KEN is on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Open Source Software.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: Co-Editor and Chief of HardwareX

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1193-3848
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4425-7097
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.14593.2
                6733375
                31543946
                b9546a37-ecba-4fd4-96ce-0e39fd244d7e
                Copyright: © 2018 Berg DR and Niemeyer KE

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 8 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: National Science Foundation
                Award ID: 1733968
                This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 1733968.
                Categories
                Opinion Article
                Articles

                open science,open engineering,engineering,open access,research dissemination

                Comments

                Comment on this article