# Open Science Policies seen from the perspective of researchers' communities: Brazil and Peru

Alejandra Manco

► To cite this version:

Alejandra Manco. Open Science Policies seen from the perspective of researchers' communities: Brazil and Peru. PhDays INGENIO 2023 “Addressing Old and New Social Challenges: Knowledge, Policies, Inclusion”, Universitat Politècnica de València; INGENIO, Feb 2023, València, Spain. hal-04060444

HAL Id: hal-04060444

https://hal.science/hal-04060444

Submitted on 3 May 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
#PhDays2023

5TH EDITION

2023

EU-SPRI EARLY
CAREER
CONFERENCE

PhDAYS

“ADDRESSING OLD AND NEW SOCIAL
CHALLENGES: KNOWLEDGE, POLICIES, INCLUSION”

VALENCIA, SPAIN
8, 9, 10 February 2023

CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

European Forum for
Studies of Policies
for Research and Innovation

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

UNIVERSITAT
POLITÈCNICA
DE VALÈNCIA

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

CSIC

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

ingenio
CSIC-UPV
Instituto de gestión de la innovación
y del conocimiento
ORGANISING COMMITTEE
Presidents

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Dima Yankova, PhD
Candidate at INGENIO
(CSIC-UPV), Universitat
Politècnica de València</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Ana Escario Chust, PhD
Candidate at INGENIO
(CSIC-UPV), Universitat
Politècnica de València</figcaption></figure>

Committee

Gretel Gutiérrez Calderón, PhD Candidate at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Jordi Molas, director of INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Davide Consoli, researcher at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Pablo D'Este, researcher at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Ester Planells Aleixandre, technical support, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Mª Jesús Dura Mañez, management support, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Marisa Rodríguez Mondragón, accountability, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

Isabel Piqueras Pardo, manager at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

SUPPORT

Magdalena Álvarez Arancedo*, Daniel Cuesta Delgado*, Francesco de Cunzo*, Karen Corbett
Lagos*, Carlos, Delgado Caro*, Ruth M. Domenech*, Maria Paula Franco Lozano*, Ana María
Gómez Aguayo*, Marta Maicas Pérez*, Enrique Meseguer Castillo*, Irene Monsonís Payá*,
Esmeralda Montesa*, Ghinwa Moujaes*, Sara Sánchez López*

<footnote>*INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València</footnote>
## SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

**Adela García Aracil**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Adrián A. Diaz-Faes**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Alejandra Boni Aristizabal**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Álvaro Fernández-Baldor Martinez**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**David Barberá Tomás**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Davide Consoli**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Guillermo Palau Salvador**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Joaquín Azagra Caro**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Jordi Molas**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**José Félix Lozano Aguilar**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Marta Rivera**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Mónica García Melón**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Oksana Udovyk**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Oscar Llopis Córcoles**, Universitat de València

**Pablo D'Este**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Pablo Fernández Méndez**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Paula Otero**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Pedro Marques**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Richard Woolley**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Sergio Segura Calero**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

**Teresa Domenech Aparisi**, INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València)

## KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

**Elisa Giuliani** (Professor of Management at the University of Pisa. Founder and director of the Responsible Management Research Center)

**Lars Coenen** (Professor of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions at the Western Norway University of Applied Science)

## WORKSHOPPERS

**Elisa Giuliani** and **Francesco Rentocchini**: "The publishing process: everything you wanted to know but never dared ask"

**Elisabetta Marinelli**: "When is research policy relevant? Understanding and (hopefully) bridging the distance between academia and policy"
**EDITOR'S NOTE:** The papers included in this work faithfully reflect the content of the works sent by the authors.

This fidelity refers to both the authors' works and the supplementary material.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of the papers.

**EDIT:** INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València

**ISBN:** 978-84-09-48992-3
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

# Open Science Policies seen from the perspective of researchers' communities: Brazil and Peru

Alejandra Manco Vega

Université Claude Bernard - Lyon 1, ELICO, France (alejandra.manco-vega@univ-lyon1.fr).

## Short Bio

Ph.D. candidate in information and communication sciences at Lyon 1 University, part of the research team ELICO (EA 4147). Master in digital media at Uppsala University. Ph.D. thesis on open science policies' effects on basic sciences researcher's career. Professional experience as an editor and consultant in information and knowledge management in international organizations.

**Abstract** – This paper explores the different open science policy effects on the knowledge generation process of researchers in basic sciences: biology, chemistry, and physics, using a qualitative approach with twelve semi-directed interviews.

The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data -especially data reuse and paradata- and code reuse as primary sources. Another issue is the increase of collaboration with other colleagues in terms of the ability to collaborate at a faster speed and also the encouraging the exchange of ideas, i.e., it is a cultural change brought about by the information sharing.

Time spent on tasks like cleaning up data and programs and the rise of predatory publications are two unfavourable aspects that have been noted. Finally, the issue of science communication as part of the conceptualization of open science is also mentioned by different researchers although this is a topic that remains to be explored.

**Keywords** – Open science, Open science policies, Peru, Brazil, Researcher's communities, Knowledge production

## INTRODUCTION

Open science is thought to have several advantages—the same aspect of being open aids in speeding up research (Woelfle et al., 2011). According to McKiernan et al. (2016), studies have shown the significant benefits of open citations and that various foundations are pushing open science,

and more organizations are acknowledging open practices in academic evaluation. Moreover, it has the potential to eventually provide coherence to a shared global knowledge system (Mendez, 2021).

Open science is gaining traction worldwide, with open science policies being enacted at institutional, national, regional, and international levels. However, open science has both a bottom-up and a top-down policy approach. While the practical implementation is a bottom-up affair, national policies and strategies and all kinds of policies overall are top-down issues (Méndez, 2021). In addition, it is argued that institutional open science policies can only be successful if they are developed in close collaboration with researchers rather than from the top down (Ali-Khan et al., 2017).

During the last ten years, many institutions have begun to design, adopt, and implement open science policies (Schmidt et al., 2018) (Kretser et al., 2019). Nevertheless, there is a research gap in tackling how these policies impact researchers' knowledge production. Therefore, this research investigates the researcher's opinions, perceptions, and experiences with open science policies concerning knowledge production processes from researchers from Brazil and Peru. It aims to highlight differences and similarities in the science disciplines across these countries. Furthermore, it aims to provide an overview of how
communities of researchers from the hard sciences - physics, chemistry, and biology - visualize open science policies, meaning their opinion and discourse on this subject and whether their knowledge production processes have changed and to what extent they had an impact on their research products.

## METHOD

This proposal is built on a qualitative approach using semi-directed interviews as a research method. We conducted 12 interviews, each of which lasted around one hour. Therefore, data collection for the interviews corpus was made in different stages:

1. Using the QS World University Rankings 2022 as a guide, the best universities in the country were identified. 2. After this process of identifying the institution, scientists in the three areas mentioned above were contacted via social networks such as Twitter or LinkedIn and interviewed if they agreed. At the time of the interview, consent was sought from the interviewees to make a sound recording. Interview transcripts were analysed using Nvivo 12 software. 4. The coding process was conducted using an inductive category development approach.

In the end, a total of 12 researchers accepted the interviews. Table 1 details their characteristics:

<table><caption>Table 1. Characteristics of the interview panel</caption><thead><tr><td>Code</td><td>Age</td><td>Gender</td><td>Title</td><td>Discipline</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C2</td><td>40-45</td><td>F</td><td>Research scientist</td><td>Chemistry</td></tr><tr><td>P3</td><td>45-50</td><td>M</td><td>Associate professor</td><td>Physics</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>20-25</td><td>F</td><td>PhD Student</td><td>Chemistry</td></tr><tr><td>B3</td><td>30-35</td><td>M</td><td>Research scientist</td><td>Biology</td></tr><tr><td>C5</td><td>45-50</td><td>M</td><td>Research scientist</td><td>Chemistry</td></tr><tr><td>P5</td><td>50-55</td><td>M</td><td>Associate professor</td><td>Chemistry</td></tr><tr><td>C7</td><td>25-30</td><td>M</td><td>PhD Student</td><td>Chemistry</td></tr><tr><td>P4</td><td>40-45</td><td>M</td><td>Full professor</td><td>Physics</td></tr><tr><td>B4</td><td>40-45</td><td>M</td><td>Full professor</td><td>Biology</td></tr><tr><td>P6</td><td>55-60</td><td>M</td><td>Full professor</td><td>Physics</td></tr><tr><td>C8</td><td>20-25</td><td>F</td><td>PhD Student</td><td>Chemistry</td></tr><tr><td>BQ1</td><td>35-40</td><td>F</td><td>Post-Doc</td><td>Biochemistry</td></tr></tbody></table>

## RESULTS

### 1. Open science definition

The concept of open science is interpreted as open access to information. It is a prevalent conception among researchers. This means being able to read or access the different research articles. The payment of article processing charges (APCs) is fully normalized. It is understood that paying for quality material in these academic areas is necessary. In physics, the issue of working with preprints is fully standardized.

Another point mentioned quite often by the interviewees is that of science communication. Scientists associate open science with science communication and citizen science. They are especially bringing scientific knowledge out of academia so that people can form a position on science. Also another interesting point is that this concept is linked to education. Open science would help to close the gaps in science education.

### 2. Open science effect in knowledge production

There are some points related to the knowledge production cycle where there is no perceived effect of open science policies. For example, the format of scientific communication has remained the same; for the moment, the scientific article is still the preferred format for peer-to-peer communication, according to the different researchers in the three areas interviewed. Likewise, open science has no perceived relationship or influence on research results.

The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data -especially data reuse and paradata-and code reuse as main sources. As a result, the theoretical framework of the research can be updated with these elements. In the same way, open science is perceived as fundamental for defining objectives.

Linked to this issue is also a perceived double effect on the research questions. On the one hand, one can quickly check whether this question has already been answered before. But on the other hand, it is also perceived as contributing to improving the questions.

Another point of effect focuses on how to share knowledge with colleagues and disseminate information with people. Especially getting in touch with other colleagues and encouraging the exchange of ideas, i.e., it is a cultural change brought about by the open culture of information sharing.
Another effect is in terms of collaboration, especially in terms of the ability to collaborate at a faster speed. Another issue mentioned is the contact with colleagues, which is optional for an explicit collaboration, i.e., a co-authorship, and the exchange of ideas after an open-access publication. In the same way, there is also the issue of feedback on the work from colleagues, which increases the visibility of the work in some instances.

There is also a perceived effect on science communication, which can be subdivided into several parallel themes.

The first refers to encouraging young people or children to be interested in science through activities related to science communication. This activity helps the generational turnover of professionals and researchers in these academic areas.

It is mentioned that effective science communication requires an ad hoc investment of time and that there is a learning curve:

Finally, there are also perceived adverse effects. This cultural change also generates new sources of stress and time investment in new tasks; scientists need to take more care in all the information that will be made public. In this sense, this new action also means sharing data and code; generally, it is preferred that this is clean.

However, there is also a perception of less scientific rigor in open science, leading to predatory journals' emergence.

In addition, there is also a fear of scooping research ideas, data and even contributions. Especially from other colleagues working with bigger and better equipped (and funded) laboratories or faster computer infrastructures.

## CONCLUSION

Even though both countries are close and there is some degree of collaboration and contacts, the research cultures of both countries are different. There are diverse perceptions of what open science is among the scientists interviewed. Most of these focus on the following points: open access to information, open research data, and open source. However, the issue of science communication as part of the conceptualization of open science needs to be addressed. The emphasis on science communication is related to society, which is typical for science developed in mode 2 (Gibbons et al., 2010) (Bucchi & Trench, 2016).

There are several elements of the effects of open science policies on knowledge production processes. First, there is already a cultural shift in

open science practices, obviously with disciplinary, age, and experience differences. The effect found in this work is in the speed of collaboration, i.e., in the availability of access to information and data that helps to bridge existing inequalities by giving all members a common starting point. However, the issue of division of labor and their roles within a team in collaborations appears to be the same. Informal feedback from colleagues provides greater visibility and helps to improve the final research product, but this only sometimes materializes in a formal collaboration such as co-authorship.

Another issue mentioned is that of perceived adverse effects. For instance, the investment of time in activities, like spending time on cleaning data and codes, and the emergence of predatory publishing. Finally, the issue of the relationship between open science and the different meanings of science communication is a topic that remains to be explored.

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali-Khan, S. E., Harris, L. W., & Gold, E. R. (2017). Point of view: Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives. *ELife*, 6, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29319

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2016). Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords. *TECNOSCIENZA* Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 7(2), 151-168. www.tecnoscienza.net

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (2010). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications Ltd, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853

Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research policy, 37(4), 740-760.

Kretser, A., Murphy, D., Bertuzzi, S., Abraham, T., Allison, D. B., Boor, K. J., Dwyer, J., Grantham, A., Harris, L. J., Hollander, R., Jacobs-Young, C., Rovito, S., Vafiadis, D., Woteki, C., Wyndham, J., & Yada, R. (2019). Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium. *Science and Engineering Ethics*, 25(2), 327-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., ... & Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. *Elife*, 5.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800

Méndez, E. (2021). Open science by default. The «new normal» for research. *Arbor*, 197(799).
https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799002

Schmidt, B., Bertino, A., Beucke, D., Brinken, H., Jahn, N., Matthias, L., Mimkes, J., Müller, K., Orth, A., & Bargheer, M. (2018). Open science support as a portfolio of services and projects: From awareness to engagement. *Publications, 6*(2).
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020027

Woelfle, M., Olliaro, P., & Todd, M. H. (2011). Open science is a research accelerator. *Nature chemistry*, *3*(10), 745-748.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1149