A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Tennant J., Agarwal R., Bazdaric K., Brassard D., Crick T., Dunleavy D., Evans T., Gardner N., Gonzalez-Marquez M., Graziotin D., Greshake-Tzovaras B., Gunnarsson D., Havemann J., Hosseini M., Katz D., Knöchelmann M., Madan C., Manghi P., Marocchino A., Masuzzo P., Murray-Rust P., Narayanaswamy S., Nilsonne G., Pacheco-Mendoza J., Penders B., Pourret O., Rera M., Samuel J., Steiner T., Stojanovski J., Uribe-Tirado A., Vos R., Worthington S., Yarkoni T.

Collaboration  communities  FLOSS  FOSS  Freedom  Free Software  Open Access  Open Data  Open Research  Open Research Practices  Open Scholarship  Open Science  Open Source  Replicability  Reproducibility  Scholarly Communication  Scholarly Publishing  Sharing 

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

Source: ISTI Technical Reports 2020/014, 2020, 2020

Metrics