Hi Rick,
Thanks for highlighting this. I’ve always been a big fan of T&F’s survey work---they’ve provided some incredibly useful insights into the open landscape over the years. In
this case, though, I think the press release kind of smooshes together a bunch of stuff in order to make “open science” look like it’s on the march.
But is it really? Providing a snapshot in time for how many researchers use ORCID ID’s and data availability statements, plus share their code and publish preprints and whatever
else, and then pointing to all this as evidence that we’re “moving the needle on open data” doesn’t work for me (curiously, licensing wasn’t included as one of open data features measured, because a CC-BY dataset is functionally useless---it needs to be CC-0
licensed). Maybe a time series exploration of these different elements would be more meaningful, but still, the montage itself is kind of a “wait what?” mix of ones and zeros. Because considering a different basket of metrics---say, the prevalence of CC-0
licenses plus data management plans and long-term funding for repository maintenance---might reveal a completely different (and more sobering) picture. Even if you just crunch these survey numbers with respect to open data and not everything everywhere all
at once, you come up with totally different conclusions than in the press release:
- Percent of studies where data was generated: 97.7 (7948 out of 8132)
- Percent these 7948 studies where data was shared: 25
- Percent these 7948 studies where data was put into a data repository: 10.4
- Percent these 7948 studies where data was assigned a DOI: 3.7
To me, this looks about right---it aligns with what we know about open data use. And it ain’t pretty. But is this an improvement over 2019? Are some data repositories getting
more traction than others (answer: yes)? Are some fields knocking it out of the park (yes)? Are there roadblocks to open data we could learn from (yes)? These are the questions we need to ask before declaring victory.
And then finally, you’ve heard me carry on about this before, but just dumping Excel files onto figshare or github (or where ever) doesn’t make data useful. Researchers can
check a box by doing this, but to what end? Most likely to satisfy a funding requirement, because the data is most likely not reusable in this format in any meaningful sense. Without a concerted effort in fields (with the challenges in each field being entirely
different) to standardize deposits, include enough information to ensure accurate reuse, and devote excruciatingly painstaking time (=money) to clean and integrate data, we’re just going through the motions. It’s only open in the sense of transparency (and
even then, often not because the data that’s provide is just summary level, like the numbers used to generate a graph). It isn’t open data in the sense of actually helping researchers work across the aisle and make research more useful and reproducible.
So, in conclusion, I love T&F and I love their survey work. But I don’t love the idea of reading too much into this data and/or thinking that open science is something we can
stick a number on like this. It’s a clever idea for sure, but from the open science and open data perspectives, we have a very long way to go before we can start claiming that we’re moving the needle on anything other the hyperbole meter right now. At least
across research writ large, meaningful open data still very much an aspiration, not a reality.
All the best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication
Institute (SCI)
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [OPENCAFE-L] FW: Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations
Fellow Denizens of the Open Café –
I think many of our listmembers will find this report interesting.
From:
<[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Taylor and Francis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2025 at 1:59 AM
To: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations
Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations Analysis by Taylor & Francis and DataSeer finds 52% of sampled articles include a Data...
|
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]