IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v73y2022i10p1474-1488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward openness and transparency to better facilitate knowledge creation

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Mahony

Abstract

Changes in modes of publication over recent decades and moves to publish material freely and openly have resulted in increased amounts of research and scholarly outputs being available online. These include teaching and other material but consist mostly of research publications. There have been significant UK and European initiatives as part of the Open Agenda that facilitate and indeed mandate the move to open whether that is for educational materials, research output and data, or the mechanisms for ensuring the quality of these materials. A significant issue is that although making research outputs freely available is praiseworthy, without the data on which that research is based, reproducibility and so verification, which are fundamental principles of scholarly methodology, are not possible. When discrete datasets are linked openly and freely, are able to interact by using common standards, they become more powerful with extended possibilities for research questions that cross disciplinary divides and knowledge domains. There are always objections and resistance to new innovations, and open publication is no exception; published research, nevertheless, indicates that publishing material openly is becoming considered to be “good research practice” and that the positives of “new collaborations and higher citation” outweigh any perceived negative effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Mahony, 2022. "Toward openness and transparency to better facilitate knowledge creation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(10), pages 1474-1488, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:73:y:2022:i:10:p:1474-1488
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24652
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24652?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer Rowley & Frances Johnson & Laura Sbaffi & Will Frass & Elaine Devine, 2017. "Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(5), pages 1201-1211, May.
    2. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    3. Mikael Laakso & Lisa Matthias & Najko Jahn, 2021. "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1099-1112, September.
    4. Mikael Laakso & Lisa Matthias & Najko Jahn, 2021. "Response to comment on “Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals”," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1115-1116, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eirini Delikoura & Dimitrios Kouis, 2021. "Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.
    3. Najko Jahn & Lisa Matthias & Mikael Laakso, 2022. "Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 104-118, January.
    4. Mingyang Wang & Jiaqi Zhang & Guangsheng Chen & Kah-Hin Chai, 2019. "Examining the influence of open access on journals’ citation obsolescence by modeling the actual citation process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1621-1641, June.
    5. Ahmad Yaman Abdin & Muhammad Jawad Nasim & Yannick Ney & Claus Jacob, 2021. "The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, March.
    6. Niels Taubert & Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Andre Bruns & Elham Iravani, 2023. "Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3601-3625, June.
    7. Hüttel, Silke & Hess, Sebastian, 2023. "Lessons from the p-value debate and the replication crisis for "open Q science" – the editor's perspective or: will the revolution devour its children?," DARE Discussion Papers 2302, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. Mikael Laakso & Anna-Maija, 2023. "European scholarly journals from small- and mid-size publishers: mapping journals and public funding mechanisms," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 445-456.
    9. Sh Moradi & S Abdi, 2023. "Open science–related policies in Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 521-530.
    10. Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.
    11. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    12. Lui, P. Priscilla & Gobrial, Sarah & Pham, Savannah & Adams, Niki & Giadolor, Westley & Rollock, David, 2021. "Open Science and Multicultural Research: Some Data, Considerations, and Recommendations," OSF Preprints em9ua, Center for Open Science.
    13. Hajar Sotudeh & Zeinab Saber & Farzin Ghanbari Aloni & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi & Farshad Khunjush, 2022. "A longitudinal study of the evolution of opinions about open access and its main features: a twitter sentiment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5587-5611, October.
    14. William H. Walters & Susanne Markgren, 2019. "Do faculty journal selections correspond to objective indicators of citation impact? Results for 20 academic departments at Manhattan College," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 321-337, January.
    15. Fakhri Momeni & Philipp Mayr & Nicholas Fraser & Isabella Peters, 2021. "What happens when a journal converts to open access? A bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9811-9827, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:73:y:2022:i:10:p:1474-1488. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.