IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2019i4p65-d288544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Knöchelmann

    (Department of Information Studies, University College London, Foster Court, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK)

Abstract

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science , indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science —preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:4:p:65-:d:288544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    2. Cat Ferguson & Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky, 2014. "Publishing: The peer-review scam," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 480-482, November.
    3. Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers & Jian Wang, 2017. "Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 544(7651), pages 411-412, April.
    4. Pandelis Perakakis & Michael Taylor & Marco Mazza & Varvara Trachana, 2010. "Natural selection of academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 553-559, November.
    5. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    6. Kendall Powell, 2016. "Does it take too long to publish research?," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7589), pages 148-151, February.
    7. David Paul A., 2008. "The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-106, October.
    8. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    9. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    10. Cameron Neylon, 2012. "Open access must enable open use," Nature, Nature, vol. 492(7429), pages 348-349, December.
    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. Lanu Kim & Jason H. Portenoy & Jevin D. West & Katherine W. Stovel, 2020. "Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1218-1226, October.
    2. Nicholas Yee Liang Hing & Xin Ci Wong & Pei Xuan Kuan & Mohan Dass Pathmanathan & Mohd Aizuddin Abdul Rahman & Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy, 2022. "Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Antonello Cammarano & Vincenzo Varriale & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2022. "Open and Crowd-Based Platforms: Impact on Organizational and Market Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    5. Selma Leticia Capinzaiki Ottonicar & Paloma Marin Arraiza & Fabiano Armellini, 2020. "Opening Science and Innovation: Opportunities for Emerging Economies," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(4), pages 95-111.
    6. Teresa Gomez-Diaz & Tomas Recio, 2020. "A policy and legal Open Science framework: a proposal," Working Papers hal-02962399, HAL.
    7. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    8. Hugo S. Gonçalves & Sérgio Moro, 2023. "On the economic impacts of COVID‐19: A text mining literature analysis," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 375-394, February.
    9. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele, 2023. "Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    10. Joshua Gans & Fiona Murray, 2014. "Markets for Scientific Attribution," NBER Working Papers 20677, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Turcan Nelly & Rusu Andrei & Cujba Rodica, 2019. "Study on the Mapping of Research Data in the Republic of Moldova in the Context of Open Science," International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 11-22, June.
    12. Adrian G Barnett & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2018. "Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Ivana Drvenica & Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucija Vejmelka & Aleksandar Dekanski & Olgica Nedić, 2018. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2021. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," MERIT Working Papers 2021-011, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Michael C Grant & Luke Geoghegan & Marc Arbyn & Zakaria Mohammed & Luke McGuinness & Emily L Clarke & Ryckie G Wade, 2020. "The prevalence of symptoms in 24,410 adults infected by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 148 studies from 9 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Claudiu Herteliu & Marcel Ausloos & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu & Giulia Rotundo & Tudorel Andrei, 2017. "Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    18. Graddy-Reed, Alexandra & Lanahan, Lauren & D'Agostino, Jesse, 2021. "Training across the academy: The impact of R&D funding on graduate students," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    19. Arandjelović, Ognjen, 2023. "A Case for `Killer Robots': Why in the Long Run Martial AI May Be Good for Peace," SocArXiv 9kja8, Center for Open Science.
    20. Fabian Scheidegger & Andre Briviba & Bruno S. Frey, 2023. "Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4765-4790, August.

    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:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:4:p:65-:d:288544. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.