Preprint Open Access

Afraid of Scooping - Case Study on Researcher Strategies Against Fear of Scooping in the Context of Open Science

Laine, Heidi


MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Scooping</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Research Integrity</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Research Misconduct</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Open Science</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Open Collaboration</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Social Science</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">History of Science</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Social Media</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">NMR lipids</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20200120153338.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="001">184399</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="711" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="d">11-13 September 2016</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">SciDataCon 2016</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">Denver, Colorado, USA</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">Session 37 Getting the incentives right: removing social, institutional and economic barriers to data sharing</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">180879</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:ce4c61df0e50255c2bee7b64531101bd</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/184399/files/Laine_Heidi_SciDataCon2016_Final.docx</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="y">Conference website</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">http://www.scidatacon.org/2016/</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2016-11-29</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:184399</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">University of Helsinki</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Laine, Heidi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Afraid of Scooping - Case Study on Researcher Strategies Against Fear of Scooping in the Context of Open Science</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">&lt;p&gt;The risk of scooping is often used as a counter argument for open science, especially open data. In this case study I have examined openness strategies, practices and attitudes in two open collaboration research projects created by Finnish researchers, in order to understand what made them resistant to the fear of scooping. The radically open approach of the projects includes open-by-default funding proposals, co-authorship and community membership. Primary sources used are interviews of the projects founding members. The analysis indicates that openness requires trust in close peers, but not necessarily in research community or society at large. Focusing on intrinsic goals, such as new knowledge and bringing about ethical reform, instead of publications, supports openness. Understanding fundaments of science, such as philosophy and science and research ethics can also have a beneficial effect. Whether there are aspects in open sharing that makes it seem riskier from the point of view of certain demographical groups, such as women, could be worth more studying.&lt;/p&gt;</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.184399</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">preprint</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
89
8
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 8989
Downloads 88
Data volume 1.4 MB1.4 MB
Unique views 8787
Unique downloads 88

Share

Cite as