Where are we now? Moving forward with OSWG
How much closer are we (KI) to the goal set for 2026, when, per government decree, higher education institutions in Sweden are obliged to have an open science system in place?
Last year KIB met with Patrik Magnusson, chair of the then newly established Open Science Working Group (OSWG) at KI. We talked about the group's mission and what was on their agenda. Now, one year later, we are curious; where are we now?
What issues have you, OSWG, pursued in the past year?
– Among other things we have been working on finding a work-form for the long-term goal of a KI action plan for open science. Also, we have made an inventory and update of already existing policy and steering documents of relevance for openness and transparency of research at KI. Just recently, we organised and conducted an Open science symposium (focus open data). Yet another thing is that we have started to work on a KI vision for how quality of research should be judged and assessed in the future environment of open science.
Can you mention three major issues you see as particular challenges at KI?
- A lot of the raw data we work with at KI are (sensitive) personal data which are harder to be open with.
- Clinical, epidemiological and basic research work under different conditions posing different possibilities to share data openly.
- I believe that the open science movement relies on a reformation of how to evaluate scientific impact and quality. KI has a high reputation and rank with the current system and culture, which may slow down the process.
What would you like see happening at KI during the coming year?
– More effective information spread about the importance of open science practices. Another thing is that I would like to see a toned downed focus on where results are published in exchange of a stronger emphasis on transparency, reproducibility and scientific rigor.
Do you have any comments on this year’s theme (the OA week) Community over Commercialization?
– It sounds like a relevant motto! But just as research that has making money as driving force will continue, so will commercial publication channels. But hopefully the academic community will be able to come up with effective and broadly adopted alternatives. University based journals with open peer review may be an alternative. The money saved by not having to involve commercial publishers could potentially be distributed to peer reviewers instead.
Anything else you would like to add?
– Science is about knowledge and truth and to provide guidance for improving society and life. Values of the highest importance, that deserve the widest spread. Scientists and academia have the chance to reclaim the dissemination system.
OSWG (Open Science Working Group)
Patrik Magnusson chair (MEB), Anna Krook (KF, FyFa), Gustav Nilsonne (UF, SND), Kristiina Tammimies (KBH) and Sverker Holmgren (MEB).
Adjunct seats Fredrik Persson (KIB) and Janina Neufeld (Junior Faculty, KBH).
Management support Adina Feldman (UF, NVS).
Interview OSWG 2022
If you would like us to get back to you, please submit your contact information in the form below along with your feeback.