The development of the concept of open science: from scientific societies to the science of citizens
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18255/2412-6519-2024-4-478-487Keywords:
open science, scientific societies, the concept of open science, the development of open science, the science of citizens, scientific communities, the development of scienceAbstract
The article examines the development of open science in Russia and in the world and identifies the key vectors of such development. The main research method is the content analysis of publications on philosophy, sociology and the history of the development of science and scientific knowledge devoted to open science. In total, 500 domestic and foreign authors were analyzed as part of the study. Based on an extensive range of publications in the study, the authors identify three main vectors for the development of open science and dialogue between scientists and science enthusiasts. Through the use of the content analysis method, key areas of research in the field of interaction between scientists and science enthusiasts have been identified, which allows for a more complete and systematic characterization of this topic. These vectors represent: the vector of preserving the monopoly of professional science, which is characterized by the greatest closeness of science and scientific knowledge from the possibilities of cooperation between amateur scientists. The second vector is the vector of cooperation between professional and open science. This vector assumes equal cooperation and equal interaction between professional and open sciences. The third vector, the vector of virtualization of open science, is associated with the creation of an effective dialogue between professional science and open science in the virtual space. The main one is the importance of developing the prospects of open science and dialogue between scientists and science lovers.References
Галкин И. В. Методологические проблемы юридической науки в Новое время (1600-1850) // Lex Russica (Русский закон). 2018. № 8(141). С. 23-42. EDN XWXCFN.
Kuhn T. The history of science // Philosophy, Science, and History. Routledge, 2014. Р. 106-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802458-9
Рузавин Г. Философия науки. М.: Юнити-Дана, 2017. 183 с.
Девятова С. В., Купцов В. И. Возникновение первых академий наук в Европе // Социально-гуманитарные знания. 2011. № 1. С. 132-150.
Sinelnikova E., Fando R. Natural scientific societies in the history of science // Studies in the History of Biology. 2021. Vol. 13, No. 2. P. 7-10.
Gaillard J., Krishna V. V., Waast R.Introduction: Scientific communities in the developing world // Scientific communities in the developing world. 1997. № 1. Р. 11-47.
Семячкин Д. А., Сергеев М. А., Кисляк Е. В. Возможные пути развития открытой науки в России // Научная периодика: проблемы и решения. 2015. Т. 5, № 2. С. 89-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18334/np52168
Fecher B., Friesike S. Open science: one term, five schools of thought. Springer International Publishing, 2014. 346 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036
Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry / S. Friesike et al. // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2015. Vol. 40. P. 581-601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6
Медведева С. М. Научная коммуникация в современном мире: проблемы и перспективы // Вестник МГИМО университета. 2014. № 2. С. 253-255.
Chubin D. E. Open science and closed science: Tradeoffs in a democracy // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1985. Vol. 10, No. 2. P. 73-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000211
Open science, closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive research in communication /j. Fox et al. // Journal of Communication. 2021. Vol. 71, No. 5. P. 764-784.
Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? / R. Bonney et al. // Public Understanding of Science. 2016. Vol. 25, No. 1. P. 2-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406
Méndez B. J. H. SpaceScience@ Home: Authentic research projects that use citizen scientists // EPO and a Changing World: Creating Linkages and Expanding Partnerships. 2008. Vol. 389. P. 219-226.
Russell N.Communicating science: Professional, popular, literary. Cambridge University Press, 2009. 324 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803918
Миронов В. В., Брызгалина Е. В. Феномен "профанного знания" в контексте особенностей современной науки // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 7. Философия. 2020. № 6. С. 107-121.
Волков А. В. К вопросу о специфике субъекта современного научного познания // Глобальный научный потенциал. 2012. № 8. С. 29-33.
Fan F., Chen S. L. Citizen, science, and citizen science // East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal. 2019. Vol. 13, No. 2. P. 181-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-7542643
The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms / G. Newman et al. // Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012. Vol. 10, No. 6. P. 298-304.
Franzen M. Changing science-society relations in the digital age: the citizen science movement and its broader implications1 // Handbook on science and public policy. 2019. No. 2. P. 336-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00028
Innovation in open science, society and policy-setting the agenda for citizen science / S. Hecker et al. // Citizen Science: Innovation in open science, society and policy. 2018. No. 3. P. 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550cf2.8
Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation / H. Kobori et al. // Ecological research. 2016. Vol. 31. P. 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y
Mueller M. P., Tippins D., Bryan Ph D L. A. The future of citizen science // Democracy and Education.2011. Vol. 20, No. 1.P. 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.65214/2164-7992.1026
West S. E., Pateman R. M. Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: What can be learned from the volunteering literature? // Citizen science: Theory and practice. 2016. No. 1. P. 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.8
Knöchelmann M. The democratisation myth: Open Access and the solidification of epistemic injustices // Science & Technology Studies. 2021. Vol. 34, No. 2. P. 65-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.94964
Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science / D. Wolfram et al. // Scientometrics. 2020. Vol. 125, No. 2. P. 1033-1051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms / G. Newman et al. // Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012. Vol. 10, No. 6. P. 298-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/110294
"Citizen science"? Rethinking science and public participation / B. Strasser et al. // Science & Technology Studies. 2019. Vol. 32, No. 2. P. 52-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60425
What motivates volunteers to engage in health-related citizen science initiatives? A case study of our outdoors / E. Lehman et al. // International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2020. Vol. 17, No. 19. P. 6950. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196950
Tulloch A. I. T., Szabo J. K. A behavioural ecology approach to understand volunteer surveying for citizen science datasets // Emu-Austral Ornithology. 2012. Vol. 112, No. 4. P. 313-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/MU12009
Analysis of species richness in Barcelona beaches using a citizen science based approach / N. Aparicio Camín et al. // Nature. 2019. No. 2. P. 1-20.
What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals / C. Wei et al. // Scientometrics. 2023. Vol. 128, No. 5. P. 2763-2776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04683-9
Irwin A. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences // Public understanding of science. 2001. Vol. 10, No. 1. P. 1-18.
Душина С. А., Куприянов В. А., Хватова Т. Ю. Социальные академические интернет-сети как репрезентация "открытой науки" // Социология науки и технологий. 2018. Т. 9, № 3. С. 80-98.
Vicente-Saez R., Martinez-Fuentes C. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition // Journal of Business Research. 2018. Vol. 88. P. 428-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
Wenaas L. Open Access: A Change in Academic Publishing with Limited Reach? Graphics Center, University of Oslo, 2022. 200 p.
Thelwall M., Kousha K. Academia.edu: social network or academic network? // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014. Vol. 65, No. 4. P. 721-731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038
Campos-Freire F., Ruas-Araujo J. The use of professional and scientific social networks: The case of three Galician universities // Profesional de la Information. 2017. Vol. 25, No. 3. P. 431-440.
Nández G., Borrego Á. Use of social networks for academic purposes: a case study // The Electronic Library. 2013. Vol. 31, No. 6. P. 781-791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2012-0031
Rainie L., Wellman B.Networked Creators, digital original edition: A BIT of Networked. MIT Press, 2015. 25 p.
Ray S., Srivastava S. Virtualization of science education: a lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic // Journal of proteins and proteomics. 2020. Vol. 11, No. 2 P. 77-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42485-020-00038-7
