If I gave you $100 to build a lemonade stand, it is reasonable that I would want to see the finished product to know how the money was spent. Further, if that $100 was given to me by members of our neighborhood, it is also reasonable that they might want to see the finished lemonade stand too! This is the premise of open science (or, more broadly, open research).
A great deal of scientific research in the United States is funded by the Federal government (through agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), which is in turn funded by our taxpayer dollars. Therefore, it makes sense that we (the public) should be able to access the findings of any research which we have funded! A lot of people want to see that metaphorical lemonade stand, and it has resulted in lots of calls for open code, open data, and open access publications.
Chances are, you've heard at least something in the last few years about open data, open code, open access, and/or open science. Where did all this come from?
Much of the conversation accelerated in 2013 when the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a memorandum titled 'Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research,' which forever changed research as we know it. This directed many Federal agencies to develop policies and guidance to make the results of their funded research publicly available, including peer-reviewed publications and scientific data. Since that time, academic libraries have created educational programs, hired special personnel, and developed curation services to support researchers in making their scholarly work open.
Since 2013, OSTP continues to explore how to increase public access to scientific research, and these decisions are made by engaging with the public through Requests for Information (RFI). RFIs ask us to weigh in on proposed policies and guidance, and in February of this year, OSTP released an RFI titled 'Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications, Data and Code Resulting From Federally Funded Research.' This RFI asked respondents to comment on current barriers to sharing data and code, how open research benefits innovation, and how the Federal government can best support researchers in doing open research (for the full list of questions, see the RFI here).
When Dean Keith Webster and the Research Data Services (RDS) Team at CMU Libraries saw this RFI, we decided to coordinate a campus response. CMU Libraries have a commitment to data reuse and open science, exhibited through our Open Science and Data Collaborations Program, Artificial Intelligence for Data Discovery and Reuse conferences (AIDR), Open Science Symposium, and our workshops and LibGuides that teach open science principles, and we felt we needed to represent our voice in this broader discussion. In conjunction with RDS, I wrote an initial draft of the response that was representative of the CMU Libraries' standpoint on the issue, reinforcing our commitment to open data, open science, and open access, and our continued efforts in providing education on how to perform open, reproducible research (see the full response here). Then, we sent this draft to the broader campus community for additional comment.
As I received comments from various campus stakeholders, it became clear there are nuanced perspectives on this matter, and we at CMU Libraries are in a great position to help mitigate some of the fears and concerns around open research. Most of the concerns involved the following: (1) if open research products from CMU would even be usable by the public who don't work in these specialty areas, and (2) if sharing these research products openly would limit our innovation.
These are incredibly valid concerns within open science/open research discussions, and at CMU Libraries we are here to help provide some strategies to mitigate these concerns. For the first concern, we believe there is a difference between open data, and open data that is actually reproducible and of value. This is made possible through codebooks, documentation, README files, and any additional items that provide context into how the data or code was produced.
For the second concern, we encourage researchers to consider the innovation made possible through reuse of open data. When researchers make their data open (and make it reproducible!), that creates a possibility for another researcher to use that data to explore another theory, or test out a new hypothesis. This innovation is made possible because one researcher decided to make their data open and reproducible! Through workshops, instruction, and online resources, we can teach you how to make your data and code reproducible, which can spark innovation among the broader research community!
After receiving responses from the community, we submitted the unified campus response to OSTP at which time our comments are analyzed alongside other submitted responses, helping OSTP develop policies and guidance around open data, open code, and open access that are more representative of the needs and goals of community stakeholders, including CMU!
Now I'm craving lemonade.