Abstract

Open science is becoming “the new normal”. It involves the whole research cycle, from preregistration via open methods and analyses to open access and peer review. Open science practices ensures that research is transparent, reproducible, conducted with due care, and of high quality, and ensures that the results are accessible to the society and peers. Research funders have increasing demands and expectations for open science, including requirements for sharing research results. At the same time, aspects such as security, privacy, rights, and research ethics provide principles for what can be shared openly.
This leads to the statement that research should be «as open as possible, as closed as necessary». This may be a catchy principle, but how are these contradictory aspects of open and closed addressed in a specific project and in a specific research environment?
Good systems for openness and sharing of research data, and knowledge of restrictions and limitations for sharing, are essential to ensure that research data are as open as possible, and as closed as necessary. The challenge of balancing the open vs. closed should be addressed as a joint effort, and not left to the researchers alone. Therefore, the way we integrate the two aspects in our communication with researchers and research leaders are crucial for the implementation of open science practices in the university and research environments. In the Norwegian University of Science and Technology we have developed a three-step approach to this dilemma. These three steps are embedded in our open science guidelines, and they are also referred to by colleagues who voice the restrictions on sharing, justified through IP and commercialization.
The three steps are
1. Perform a value assessment of the research results
2. Take duly actions to protect results that are restricted from sharing (like IP)
3. Consider platform, timing, audience and adding a licence to the open research results
The seemingly contradiction between the open science requirements and the legitimate restrictions that stem from GDPR, security issues, sensitivity or IPR are to some extent ignored from the open science ambassadors. If we are not acknowledging the specific circumstances and limitations for sharing that the various researchers are facing, we may risk that the open science – message is not seriously considered by that researcher.
In this EARMA discussion table we invite RMA colleagues to challenge this reasoning and the principles, and to share their experiences in advocating for open science practices in a research environment that are working under obligations to restrict or limit or secure their research results from open sharing.