Open Science Infrastructure: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:28, 27 February 2025

Revision as of 15:46, 10 March 2025

Line 88:

Several competing terms appeared to fill this need. In the United States, the ''cyber-infrastructure'' was used in a scientific context by a US National Science Foundation (NSF) blue-ribbon committee in 2003: "The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infrastructure based upon distributed computer, information and communication technology. If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy."{{sfn|Atkins|2003|p=5}} E-infrastructure or e-science were used in a similar meaning in the United Kingdom and European countries.

Thanks to "sizable investments",{{sfn|Eccles et al.|2009}} major national and international infrastructures have been incepted from the initial policy discussion in the early 2000s to the economic crisis of 2007–2008, such as the [[Open Science Grid]], [[BioGRID]], the [[Jisc|JISC]], {{ill|DARIAH|WDqid=Q49103279}} or the [[Project Bamboo]].{{sfn|Dacos|2013}}{{sfn|eResearch2020|2010|p={{page needed|date=February 2024}}}} Specialized free software for scientific publishing like [[Open Journal Systems]] became available after 2000. This development entailed a significant expansion of non-commercial open access journals by facilitating the creation and the administration of journal website and the digital conversion of existing journals.{{sfn|Bosman et al.|2021|p=93}} Among the non-commercial journals registered to the Directory of Open Access Journals, the number of annual creation has gone from 100 by the end of the 1990s to 800 around 2010, and not evolved significantly since then.{{sfn|Bosman et al.|2021|p=30}}

By 2010, infrastructure are "no longer in infancy" and yet "they are also not yet fully mature".{{sfn|Eccles et al.|2009}} While the development of the web solved a large range of technical issues regarding network management, building scientific infrastructure remained challenging. Governance, communication across all involved stakeholders, and strategical divergences were major factors of success or failure. One of the first major infrastructure for the humanities and the social science, the [[Project Bamboo]] was ultimately unable to achieve its ambitious aims: "From the early planning workshops to the [[Mellon Foundation]]’s rejection of the project’s final proposal attempt, Bamboo was dogged by its reluctance and/or inability to concretely define itself".{{sfn|Dombrowski|2014|p=334}} This lack of clarity was further aggravated by recurring communication missteps between the project initiators and the community it aimed to serve. "The community had spoken and made it clear that continuing to emphasize [[Service-oriented architecture]] would alienate the very members of the community Bamboo was intended to benefit most: the scholars themselves".{{sfn|Dombrowski|2014|p=329}} Budgets cuts following the economic crisis of 2007-2008 underlined the fragility of ambitious infrastructure plans relying on a significant recurring funds.{{sfn|Dombrowski|2014|p=331}}

Line 108:

Since 2015 these principles have become the most influential definition of Open Science Infrastructures and been endorsed by leading infrastructures such as Crossref,{{sfn|Bilder|2020}} OpenCitations{{sfn|Di Giambattista|2021}} or Data Dryad{{sfn|The Dryad Team|2020}} and has become a common basis for the institutional evaluation of existing open infrastructures.{{sfn|Ficarra et al.|2020|p=21}} The main focus of the ''Principles'' is to build "trustworthy institutions" with significant commitments in terms of governance, financial sustainability and technical efficiency sot that it can be durably relied on by scientific communities.{{sfn|Neylon|2017|p=7}}

By 2021, public services and infrastructures for research have largely endorsed open science as an integral part of their activity and identity: "open science is the dominant discourse to which new online services for research refer."{{sfn|Fecher et al.|2021|p=505}} According to the 2021 Roadmap of the {{ill|European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures|WDqid=Q2623454}} (ESFRI), major legacy infrastructures in Europe have embraced open science principles. "Most of the Research Infrastructures on the ESFRI Roadmap are at the forefront of Open Science movement and make important contributions to the digital transformation by transforming the whole research process according to the Open Science paradigm."{{sfn|ESFRI Roadmap|2021|p=159}} Examples of extensive data sharing programs include the [[European Social Survey]] (in social science), [[ECRIN ERIC]] (for clinical data) or the [[Cherenkov Telescope Array]] (in Astronomy).{{sfn|ESFRI Roadmap|2021|p=159}}

In agreement with the original intent of the ''Principles'', open science infrastructure are "seen as an antidote to the increased market concentration observed in the scholarly communication space."{{sfn|Kraker|2021|p=2}} In November 2021, the UNESCO Recommendation for Open Science acknowledged open science infrastructure as one of the four pillar of open science, along with open science knowledge, open engagement of societal actors and open dialog with other knowledge system and called for sustained investment and funding: "open science infrastructures are often the result of community-building efforts, which are crucial for their longterm sustainability and therefore should be not-for-profit and guarantee permanent and unrestricted access to all public to the largest extent possible."{{sfn|UNESCO|2021}}