There's some more talk about free software in the open access circles recently. This paper attempts to recap a few aspects (in almost 100 pages).

It's CC-BY-4.0 and this URL opens without JavaScript: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/download

Federico

-------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] New paper: A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship Data: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:50:30 +0800 Mittente: Jon Tennant (via scholcomm Mailing List)

Dear all,

Apologies in advance for any cross-posting. We are delighted today to announce the publication of a new paper, entitled "A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship".

It is currently available as a preprint on SocArXiv, and open for additional comments/annotations: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/

It's a bit of a monster, so best not to be tackled without an appropriate caffeine level.

Abstract: There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

Also, of potential interest, is that we wrote this paper in a way that inspired the concept of a "MOOP", more details here: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak

Special thanks to the brilliant co-authors: Ritwik Agarwal, Ksenija Baždarić, David Brassard, Tom Crick, Daniel Dunleavy, Thomas Evans, Nicholas Gardner, Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Daniel Graziotin, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Daniel Gunnarsson, Johanna Havemann, Mohammad Hosseini, Daniel Katz, Marcel Knöchelmann, Leo Lahti, Christopher Madan, Paolo Manghi, Alberto Marocchino, Paola Masuzzo, Peter Murray-Rust, Sanjay Narayanaswamy, Gustav Nilsonne, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Bart Penders, Olivier Pourret, Michael Rera, John Samuel, Tobias Steiner, Jadranka Stojanovski, Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, Rutger Vos, Simon Worthington, and Tal Yarkoni.

Best,

Jon