Why Communication Scientists Are Concerned About Open Science

Communication scientists worry about the impact of open science. They fear additional work pressure, abuse of public data and toxic masculinity.

Although communication scientists support the goals of open science (see box), a number of international research sore spots too. For the study, an international group of scientists – including UvA researcher Claes de Vreese – conducted a survey of communication scientists from 36 countries. More than 80% of the 330 respondents said they had “little” or “some” knowledge of open science. According to the authors, the fact that “only” 10% have no knowledge of open science is a sign that (communication) scientists know more and more about the principles of open science.

little involvement

The communication scientists surveyed do not necessarily have a negative attitude towards open science, according to the survey. But their own involvement is weak. In practice, most respondents go no further than sharing research material, such as experiment protocols. Respondents ask about other aspects of open science, such as sharing datasets. Preparing public datasets for fellow scientists takes time, when “there is already enough pressure to produce things quickly,” said one respondent.

Some respondents fear their data will be misused

Another concern is the possible misuse of public data. Some respondents fear that other scientists will use their data to steal valuable research ideas. Other respondents fear that malicious parties will misuse their data, for example by misinterpreting the data for their own benefit.

What is Open Science?
Open science is a movement within science that focuses on transparency. There doesn’t seem to be a one-size-fits-all definition of open science, but recurring themes include openness and collaboration. Practical examples of open science are open access publications, active sharing of research data with colleagues, and citizen science. According to its proponents, open science leads to fairer, more reliable and more accessible science.

Against obligation

For several years, the government, the NWO and the universities of the Netherlands have focused on open access publications. But mandatory open access publication is not favorable to the communication scientists interviewed. This could lead to bad incentives, as can already be seen with the concept of pay-to-play: authors are guaranteed publication after paying a certain royalty to the publisher, without there being any peer review by scientific colleagues. Another concern with open access is that publishers have even more power. So write scientific guide about concluding agreement between Dutch universities and Elsevier, involving 16 million euros per year.

toxic masculinity

Finally, the authors of the publication express their concerns about the toxic masculinity that casts its shadow over open science. According to some of the respondents, “a small, noisy and privileged group carefully determines what” good to research’. They are mostly white men who are using the open science debate to strengthen their grip on science. “It’s mostly like white men shouting OPEN SCIENCE at me,” said one of the respondents. According to the authors, this toxic masculinity may come at the expense of vulnerable groups such as women, although more research is needed to confirm this.