2. Open Science, Open Data: The ‘Open’ Movement in Scholarly Publishing

Abstract

In Chapter 2, ‘Open Science, Open Data,’ Kerk F. Kee takes a broader look at ‘openness’ as it has been used in conversations about scientific research and publishing. ‘Openness’ is often touted as an antidote for all the problems that exist in scholarly publishing. The rationale is that if we can achieve greater transparency in publishing practices, there will be no more impetus for predatory publishers to go on. More specifically, the reasoning goes, predatory publishing has been able to thrive because so much of academic publishing occurs in a black box, behind closed doors. We have trusted double-blind peer review for many centuries as the gold standard that ensures the quality of scientific knowledge. But most of the time, in the way peer review traditionally operates, the readers of a scientific article simply must trust in blind faith that reviews are taking place. This practice allows predatory publishing to thrive because it creates the possibility that a journal can advertise itself as a peer-reviewed journal but then publish articles without putting them through the peer-review process. ‘Open data’ and ‘open science’ are touted as antidotes because they require researchers to share their actual data so that readers can judge the quality of the science for themselves. ‘Open peer review’ is another variation on this—this entails publishing the reviewer reports along with the article so, again, readers can see for themselves that peer review did occur. Chapter 2 explores how our interview participants articulated claims such as these, but also, how some interviewees push back against such claims, pointing out the limitations of openness as a solution to the predatory publishing problem.