Open Science is becoming increasingly popular globally and provides unprecedented opportunities for scientists in Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America.

The scientific community has been flooded with well-intended ideas and concrete attitudes to tackle the openness in science, or better its lack of openness. More specifically, attempts to guarantee access to otherwise ‘protected’ material have been the obsession of many (mostly early-career) researchers.

You initiated the #DontLeaveItToGoogle campaign after Google brought out a search engine for scientific datasets. What was the reason to start such an initiative? Research data is an important scientific output and there are many benefits to research data sharing, including data reuse and aggregation. But discovery is a big problem, even bigger than in literature.

There has been increasing concern recently in ensuring that public funding for science and innovation creates truly public benefits.

This contribution is a crosspost from PLOS blogs which was published in Part I and Part II. The article is a cooperation within N², a network of the Helmholtz Juniors, Leibniz PhD Network and Max Planck PhDnet. With more than 14.000 doctoral researchers, it is the biggest network of doctoral researchers in Germany.

Open Science is a strange concept. Depending on who you speak to, it can be a set of scientific practices, a social justice issue, a complete fad, part of a political capitalist regime, or just a different but undefinable form of traditional science. This variety in thought is at once both a strength of Open Science, and its greatest weakness.

German universities and research institutions are playing a prominent role in the global trend of shifting academic publishing to open access. A nationwide consortium of scientific institutions, known as DEAL, aims to encourage academic publishers to adopt new licensing agreements for open access publication of scholarly content.

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”] What are from a media ethics perspective the biggest challenges for science in the digital age? One of the biggest challenges in science communication is to create trust.

“Predatory publishing” describes the practice of pseudo scientific publishers that promise scientists the rapid publication of their studies. They purport to carry out a peer review but actually do not do such a thing and basically publish anything if the publication fee has been paid.

How do you define “good scientific practices”? ORI’s statute and regulations do not define “good scientific practices,” but ORI recognizes that every scientific discipline should have standards for how it defines good scientific practices.  We see many instances of poor record-keeping and documentation of experiments, as well as sloppy data handling.