‘Don’t let open science degenerate into a data dump’
Inaugural lecture
An endless stream of publications, data and software accessible to all. It might sound idealistic, but Professor of Science Studies Thed van Leeuwen warns of the downsides. In his inaugural lecture, he calls for a more human-centred approach and an overhaul of the PhD system.
Don’t get him wrong: breaking down paywalls in science and making knowledge accessible to all is a positive development. But Van Leeuwen argues that the rapid dissemination of data and publications can sometimes miss the mark. In his inaugural lecture on 16 June, he will give specific examples of why change is needed.
Flood of information
Popular scientific databases such as Web of Science already contain around 60 million publications, while Open Alex has over 200 million entries. ‘This poses a real risk of information overload. In such a vast sea of digital objects, it is difficult to identify what is truly matters.’ And storing all those files in data centres consumes vast amounts of electricity and water.
Quality or quantity
Back to the academic implications: the ideal of openness encourages a system in which the number of publications and other scientific outputs becomes a key metric, and researchers are judged on quantity, says Van Leeuwen. He therefore calls for a fundamental rethink of how we organise and evaluate science. The professor opposes a technocratic approach to open science, where ‘everything open’ seems to be the default. Instead, Van Leeuwen calls for a human-centred approach: researchers should carefully consider what should be made open.
More space for learning process
Another surprising suggestion by Van Leeuwen is about the PhD process, which he believes needs a radical overhaul. PhD candidates should not be assessed on the number of articles they publish. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on the learning process and time for reflection. And rather than focusing solely on traditional publications, more space should be given to other forms of scientific output, such as blogs, preprints and policy briefs – invited commentary and recommendations on policy.
Call to journals
Van Leeuwen also urges scientific journals to publish more articles with ‘negative’ results: research that does not yield a clear answer or whose results are less spectacular than expected. ‘This is important’, says Van Leeuwen, ‘because it allows certain lines of research to be closed, preventing further public funds being spent on questions that have already been answered.’
Van Leeuwen’s chair is at the CWTS Open Science Lab and is part of the broader Academia in Motion programme, which is helping the university develop a new system of recognition and rewards. From this position, he aims to further develop and implement his ideas on open governance and reforming the PhD system.