% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@INPROCEEDINGS{Miedema:1027492,
author = {Miedema, Frank},
title = {{T}he {T}ransition to {O}pen {S}cience},
reportid = {FZJ-2024-03901},
year = {2021},
abstract = {Keynote at the Open Scholarship Week 2021 The Transition to
Open Science It has been realized since the turn of the
century that major imperfections (flaws, ‘perverse
incentives’ as some would say) have developed in the
governance of science and academia. These imperfections till
this time are major factors that interfere with the promise
of the contribution of science to society. They relate
directly to the current incentive and rewards system that
has become dominant over time, which is very internally
oriented and steers for impact within science more than for
societal impact. Researchers find themselves pursuing work
that gives the most academic credit and is better for career
advancement. Every year millions of papers are being
published in a still growing number of journals behind
paywalls. It is now widely acknowledged that we have a
serious pervasive reproducibility and accessibility crisis.
In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council adopted
conclusions on ‘The transition towards an Open Science
system’ where it acknowledges that “Open Science has the
potential to increase the quality, impact and benefits of
science and to accelerate advancement of knowledge by making
it more reliable, more efficient and accurate, better
understandable by society and responsive to societal
challenges, and has the potential to enable growth and
innovation through reuse of scientific results by all
stakeholders at all levels of society, and ultimately
contribute to growth and competitiveness of Europe”. Open
Science encompasses Open Access, Open Research Agenda, Data
and Methods, Open Source, Open Educational Resources, Open
Evaluation, and Citizen Science. The implementation of Open
Science touches upon the social roles and responsibilities
of publicly funded research and the organization of the
science system. Academic leadership is crucial, but national
strategies for the implementation of Open Science are
essential including Open Science champions and role models.
This is an important change in our thinking about science in
society. Open Science is a new Social Contract for
Science in the 21st century that will change the daily
practice of our research and will affect all of us in the
science community and academia. Therefore, the EU and many
major funders in the public and private sector rely on Open
Science to get more impact from investments in science. It
is now widely understood that this requires a change in
scholarly publishing and the incentive $\&$ reward system
that can only be brought about when Academic Leadership and
the researchers work together. About the presenter: Frank
Miedema is Vice Rector for Research at Utrecht University
and chair of the Utrecht University Open Science Program. He
studied biochemistry at the University of Groningen,
specialising in Immunology, with a minor in the Philosophy
of Science. He obtained a PhD from the University of
Amsterdam at the Central Laboratory of the Blood Transfusion
Service (CLB), now Sanquin. From 1983, he was a project
leader there in the immunovirology of HIV/AIDS, as part of
the Amsterdam Cohort Studies. In 1996, he was appointed full
professor at the AMC/University of Amsterdam and became
Director of Sanquin Research in 1998. In 2004, he became
head of the Immunology Department at the University Medical
Center Utrecht. From January 2009 to March 2019 he was dean
and vice chairman of the Executive Board of the University
Medical Center Utrecht. He is one of the initiators in 2013
of Science in Transition who believe that the academic
incentive and reward system is in need of fundamental
reform. Next to Science for Science (articles in
‘high-impact’ journals), the impact on society must be
valued more and societal stakeholders should be involved
more integrally in the production of knowledge.},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)6},
doi = {10.5281/ZENODO.4746453},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1027492},
}