Open Science Is Exasperating
An explanation, and then what a retraction demonstrated
Yesterday, I published a post that could be generously described as “spicy” insofar as it was acerbic and unforgiving.
Why the tone? Why the “both barrels” approach?
Because I don’t like how much oxygen, time, and money is being wasted on something that’s far more complicated than groups like cOAlition S, Jisc, and even PLOS when it’s in its OA-advocacy mode acknowledge.
Admittedly, we all have moments when we wonder why certain things are done in a certain way, are so expensive, or are so complicated. Sometimes, we may even be so bold as to think we can imagine a better way. And we all remember that one year in life when it seemed we had all the answers, a late-adolescent magic that evaporates in the face of adult complexities and compromises.
If we’re patient and observant, over time and after a lot of experiences and learning about how various industries, professionals, and entrepreneurs work, we may learn to be sympathetic and generous when considering how something gets done, why something is priced as it is, and so forth. We may even learn to respect those making such decisions as smart, capable, and hard-working, but dealing with constraints we may not comprehend.
It’s simply a more edifying starting proposition to be humble and respectful because you may learn something.
So, when a bunch of people come traipsing into scholarly and scientific publishing showing no respect or humility, brandishing half-baked and denigrating ideas, and boasting about their incredible concepts that will and must revolutionize the space, I’m not only suspicious. I’m offended.
It seems especially disrespectful when a group representing a very few tribal players seeks to define a term as loaded and complicated as “equity” when it comes to information — and leaves equally important ideas like trust, quality, reliability, and so forth in order to punish any commercial ambitions or non-OA approaches, as if either of these are implicitly objectionable or improper.
One thing that the OA movement has turned against us has been our respectfulness and kindness. Yesterday’s news of another out-of-touch, gamified, non-serious, and ultimately disrespectful — of complexity, professionalism, ambition, and service — exasperated me.
And then this came along to, um, brighten? my mood . . .
Or to prove that open science may be more complicated, expensive, and exasperating when put into action?
An Open Science Mess
On the heels of that group claiming some scorecard of “equity” can make things better came the news that a November 2023 paper — a paper which includes among its authors Brian Nosek et al from the Center for Open Science (COS) and follows many of the “equity” publishing recommendations — has just been retracted because the authors did a whole bunch of things wrong.
And, upon examination, the open science aspects claimed to be part of an “equitable” approach to publishing prove quite problematic.