dc.contributor | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1991-2662 | |
dc.contributor | http://scienti.colciencias.gov.co:8081/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000214531 | |
dc.creator | Pardo Martínez, Clara Inés | |
dc.creator | Cotte Poveda, Alexander | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-05-28T18:16:09Z | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-09-28T15:46:39Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-05-28T18:16:09Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-09-28T15:46:39Z | |
dc.date.created | 2019-05-28T18:16:09Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018-11-21 | |
dc.identifier | Pardo Martínez, C. I., & Cotte Poveda, A. (2018). Knowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers - a case study for colombia | |
dc.identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/11634/16904 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3676486 | |
dc.description.abstract | Open science can provide researchers diverse opportunities to collaborate, disseminate
their research results, generate important impacts in the scientific community, and engage in effective
and efficient science for the benefit of society. This study seeks to analyse and evaluate researchers’
knowledge of open science in Colombia using a survey to determine adequate instruments with
which to improve research in the framework of open science. The aim of the study is to determine
researchers’ current awareness of open science by considering demographic characteristics to analyse
their attitudes, values, and information habits as well as the levels of institutionalism and social
appropriation of open science. A representative sample of Colombian researchers was selected from
the National Research System. An anonymous online survey consisting of 34 questions was sent to all
professors and researchers at Colombian universities and research institutes. Sampling was random
and stratified, which allowed for a representative sample of different categories of researchers, and
principal component analysis (PCA) was used for the sample design. A total of 1042 responses were
received, with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 3%. The majority of respondents
knew about open science, especially in relation to open science tools (software, repositories, and
networks) and open data. Researchers consider open science to be positively impacted by factors such
as the rise of digital technologies, the search for new forms of collaboration, the greater availability
of open data and information, and public demand for better and more effective science. In contrast,
a lack of resources to develop research activities within the open science approach and the limited
integration between traditional and open science are identified as the most important barriers to its
use in research. These results are important for building adequate open science policy in Colombia. | |
dc.relation | Agudelo-Calderón, C.A. NECOBELAC apoya el ACCESO ABIERTO, un camino para la ciencia abierta. Rev. Salud Pública 2012, 13, 883–884. (In Spainsh) | |
dc.relation | Borrell-Damián, L. The Importance of Open Science for Europe’s Universities. 2016. Available online: https://www.adjacentopenaccess.org/research-science-innovation-news/importance-open-scienceeuropes- universities/29073/ (accessed on 20 July 2017). | |
dc.relation | Caso, R.; Ducato, R. Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks [Online], University of Toronto, the Trento Law and Technology Research Paper Series. 2014. Available online: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2511602 (accessed on 10 December 2016). | |
dc.relation | García, D.; Rendueles, C. Abierto, libre . . . y público. Los desafíos políticos de la ciencia abierta. Argum. Razón Técnica 2014, 17, 45–64. (In Spanish) | |
dc.relation | European Commission. Validation of the Results of the Public Consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition. 2015. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_ final_report.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2016). | |
dc.relation | Forero Pineda, C.; Jaramillo Salazar, H. The access of researchers from developing countries to international science and technology. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2002, 54, 129–140. [CrossRef] | |
dc.relation | Foster. Open Science Taxonomy. 2015. Available online: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/fostertaxonomy/ open-science (accessed on 10 February 2018). | |
dc.relation | Gross, J.; Ryan, C. Landscapes of Research: Perceptions of Open Access (OA) Publishing in the Arts and Humanities. Publications 2015, 3, 65–88. [CrossRef] | |
dc.relation | Gagliardi, D.; Cox, D.; Li, Y. Institutional Inertia and Barriers to the Adoption of Open Science. 2014. Available online: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw: 283336&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF (accessed on 6 May 2017). | |
dc.relation | Hampton, S.; Anderson, S.; Bagby, S.; Gries, C.; Han, X.; Hart, E.; Jones, M.; Lenhardt, C.; Macdonald, A.; Michener, W.; et al. The Tao of open science for ecology. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–13. [CrossRef] | |
dc.relation | Laakso, M.;Welling, P.; Bukvova, H.; Nyman, L.; Björk, B.-C.; Hedlund, T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e20961. [CrossRef] [PubMed] | |
dc.relation | Matijasevic, E. Ciencia Transparente Para Todos. Acta Médica Colomb. 2012, 37, 101. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/amc/v37n3/v37n3a01.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2016). | |
dc.relation | Open Science Grid. Open Science Grid PKI General User Survey. 2013. Available online: http://www. opensciencegrid.org (accessed on 13 December 2016). | |
dc.relation | OECD. Open Science: Policy Challenges and Opportunities, Internal Working Document, Country Studies and Outlook Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry; OECD: Paris, France, 2011. | |
dc.relation | Ritter, M. Digitalisation of Society, the Role of Universities and Its Impact on Doctoral Education and Research. 2017. Available online: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/CDE-Events-2017/eua-cde-talinn-june- 2017_ritter-vzd10268ca84b96a879ce5ff00009465c7.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 16 November 2016). | |
dc.relation | Spallek, H.; O’Donnell, J.; Clayton, M.; Anderson, P.; Krueger, A. Paradigm shift or annoying distraction—Emerging implications of Web 2.0 for clinical practice. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2010, 1, 96–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed] | |
dc.relation | Taylor and Francis. Open Access Survey. 2014. Available online: www.oecd.org/sti/survey-of-scientificauthors. htm (accessed on 1 April 2017). | |
dc.rights | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/co/ | |
dc.rights | Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.5 Colombia | |
dc.title | Knowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers - a case study for Colombia | |
dc.type | Generación de Nuevo Conocimiento: Artículos publicados en revistas especializadas - Electrónicos | |