Course Reader 2017

Obligatory reading: 

• Aibar Puentes, E., & Lerga Felip, M. (2016). Wikipedia as Open Science: non-expert involvement in controversial scientific issues. http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/handle/10609/56384
• Arzberger, P., Schroeder, P., Beaulieu, A., Bowker, G., Casey, K., Laaksonen, L., … Wouters, P. (2004). Promoting Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and Social Development. Data Science Journal, 3(29 November), 135–152. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5866/1dccf9c996e8ab0bb0afd1a5455e14ed1a99.pdf
• Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3), Art. 18. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18
• Eve, M. P. (2015). Introduction, or why open access? In Open access and the humanities. Contexts, controversies and the future (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.martineve.com/images/uploads/2014/11/Eve_2014_Open-Access-and-the-Humanities.pdf
• Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science (pp. 17–47). Cham/ Heidelberg/ New York /Dordrecht/ London: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
• ICIFTDS (2016). Toward Fairness in Data Sharing. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(5), 405–407. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1605654 (including comments’ section!)
• Lamont, M., &  Huutoniemi, K. (2011). Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels. In C. Camic, N. Gross & M. Lamont, Social Knowledge in the Making (pp. 209–32). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11320622/LamontHuutoniemiComparingCustomaryRules.pdf?sequence=3
• Larivière, V., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P., Price, D. de S., Haustein, S., Tenopir, C., … Williams, M. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
• Levin, N., Leonelli, S., Weckowska, D., Castle, D., & Dupré, J. (2016). How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(2), 128–141. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616668760
• Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bul. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. Tech., 39, 10–13. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bult.2013.1720390405/full
• Prainsack, B. (2014). ‘Understanding Participation: The ‘citizen science’ of genetics’. In P. B., W.-F. G. and S. S. Farnham (Eds.), Genetics as Social Practice (pp. 147–164). U.K.: Ashgate. http://www.academia.edu/3552182/Understanding_Participation_The_citizen_science_of_genetics
• Purdam, K. (2014). Citizen social science and citizen data? Methodological and ethical challenges for social research. Current Sociology, 62(3), 374–392. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011392114527997
• Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.
• Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators' social media participation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 639-651. http://www.veletsianos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/veletsianos_open_practices_and_identity.pdf
• Warren, E. (2016). Strengthening Research through Data Sharing. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(5), 401–403. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1607282
• What is Open Peer Review? http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/05/21/what-is-open-peer-review/

Optional reading:

• Bauer, B., Blechl, G., Bock, C., Danowski, P., Ferus, A., Graschopf, A., … Welzig, E. (2015, November 30). Recommendations for the Transition to Open Access in Austria. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34079
• Budapest Open Access Initiative 2002. Retrieved from http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
• Delfanti, A. (2011). Hacking genomes. The ethics of open and rebel biology. International Review of Information Ethics, 15(09), 52-57. http://www.i-r-i-e.net/inhalt/015/015-Delfanti.pdf
• Felt, U., Schumann, S., Schwarz, C. G., & Strassnig, M. (2013). Technology of imagination: a card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research, 14(2), 233–251. https://sts.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_sts/Forschung/Projekte_abgeschlossen/Imagine/felt_et_all_tech_imagination.pdf
• Mayer, K. (2015). Open Science Policy Brief. ERA Austria. Nov 2015. https://era.gv.at/object/document/2279
• Ottinger, G. (2009). Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(2), 244–270.  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243909337121
• Pomerantz, J., & Peek, R. (2016). Fifty shades of open. First Monday, 21(5). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/6360/5460
• Wagner, G., Fecher, B. (2015). Flipping journals to open: Rethinking publishing infrastructure in light of Lingua/Glossa case. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/12/03/seizing-the-moment-is-our-understanding-of-open-access-too-shortsighted/