Interview with Fernanda Peset

Interview with Fernanda Peset, professor of the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Department of Communication Studies, Documentation and History of Art.

Analyze the current situation of open publication of scientific results in Spain. In comparison to other countries, what point has been reached?

In the case of scientific results, two major groups have to be distinguished: publications and data. This was already pointed out in 2012, when the European Commission implemented a survey on digital preservation, which, in the case of publications, had advanced enormously and, in the case of the data underlying the research, was just beginning.

Which are the main obstacles that hinder the opening of data by the scientific community?

In the survey carried out during the project DATASEA, researchers suggest that the reasons of concern are: the misuse or interpretation and legal questions about confidentiality and intellectual property rights. Some also said they were losing time making them available or they feared that others take the lead in research thanks to their data. In general, we try to squeeze the samples as much as possible, but critics are also feared.

What measures are considered necessary to promote and boost the culture of open data in the research field?

Undoubtedly, recognition of the release of scientific results is essential to generalize it. Parameters of the assessment of a scientific are very clear in calls for career advancement and in the organizations themselves. Under pressure, researchers choose to monetize their work, which means spend as much time as possible for publications in refereed journals or obtaining patents. This would be the way of incentives, but also the obligations undertaken to obtain financing or publish in a particular journal can be decisive to invest the necessary time to open them up. Ideally, both routes are combined, which always require data literacy and support of organizations, something that is now beginning in Spain.

Under pressure, researchers choose to monetize their work, which means spend as much time as possible for publications in refereed journals or obtaining patents.

Under the framework of Horizon2020 program, a pilot project was launched in 2013 to improve and maximize the reuse of research data. Which are the conclusions three years later?

We are not aware that the European Commission has published evidences in this field. However, it could be said that the pilot plan has encouraged researchers, being or not part of it, to view their research from this perspective. Although it is not compulsory, including in the Impact section how they will get, manage and release the data, always contributes to a better evaluation of their proposals.

Moreover, both research management offices and information services are preparing for a demand for advice on it. For example, the translation of requirements H2020 in the DMP (Data management plan) tool, called PAGODA, by Madroño consortium has been a strategic positioning.

Finally, the draft of the open science agenda provides explicitly for the development of an open data policy, and for this purpose a panel of experts is being formed.

What is the OAI, Open Archive Initiative, and which are the main features of its protocol OAI-PMH?

At the philosophical level, it is the first big step to break with traditional forms of access to science. The increase in journal prices in the 80s was getting worse the gap among countries and organizations of first and second order. Thereafter, the green and gold ways to open access -listings and magazines, respectively- make up what we are currently living. The orders derived from Open Access movement have been essential in the opening up of scientific information. However, from my point of view,  the model has been distorted, as it is shown by the high cost invested to pay the golden via. The research funding is being earmarked in part to the publication, and, therefore, sometimes to support the publishing industry. But it is not possible to adopt extreme positions, without this industry we would not have the services that we currently have access...

As regards the main features of the protocol I think its design and ease of implementation have been the determining factors for its success. Dividing the provision of information on data providers and service providers which can reap the metadata of the first revolutionized the scene and saved costs worldwide.

The orders derived from Open Access movement have been essential in the opening up of scientific information. 

What would it be necessary to make the scientific and research community value the role of open data and its reuse?

After having experienced personally the open access movement since its inception, I think some issues will happen again. In fact some statements about open access already included data. And from that experience it is worth stressing the need of apostolate of the different agents involved: the scientific sector itself, from the academic and political authorities and support services. The support is essential to reach a successful end and, in this regard, the education –data literacy- will be increasingly necessary.