Talk:Open research

Notability

open research does not seem to exist on google so I think this is a candidate for deletion

That's not true. MIT's open source project shows up as one of the first ten hits. And even if it were true, google is (thanks God) not yet a measure of relevance for all human activity! ;-) On a more serious note: the term is often used in academia to refer to "open science" in the humanities and social sciences. All the best, Matthias Röder 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads up, I'm intending to expand this article over the next month. I'm vetting some additional external references plus would like to include a short bit on role of social media / semantic web in the practices. Any objections? FrenchB (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of OSSP (Open Source Science Project)

As explained in a Labrigger blog post, there is much reason to believe that The Open Source Science Project is a scam. As of October 2012, although the website mentions 19 supported universities (including Harvard, Caltech, Oxford and Stanford) and more than 1000 "members" (who are asked to pay a subscription), no research proposal was listed for any of them. Furthermore, no information was available about the OSSP team, and the Michigan address is simply a P.O. Box. This is quite similar to what Fred Beall calls "predatory open-access publishers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaamc (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Evolving usage

In 2017, the usage of "Open Research" and "Open Science" seems to be evolving away from the collaborative creation described in the lead and towards the data- and resource-sharing described as "Open Access". "Open Access" is in turn most often applied specifically to research publications rather than data. I suggest these definitions are updated. For example, usage in the Open_data page supports this suggestion, while also referring to this Open Research page as an example of the collaborative process. Mandrillware (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Rewrote lead and video caption

Hello all,

Recently I rewrote the video's caption and lead section of the article. I feel that there are too many articles on Wikipedia with the theme of 'Open-', but that is another story entirely. :) Anyway, I don't think it's perfect yet and would love to see what someone else could do with it, but I am done for now.

Also, I marked the edit as 'minor' when it was not, in fact, minor. Apologies - this is something for which I have been rebuked in the past.

Have a nice day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)