{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1", "title": "chem-bla-ics", "description": "Chemblaics (pronounced chem-bla-ics) is the science that uses open science and computers to solve problems in chemistry, biochemistry and related fields.", "home_page_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/", "feed_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2019/04/07/history-of-term-open-science-1-early.json", "icon": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/assets/images/chem-bla-ics_logo.png", "language": "en", "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286", "_orcid": "0000-0001-7542-0286" } ], "items": [ { "id": "https://doi.org/10.59350/8kxrz-48p64", "url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2019/04/07/history-of-term-open-science-1-early.html", "title": "History of the term Open Science #1: the early days", "content_html": "

\n
\nScreenshot of the Open Science History group on CiteULike.\n

\n\n

Open Science has been around for some time. Before Copyright became a thing, knowledge dissemination was mostly limited by\nhow easy you could get knowledge from one place to another. The introduction of Copyright changed this. No longer the question was\nhow to get people to know the new knowledge to how to get people to pay for new knowledge. One misconception, for example,\nis that publishing is a free market. Yes, you can argue that you can publish anywhere you like (theoretically, at least, but\nreality says otherwise), but the monopoly is in getting access: for every new fact (and republishing the same fact is a faux\npas), there is exactly one provider of that fact.

\n\n

Slowly this is changing, but only slowly. What this really needs, is open licenses, just like open source licenses. Licenses that\nallow fixing typos, allow resharing with your students, etc.

\n\n

But contrary to what has been prevalent in the Plan S discussion, these\nideas are not new. And people have been trying Open Science for more than two decades already.

\n\n

I have been trying to dig up the oldest references (ongoing effort) of the term Open Science (in the current meaning), and\nhad a CiteULike group for that.\nBut CiteULike is shutting down, so I will blog the references I found, and add some context.

\n\n

A first article to mention is this 1998 article that mentions Open Science: Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of\n“Open Science” Institutions The American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2. (May 1998),\npp. 15-21 by Paul A. David. Worth reading, but does require reading some of the cited literature.

\n\n

The follow two magazine articles took the term Open Science to a wider public, and in reply to a conference held at\nBrookhaven National Laboratory:

\n\n\n\n

I would also like to note that the openscience.org website by\nDan Gezelter went online in the late nineties already, which I have\nused in various of my source code projects, and, of course, also has been used by the\nChemistry Development Kit from the start.

", "summary": "Screenshot of the Open Science History group on CiteULike.", "image": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/assets/images/Screenshot_20190407_144507.png", "date_published": "2019-04-07T00:00:00+00:00", "date_modified": "2019-04-07T00:00:00+00:00", "tags": ["citeulike","opensource","openscience"], "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286" } ] } ] }