Merge pull request #20 from OpenScienceMOOC/johav-patch-3-1

Update MAIN.md

Author: Protohedgehog

content_development/MAIN.md

@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ Still today (2018), most research papers remain locked behind expensive paywalls
 
 Open Science is about changing these research practices through a cultural/paradigm shift. This shift in research culture is often referred to as the [**Scholarly Commons**](https://www.force11.org/group/scholarly-commons-working-group), which seeks to explore and redefine what a modern scholarly communication ecosystem should look like.
 
-Accomplishing a cultural shift on a global scale is **NOT EASY**. Fundamentally, it is usually mainly done through the spread of shared cultural norms and values that are interpreted and celebrated in hundreds of local institutions: in your department, school, laboratory, university, professional association, publishing effort, open software platform developer company, or funding agency. It is a complex, multi-dimensional paradigm to comprehend. Each of these organizations fits itself into the cultural practices that members decide will work best for them to become active in performing the cultural work of Open Science. Culture change *must* start from the ground up. Open Science principles illuminate this ground.
+Accomplishing a cultural shift on a global scale is far from easy. Fundamentally, it is usually mainly done through the spread of shared cultural norms and values that are interpreted and celebrated in hundreds of local institutions: in your department, school, laboratory, university, professional association, publishing effort, open software platform developer company, or funding agency. It is a complex, multi-dimensional paradigm to comprehend. Each of these organizations fits itself into the cultural practices that members decide will work best for them to become active in performing the cultural work of Open Science. Culture change *must* start from the ground up. Open Science principles illuminate this ground.
 
 The power of modern Web technologies enables instantaneous sharing and global collaboration in an unrestricted fashion. The digital era is transforming the way in which research is performed, and the limitations on distribution of the print era are largely gone (at least in theory). With this, new issues arise including the complexities of knowledge capture and communication. The framing of these complexities as a 'Commons' integrates the political, social, economic, and philosophical dimensions around knowledge generation and sharing.
 
@@ -202,11 +202,11 @@ Although difficult to pin down exactly, the origins of what many call the modern
 
 The term "Open Science" itself appears to have been coined by [Steve Mann in 1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science#Coining_of_phrase_%22OpenScience%22). Today's "Open Science movement" though probably dates back about 30-40 years, and takes inspiration both from the history of "open source" and the "free software movement" [(Kelty 2008)](https://www.twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf) and the ideas developed for research collaboration in the context of "e-science". At a first glance these approaches refer mainly to the technological dimension of opening up science by creating necessary tools and infrastructures. Opening up science often takes the form of a technological liberation and change of techniques in respective discourses. However, keeping in mind that science and technology "are politics by other means" (Bruno Latour, 1978) - offering other means of power - it is vital to turn to the embedded politics of Open Science and its precursors.
 
-In the last two decades, there has been an explosive growth in the development of different aspects of scholarly infrastructure - the core, underpinning aspects of a well-functioning research machine. Much of this is a blend of non-profit and commercial services, which are now variably integrated, but has created a strange and complex new system of ways to perform and communicate research. It is difficult to here to cast judgement on 'for-profit' versus 'not-for-profit' entities with respect to openness in a simple binary way. For example, for-profit entities like [Publons](https://publons.com/) and [Figshare](https://figshare.com/) were important in catalysing changes in crediting peer review and Open Data respectively; while not-for-profits like the [American Chemical Society](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/open-access-to-science-un/) have actively lobbied against progressive changes around Open Science.
+In the last two decades, there has been an explosive growth in the development of different aspects of scholarly infrastructure - the core, underpinning aspects of a well-functioning research machine. Much of this is a blend of non-profit and commercial services, which are now variably integrated, but has created a strange and complex new system of ways to perform and communicate research. It is difficult to cast judgement on 'for-profit' versus 'not-for-profit' entities with respect to openness in a simple binary way. For example, for-profit entities like [Publons](https://publons.com/) and [Figshare](https://figshare.com/) were important in catalysing changes in crediting peer review and Open Data respectively; while not-for-profits like the [American Chemical Society](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/open-access-to-science-un/) have actively lobbied against progressive changes around Open Science.
 
 From this, what might (hopefully) be becoming a little more clear is that Open Science is about systemic change. It challenges the way research is conducted, at a practical and cultural level, the way it is evaluated, and the ways in which scientific knowledge is disseminated and integrated into the functioning of society. Much of this is ingrained into research culture through self-reinforcing local governance systems, which are often imposed through external capitalist pressure. For example, the '*publish or perish*' mantra is a direct consequence of these pressures, which in turn are linked to the evolving [neoliberal agenda](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/neoliberalism-and-higher-education/) imposed by modern research institutes.
 
-So now, if this makes sense to you, it might seem like Open Science is in almost direct conflict with a capitalistic culture. This conflict is not new to science. In the 1940s, famed sociologist Robert Merton articulated some of the results of his sociology of science research as a set of four norms: principles that described the underlying ethos of science. Each of these norms is sharply divergent to how a free marketplace operates. You can read about the norms [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms). One of Merton's norms was "communism," (this is sometimes re-worded as "communalism"):
+If the above makes sense to you, it might seem like Open Science is in almost direct conflict with a capitalistic culture. This conflict is not new to science. In the 1940s, famed sociologist Robert Merton articulated some of the results of his sociology of science research as a set of four norms: principles that described the underlying ethos of science. Each of these norms is sharply divergent to how a free marketplace operates. You can read about the norms [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms). One of Merton's norms was "communism," (this is sometimes re-worded as "communalism"):
 
 > "'Communism,' in the nontechnical and extended sense of common ownership of goods, is a second integral element of the scientific ethos. The substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and are assigned to the community. They constitute a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer is severely limited." - Originally published as “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order,” *Journal of Legal and Political Sociology*, and then later published as “Science and Democratic Social Structure,” in Robert K. Merton, [*Social Theory and Social Structure*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Theory_and_Social_Structure). A link to a summary version can be found [here](https://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf).
 
@@ -216,25 +216,25 @@ The other three [norms](https://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2008/01/29/bas
 * Disinterestedness: That researchers are in this for more than just personal gain; and
 * Organised skepticism: That anyone can potentially advance knowledge claims.
 
-It is good to remember that Open Science principles re-articulate science norms that were historically considered to be integral to research itself. Open Science reaffirms the right of the community to access the substantive findings of research. As the findings of research belong to the entire community, any attempt by individuals or corporations to capture these for profit is a practice based on a notion of equity that is foreign to, and contrary to, how research is meant to operate.
+It is important to remember that Open Science principles re-articulate science norms that were historically considered to be integral to research itself. Open Science reaffirms the right of the community to access the substantive findings of research. As the findings of research belong to the entire community, any attempt by individuals or corporations to capture these for profit is a practice based on a notion of equity that is foreign to, and contrary to, how research is meant to operate.
 
-Open Science really hit the mainstream around 2016 due to a number of possible reasons. A combination of political activity and grassroots community-led initiatives put it firmly on the map, and now everywhere you go in science, openness is all around in one way or another.
+Open Science hit the mainstream around 2016 when a combination of political activity and grassroots community-led initiatives put it firmly on the map. Ever since, openness is being heard all around the research community in one way or another.
 
-The production of research knowledge is inherently geopolitical, as emphasised by [The Knowledge Gap](http://knowledgegap.org/). There are strange forces at play that influence representation, mechanisms of distribution, dimensions of power, and structural inequalities throughout the global scholarly communication system. These all contribute towards a complex, and fragmented, global Open Science landscape.
+The production of research knowledge is inherently geopolitical, as emphasised by [The Knowledge Gap](http://knowledgegap.org/). There are forces at play that influence representation, mechanisms of distribution, dimensions of power, and structural inequalities throughout the global scholarly communication system. These all contribute towards a complex, controversial and fragmented, global Open Science landscape.
 
 > To see Open Science as a historically produced discourse, we need to first abandon the notion that openness is always inherently positive and/or neutral. We then need to revise and contextualize openness within their particular historical legacies, contexts and and sociopolitical struggles. Denisse Albornoz [(Source)](https://medium.com/@denalbz/power-and-inequality-in-open-science-discourses-9d425b0c2b63).
 
-For example, there has been a strong focus on Open Science in the last few years in Europe, with one of the biggest developments coming from this being the [European Open Science Cloud](http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-cloud) (EOSC). Outside of Europe, there have been strong recent developments across Africa (with the [African Open Science Platform](http://africanopenscience.org.za/)) and [Indonesia](https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=3105) too. In October 2018, a large group of individuals and organisations across Latin America signed the [Open Science Panama Declaration](http://openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/open-scicence-panama-declaration-latin-america-going-beyond-open), emphasising that Open Science really has spread across the global research landscape. Through all of this, researchers and those engaged with the wider Open Science community must make sure to be aware of the geopolitical dimensions around Open Science and knowledge production.
+For example, there has been a strong focus on Open Science in the last few years in Europe, with one of the biggest developments coming from this being the [European Open Science Cloud](http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-cloud) (EOSC). Outside of Europe, there have been strong recent developments across Africa (with the [African Open Science Platform](http://africanopenscience.org.za/)) and Asia with an example from [Indonesia](https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=3105) too. In October 2018, a large group of individuals and organisations across Latin America signed the [Open Science Panama Declaration](http://openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/open-scicence-panama-declaration-latin-america-going-beyond-open), emphasising that Open Science has spread across the global research landscape. Through all of this, researchers and those engaged with the wider Open Science community must make sure to be aware of the geopolitical dimensions around Open Science and knowledge production.
 
 <br/>
 
 ### Differences in understanding and interpretation <a name="interpretation"></a>
 
-As mentioned above, there does not seem to be a single accepted definition of what Open Science is. Ask one person, and they will tell you it is about making datasets and research papers public. Ask another, and they will tell you about a vision for a 'radical' transformation of scholarship, where all processes and outputs are instantaneously public. The extent to which different communities and disciplines have embraced and adopted Open Science practices is extremely variable. However, what is clear is that 'Open Science' in one form or another is taking off across the entire research domain, from Arts, Humanities, and [Social Sciences](https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-1-Open-Principles/blob/master/Reading%20Material_Open%20Principles/Miguel%20et%20al.%2C%202014.pdf) through to Maths, Engineering, and Physical Sciences.
+As mentioned above, there does not seem to be a single accepted definition of what Open Science is. Ask one person, and they will tell you it is about making datasets and research papers public. Ask another, and they will tell you about a vision for a 'radical' transformation of scholarship, where all processes and outputs are instantaneously public. The extent to which different communities and disciplines have embraced and adopted Open Science practices is extremely variable. However, what is clear is that 'Open Science' in one form or another is taking off across the entire research domain, from Arts, Humanities, and [Social Sciences](https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-1-Open-Principles/blob/master/Reading%20Material_Open%20Principles/Miguel%20et%20al.%2C%202014.pdf) through to Maths, Engineering, Biomedical and Physical Sciences.
 
 There are two possible ways too look at this. First, some might argue that the power of a definition lies in its precision, and helps to avoid distortion of those definitions - what some might, in this case, call "open washing". Second, flexibility in the definition, and its understanding and interpretation, lead to increased familiarity with a concept as a ['boundary object'](https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/3220). For the latter, and for Open Science, this means that while it might be interpreted differently across different communities with a variety of norms and practices, the foundational understanding that Open Science is good for public access to knowledge is universally accepted.
 
-There are also [geopolitical](https://medium.com/@denalbz/power-and-inequality-in-open-science-discourses-9d425b0c2b63) differences that shape our understanding of Open Science. For example, in Europe, and much of the industrial world, Open Science often has an inherently market-oriented language that promotes economic value, productivity, and competition, above all other factors. However, for many of those in the 'global south', Open Science is more about fostering community-building through knowledge sharing, and nurturing social networks around new technologies and infrastructures.
+There are also [geopolitical](https://medium.com/@denalbz/power-and-inequality-in-open-science-discourses-9d425b0c2b63) differences that shape our understanding of Open Science. For example, in Europe, and much of the industrial world, Open Science often has an inherently market-oriented language that promotes economic value, productivity, and competition, above all other factors. However, for many of those in the 'global south', Open Science appears to be more about fostering community-building through knowledge sharing, and nurturing social networks around new technologies and infrastructures.
 
 <br/>
 
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ The most comprehensive overview of how Open Science impacts you comes from [McKi
 The world of research evaluation is slowly changing. The way in researchers and their research is assessed governs virtually everything, as this defines the motivation and incentives behind certain behaviours. Typically, the venue of publication (i.e., the journal and its impact factor) have been considered to be of critical importance in research(er) assessment. However, in the last 5 years there has been a surge in uprising against this practice. As [Stephen Curry noted in 2012](http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/):
 
 > So consider all that we know of impact factors and think on this: if you use impact factors you are statistically illiterate.
-* If you include journal impact factors in the list of publications in your cv, you are statistically illiterate.
+* If you include journal impact factors in the list of publications in your CV, you are statistically illiterate.
 * If you are judging grant or promotion applications and find yourself scanning the applicant’s publications, checking off the impact factors, you are statistically illiterate.
 * If you publish a journal that trumpets its impact factor in adverts or emails, you are statistically illiterate. (If you trumpet that impact factor to three decimal places, there is little hope for you.)
 * If you see someone else using impact factors and make no attempt at correction, you connive at statistical illiteracy.