Open or Perish
The research assessment is traditionally based on the evaluation of criteria such as the number of peer-reviewed publications, impact factor, and number or amount of grant funding. Unfortunately, this approach has been proved to deeply influenced the way of conducting research that focus on quantity rather then quality and not . To maximize the impact of research as a practical mean to address societal challenges, a new approach, named Open Science, has been endorsed worldwide by major funding agencies over the last decade as the new research pathway. Quality and impact, collaboration and sharing, diversity and equity, transparency and efficiency has become the new paradigms to be pursued.
To foster the adoption of the Open Science funding agencies are acting on two fronts: on one hand, by influencing policies and requiring the adoption of open science practices as a condition for funding access (Open Access, Open Data and Citizen Science), and on the other hand, by focusing on incentives and exploring new methods for evaluating scientific results.
It is clear that in the near future, the current “publish or perish” aphorism is shifting towards “open or perish” to describe the required work to succeed in an academic career. But how should a modern researcher act and comply with this new paradigm? It essential for her/him to understand the best practices that guarantee the recognition of her/his achievements by connecting the researcher, the publications, the software and the data. In this talk, an introduction of these best practices is addressed with the aim of sustain the Open Science adoption with particular reference to Open Software. Finally, new possible approaches envisioned for the evaluation of project proposals, career advancements and institutions assessment are presented and discussed.