Almost everyone is enthusiastic that ‘open science’ is the wave of the future. Yet when one looks seriously at the flaws in modern science that the movement proposes to remedy, the prospect for improvement in at least four areas are unimpressive. This suggests that the agenda is effectively to re-engineer science along the lines of platform capitalism, under the misleading banner of opening up science to the masses.
BakerMPennyD (2016) Is there a reproducibility crisis?Nature533: 452–453.
4.
BanobiJBranchTARayH (2011) Do rebuttals affect future science?Ecosphere2(3): Article 37.
5.
BartoliADeLorenzoAMedvetEet al. (2016) Your paper has been accepted, rejected, or whatever: Automatic generation of scientific paper reviews. In: International conference on availability, reliability, and security, Salzburg, 31 August–2 September 2016, 19–28. Cham: Springer.
6.
BrownW (2015) Undoing the Demos. New York: Zone Books.
DastonL (1994) Historical epistemology. In: ChandlerJKDavidsonAIHarootunianHD (eds) Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 282–289.
12.
DeweyJ (1927) The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt.
13.
DeweyJ (1984) The Later Works, 1925–1953, volume 5. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
14.
DidierEGuaspare-CartronC (2018) The new watchdogs’ vision of science: A roundtable with Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) and Brandon Stell (PubPeer). Social Studies of Science48(1): 165–167.
EisenMVosshallLB (2016) Coupling pre-prints and post-publication peer review for fast, cheap, fair, and effective science publishing. Asapbio, 5February. Available at: http://asapbio.org/coupling-pppr (accessed 4 March 2018).
EnserinkM (2017) Science funders plunge into publishing. Science, 31March, 1357.
20.
FanelliD (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics90(3): 891–904.
21.
FanelliD (2013) Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine10(12): e1001563.
22.
FangFCCasadevallAMorrisonR (2011) Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity79(10): 3855–3859.
23.
FormanP (2007) The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology23(1–2): 1–152.
24.
FormanP (2012) On the historical forms of knowledge production and curation. Osiris27: 56–97.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere. American Sociological Review77: 167–187.
27.
GauchatG (2015) The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces94(2): 723–742.
GillespieT (2010) The politics of platforms. New Media & Society12(3): 347–364.
30.
GinspargP (2011) ArXiv at 20. Nature476(7359): 145–147.
31.
GrandAWilkinsonCBultitudeKet al. (2012) Open science: A new “trust technology”?Science Communication34(5): 679–689.
32.
HackingI (1992) ‘Style’ for historians and philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A23(1): 1–20.
33.
HallG (2016) The Uberfication of the University. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
HamariJKoivistoJSarsaH (2014) Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii international conference on system science, Waikoloa, HI, 6–9 January, 3025–3034. New York: IEEE.
35.
HammarfeltBde RijckeSRushforthA (2016) Quantified academic selves: The gamification of research through social networking services. Information Research21(2).
36.
HearnA (2016) A war over measure? Toward a political economy of research metrics. The Royal Society. Available at: https://youtu.be/srN1cFQAu6c (accessed 8 March 2018).
37.
HelmondA (2015) The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–11.
38.
HeymanTMoorsPStormsG (2016) On the cost of knowledge: Evaluating the boycott against Elsevier. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics1(7). DOI: 10.3389/frma.2016.00007.
HuebnerBKuklaRWinsbergE (2017) Making an author in radically collaborative research. In: BoyerTMayo-WilsonCWeisbergM (eds) Scientific Collaboration and Collective Knowledge: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–116.
41.
HunickeRLeBlancMZubekR (2004) MDA: A formal approach to game design. In: Proceedings of the AAAI workshop on challenges in game AI, Palo Alto, CA. Available at: https://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
42.
IoannidisJ (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine2(8): e124.
43.
IoannidisJ (2014) How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine11(10): e1001747.
LaveR (2012) Neoliberalism and the production of environmental knowledge. Environment and Society3(1): 19–38.
50.
LaveRMirowskiPRandallsS (2010) Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science40(5): 659–675.
51.
LehrerJ (2010) The truth wears off. The New Yorker, 13December, 52–57.
52.
LeonelliS (2016) Data-Centric Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53.
LeonelliSSpichtingerDPrainsackB (2015) Sticks and carrots: Encouraging open science at its source. Geo2(1): 12–16.
54.
LinT (2012) Cracking open the scientific process. The New York Times, 16January.
55.
MarcusAOranskyI (2014) What studies of retraction tell us. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education15(2): 151–154.
56.
MaurerS (2007) Open source drug discovery: Finding a niche (or maybe several). UMKC Law Review76: 405–435.
57.
MirowskiP (2004a) The Effortless Economy of Science?Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
58.
MirowskiP (2004b) The scientific dimensions of social knowledge and their distant echoes in 20th century American philosophy of science. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A35(2): 283–326.
59.
MirowskiP (2011) Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
MirowskiP (2013) Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso Books.
61.
MirowskiP (2018) Hell is truth seen too late. Zilsel13(3).
62.
ModyC (2011) Climbing the hill: Seeing (and not seeing) epochal breaks from multiple vantage points. In: NordmannARadderHSchiemannG (eds) Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 54–65.
63.
MullardA (2017) 2016 FDA drug approvals. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery16(2): 73–76.
64.
NewfieldC (2013) Corporate open source. Radical Philosophy181: 6–11.
65.
NielsenM (2012) Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
OdlyzkoA (2015) Open access, library and publisher competition, and the evolution of general commerce. Evaluation Review39: 130–163.
67.
OECD (2015) Making open science a reality. Science, Technology and Industry Policy paper no. 25, 15October. Paris: OECD.
68.
OranskyIMarcusA (2016) The integrity of science II: Two cheers for the retraction boom. The New Atlantis49: 41–45.
69.
OreskesNConwayE (2011) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.
70.
PasqualeF (2016) Two narratives of platform capitalism. Yale Law and Policy Review35: 309–319.
PlantinJ-CLagozeCEdwardsPet al. (2018) Infrastructure Studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society20(1): 293–310.
75.
PrinzFSchlangeTAsadullahK (2011) Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?Nature Reviews Drug Discovery10: 712.
ReichmanMSimpsonPB (2016) Open innovation in early drug discovery: Roadmaps and roadblocks. Drug Discovery Today21(5): 779–788.
78.
RitsonS (2016) Crackpots and active researchers: The controversy over links between arXiv and the blogosphere. Social Studies of Science46(4): 607–628.
79.
RobertsonMNYliojaPMWilliamsonAEet al. (2014) Open source drug discovery – A limited tutorial. Parasitology141(1): 148–157.
StrasserBEdwardsP (2015) Open Access, Publishing, Commerce and Scientific Ethos: Report to the Swiss Science and Innovation Council. Bern: Swiss Science and Innovation Council.
89.
SudhofT (2016) Truth in science publishing. PLoS Biology14(8): e1002547.
90.
TraskVLawrenceR (2016) Towards an open science publishing platform. F1000 Research5: 130.
91.
TyfieldD (2013) Transition to Science 2.0: Remoralizing the economy of science. Spontaneous Generations7: 29–48.
92.
TyfieldDLaveRRandallsSet al. (eds) (2017) The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. London: Routledge.
93.
Van NoordenR (2017) Web of Science owner buys up booming peer-review platform. Nature. Epub ahead of print 1June. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2017.22094.
94.
VuorikariRPunieY (eds) (2015) Analysis of Emerging Reputation and Funding Mechanisms in the Context of Open Science 2.0. Luxembourg: European Union.
95.
WalzSDeterdingS (2015) The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
96.
WeinbergerD (2012) Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
97.
WestbrookRB (1991) John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
98.
WinsbergEHuebnerBKuklaR (2014) Accountability and values in radically collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A46: 16–23.
99.
WrightBBoettingerS (2006) Open source in biotechnology: Open questions. Innovations, Technology, Governance, Globalization1(4): 43–55.
