Drawing on multiple sources of qualitative data, I describe a case of open science infrastructure (OSI) abuse. The case illustrates how developers navigated scholarly value tensions and issues of epistemic and platform legitimacy while battling spam on their open science webapp. Notably, their struggle used precious financial resources and drew attention away from other development tasks like feature expansion. This research makes evident that not only is OSI abuse like spam a financial burden, but it puts scholarly information security—specifically, the legitimacy of open science content—at risk. However, protecting against such abuse is not a trivial matter; it raises questions of who is responsible for defining and enforcing scholarly values. The urgency of this issue is magnified by OSI’s relationship to public trust in science.
AdamsABlandfordA (2003) Security and online learning: to protect or prohibit. In: GhaouiC (ed.) Usability Evaluation of Online Learning Programs. London: IDEA Publishing, pp. 331–359.
2.
AdimoeljaAAthreyaA (2022) Reducing barriers to open science by standardizing practices and realigning incentives. Journal of Science Policy & Governance21(2).
3.
AndersonMS (2008) Scientific integrity: maintaining the legitimacy of the research enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 4th international Barcelona conference on higher education, Vol 1, Barcelona, Spain, 31 March – 2 April 2008. Barcelona: Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI).
4.
AndersonMSMartinsonBCDe VriesR (2007) Normative dissonance in science: results from a national survey of U.S. scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal2(4): 3–14.
BongiovanniI (2019) The least secure places in the universe? A systematic literature review on information security management in higher education. Computers & Security86: 350–357.
11.
BorgmanCL (2007) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ChawingaWDZinnS (2019) Global Perspectives of research data sharing: a systematic literature review. Library & Information Science Research41(2): 109–122.
16.
ChenFZhouJHolzingerA, et al. (2023) Artificial Intelligence ethics and trust: from principles to practice. IEEE Intelligent Systems38(6): 5–8.
17.
CohoonJ (2022) Negotiating Open Science: Studying the OSF as a Technology-in-Practice. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VQ8PJ.
18.
CohoonJHowisonJ (2018) Routes to sustainable software: transitioning to peer production. Academy of Management Proceedings2018(1): 12182.
19.
CohoonJHowisonJ (2021) Norms and open systems in open science. Information & Culture56(2): 115–137.
20.
ColglazierEW (2023) The precarious balance between research openness and security. Issues in Science and Technology39(3): 87–91.
21.
DadkhahMBorchardtGMaliszewskiT (2017) Fraud in academic publishing: researchers under cyber-attacks. The American Journal of Medicine130(1): 27–30.
22.
DavidPA (2008) The historical origins of ‘Open Science’: an essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society3(2): 5.
23.
DavisJNathanL (2015) Value sensitive design: applications, adaptations, and critiques. In: van den HovenJVermaasPvan de PoelI (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 11–40.
24.
European Organization For Nuclear Research and OpenAIRE (2013) Zenodo. Available at: https://www.zenodo.org/
25.
FleischmannKRWallaceWAGrimesJM (2011) How values can reduce conflicts in the design process: results from a multi-site mixed-method field study. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology48(1): 1–10.
GeigerRSHowardDIraniL (2021) The labor of maintaining and scaling free and open-source software projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW1): 1–28.
28.
GiddensA (1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
30.
HaleviGWalshS (2021) Faculty attitudes towards article processing charges for open access articles. Publishing Research Quarterly37(3): 384–398.
31.
HeeksRMathisenH (2012) Understanding success and failure of anti-corruption initiatives. Crime, Law and Social Change58(5): 533–549.
32.
HeyTTrefethenAE (2005) Cyberinfrastructure for e-Science. Science308(5723): 817–821.
33.
HollawayMJDeanGBlairGS, et al. (2020) Tackling the challenges of 21st-century open science and beyond: a data science lab approach. Patterns1(7): 100103.
34.
HowisonJHerbslebJD (2013) Incentives and integration in scientific software production. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’13), San Antonio, TX, pp. 459–470. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
JohnLKLoewensteinGPrelecD (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science23(5): 524–532.
37.
KallebergR (2007) A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology7(2): 137–160.
KharaschEDAvramMJClarkJD, et al. (2021) Peer review matters: research quality and the public trust. Anesthesiology134(1): 1–6.
40.
KjellbergSHaiderJ (2019) Researchers’ online visibility: tensions of visibility, trust and reputation. Online Information Review43(3): 426–439.
41.
LiuC-WHuangPLucasH (2017) IT centralization, security outsourcing, and cybersecurity breaches: evidence from the U.S. higher education. In: ICIS 2017 proceedings, Seoul, South Korea, 10-13 December 2017.
42.
ManleyS (2019) Predatory journals on trial: allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. Journal of Scholarly Publishing50(3): 183–200.
43.
MertonRK (1942) Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1: 115–126.
44.
MeyerETSchroederR (2015) Knowledge Machines: Digital Transformations of the Sciences and Humanities (eds. BowkerGCEdwardsPN). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25116
NelsonJ (2017) Using conceptual depth criteria: addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research17(5): 554–570.
48.
NilsenJDonovanJFarisR (2022) Cloaked science: the Yan reports. Information, Communication & Society25(5): 598–608.
NosekBASpiesJRMotylM (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 615–631.
51.
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science349(6251): aac4716.
52.
OrlikowskiWJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science11(4): 404–428.
PaneroPIoannidisAGonzalez LopezJB (2021) Spam detection using neural networks. Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/4773365 (accessed 15 November 2021).
55.
PeekhausW (2021) A cohort study of how faculty in LIS schools perceive and engage with open-access publishing. Journal of Information Science47: 16–28.
RokeachM (1968) A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues24(1): 13–33.
62.
RosmanTBosnjakMSilberH, et al. (2022) Open science and public trust in science: results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science31(8): 1046–1062.
63.
RussellALVinselL (2018) After innovation, turn to maintenance. Technology and Culture59(1): 1–25.
64.
SchiltzM (2018) Science without publication paywalls a preamble to: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access. PLoS Biol16(9): e3000031.
65.
SchlagweinDConboyKFellerJ, et al. (2017) “Openness” with and without information technology: a framework and a brief history. Journal of Information Technology32(4): 297–305.
66.
SchneiderJRosmanTKelavaA, et al. (2020) (Re)building trust? Journals’ open science badges influence trust in scientists. PsychArchives. Epub ahead of print 27 August. DOI: 10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.3364.
67.
SchwartzSH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?Journal of Social Issues50(4): 19–45.
68.
ShapinS (2011) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
69.
ShiltonK (2013) Values levers: building ethics into design. Science, Technology, & Human Values38(3): 374–397.
70.
ShiltonK (2018) Engaging values despite neutrality: challenges and approaches to values reflection during the design of internet infrastructure. Science, Technology, & Human Values43(2): 247–269.
71.
SimmonsJPNelsonLDSimonsohnU (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science22(11): 1359–1366.
72.
SoderbergCKErringtonTMNosekBA (2020) Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers. Royal Society Open Science7(10): 201520.
73.
SpiesJR (2013) The Open Science Framework. Charlottesville, VA: The University of Virginia. Available at: https://osf.io/5ezrw
74.
StarSL (1995) Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
75.
StarSLRuhlederK (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research7(1): 111–134.
76.
StehrN (2018) The ethos of science revisited: social and cognitive norms. In: AdolfMT (ed.) Nico Stehr: Pioneer in the Theory of Society and Knowledge. Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–133.
77.
SzkutaKOsimoD (2016) Rebooting science? Implications of science 2.0 main trends for scientific method and research institutions. Foresight18(3): 204–223.
78.
TaddeoM (2010) Modelling trust in artificial agents, a first step toward the analysis of e-trust. Minds and Machines20(2): 243–257.
79.
Teixeira da SilvaJAAl-KhatibATsigarisP (2020) Spam emails in academia: issues and costs. Scientometrics122(2): 1171–1188.
80.
TenopirCAllardSDouglassK, et al. (2011) Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE6(6): e21101.
81.
TenopirCLevineKAllardS, et al. (2016) Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: results of an international questionnaire. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(10): 2344–2361.
82.
TenopirCRiceNMAllardS, et al. (2020) Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide. PLOS ONE15(3): e0229003.
83.
ThorntonLKnowlesBBlairG (2021) Fifty shades of grey: in praise of a nuanced approach towards trustworthy design. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, Virtual Event, 3March, pp. 64–76. New York: ACM.
84.
UlvenJBWangenG (2021) A systematic review of cybersecurity risks in higher education. Future Internet13(2): 39.
85.
Van HouseN (2004) Science and technology studies and information studies. In: CroninB (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science and Technology, pp. 1–86.
86.
WaltersDDaleyC (2018) Enhancing institutional publication data using emergent open science services. Publications6(2): 23.
87.
WardleC (2023) Misunderstanding misinformation. Issues in Science and Technology39(3): 38–40.
88.
WillinskyJ (2005) The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday10(8).
89.
WingenTBerkesselJBSimoneD (2022) Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow nonscientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science5(1): 1–15.
Zenodo—Research Shared (n.d.) About Zenodo. Available at: https://about.zenodo.org/ (accessed 24 February 2024).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
