*READ**THIS*!! Spam as a threat for open science

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Information security infrastructure misinformation open science scholarly communications spam values

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Blandford

(2003) Security and online learning: to protect or prohibit. In: Ghaoui

(ed.) Usability Evaluation of Online Learning Programs. London: IDEA Publishing, pp. 331–359.

Adimoelja

Athreya

(2022) Reducing barriers to open science by standardizing practices and realigning incentives. Journal of Science Policy & Governance 21(2).

Anderson

(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).

Anderson

Martinson

De Vries

(2007) Normative dissonance in science: results from a national survey of U.S. scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal 2(4): 3–14.

Bartling

Friesike

(eds) (2014) Opening Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8 (accessed 3 November 2016).

Beall

(2012) Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489(7415): 179.

Bechhofer

Buchan

De Roure

, et al. (2013) Why linked data is not enough for scientists. Future Generation Computer Systems 29(2): 599–611.

Besancon

Bik

Heathers

, et al. (2022) Correction of scientific literature: too little, too late! PLOS Biology 20(3): e3001572.

Bietz

Baumer

EPS

Lee

(2010) Synergizing in cyberinfrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 19: 245–281.

10.

Bongiovanni

(2019) The least secure places in the universe? A systematic literature review on information security management in higher education. Computers & Security 86: 350–357.

11.

Borgman

(2007) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Center for Open Science (2016) COS: Strategic Plan (v2.0). Center for Open Science. Available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sqz3appQ73vqa6fP1Gy8KK8HZpotoSGaiJC1XQuvREI (accessed 10 September 2020).

13.

Chapman

(2019) How Safe Is Your Data? Cyber-Security in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Policy-Note-12-Paper-April-2019-How-safe-is-your-data.pdf

14.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Chawinga

Zinn

(2019) Global Perspectives of research data sharing: a systematic literature review. Library & Information Science Research 41(2): 109–122.

16.

Chen

Zhou

Holzinger

, et al. (2023) Artificial Intelligence ethics and trust: from principles to practice. IEEE Intelligent Systems 38(6): 5–8.

17.

Cohoon

(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.

Cohoon

Howison

(2018) Routes to sustainable software: transitioning to peer production. Academy of Management Proceedings 2018(1): 12182.

19.

Cohoon

Howison

(2021) Norms and open systems in open science. Information & Culture 56(2): 115–137.

20.

Colglazier

(2023) The precarious balance between research openness and security. Issues in Science and Technology 39(3): 87–91.

21.

Dadkhah

Borchardt

Maliszewski

(2017) Fraud in academic publishing: researchers under cyber-attacks. The American Journal of Medicine 130(1): 27–30.

22.

David

(2008) The historical origins of ‘Open Science’: an essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society 3(2): 5.

23.

Davis

Nathan

(2015) Value sensitive design: applications, adaptations, and critiques. In: van den Hoven

Vermaas

van de Poel

(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.

Fleischmann

Wallace

Grimes

(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 Technology 48(1): 1–10.

26.

Foster

(2004) Insecure and unaware. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 May. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/insecure-and-unaware/

27.

Geiger

Howard

Irani

(2021) The labor of maintaining and scaling free and open-source software projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW1): 1–28.

28.

Giddens

(1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

29.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

30.

Halevi

Walsh

(2021) Faculty attitudes towards article processing charges for open access articles. Publishing Research Quarterly 37(3): 384–398.

31.

Heeks

Mathisen

(2012) Understanding success and failure of anti-corruption initiatives. Crime, Law and Social Change 58(5): 533–549.

32.

Hey

Trefethen

(2005) Cyberinfrastructure for e-Science. Science 308(5723): 817–821.

33.

Hollaway

Dean

Blair

, et al. (2020) Tackling the challenges of 21st-century open science and beyond: a data science lab approach. Patterns 1(7): 100103.

34.

Howison

Herbsleb

(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.

35.

Hsu

Thompson

Myers

(2024) Elections and disinformation are colliding like never before in 2024. The New York Times, 9 January. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/business/media/election-disinformation-2024.html (accessed 25 February 2024).

36.

John

Loewenstein

Prelec

(2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23(5): 524–532.

37.

Kalleberg

(2007) A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology 7(2): 137–160.

38.

Karasti

Baker

Millerand

(2010) Infrastructure time: long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 19(3–4): 377–415.

39.

Kharasch

Avram

Clark

, et al. (2021) Peer review matters: research quality and the public trust. Anesthesiology 134(1): 1–6.

40.

Kjellberg

Haider

(2019) Researchers’ online visibility: tensions of visibility, trust and reputation. Online Information Review 43(3): 426–439.

41.

Liu

C-W

Huang

Lucas

(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.

Manley

(2019) Predatory journals on trial: allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50(3): 183–200.

43.

Merton

(1942) Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.

44.

Meyer

Schroeder

(2015) Knowledge Machines: Digital Transformations of the Sciences and Humanities (eds. Bowker

Edwards

). 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

46.

Nelson

(2022) Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-access-Memo.pdf

47.

Nelson

(2017) Using conceptual depth criteria: addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 17(5): 554–570.

48.

Nilsen

Donovan

Faris

(2022) Cloaked science: the Yan reports. Information, Communication & Society 25(5): 598–608.

49.

Nosek

Bar-Anan

(2012) Scientific Utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23(3): 217–243.

50.

Nosek

Spies

Motyl

(2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6): 615–631.

51.

Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251): aac4716.

52.

Orlikowski

(2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11(4): 404–428.

53.

OSF Support (2024) Preprint moderation. Available at: https://help.osf.io/article/592-preprint-moderation (accessed 24 February 2024).

54.

Panero

Ioannidis

Gonzalez Lopez

(2021) Spam detection using neural networks. Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/4773365 (accessed 15 November 2021).

55.

Peekhaus

(2021) A cohort study of how faculty in LIS schools perceive and engage with open-access publishing. Journal of Information Science 47: 16–28.

56.

Pfeiffer

Staller

(2022) 500,000 OSF Users: Celebrating a Global Open Science Community. Center for Open Science. Available at: https://www.cos.io/blog/celebrating-a-global-open-science-community (accessed 25 February 2024).

57.

Pinfield

Cox

Smith

(2014) Research data management and libraries: relationships, activities, drivers and influences. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114734.

58.

Piwowar

Priem

Lariviere

, et al. (2018) The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ 6: e4375.

59.

Popper

(1963) Science as falsification. In: Schick

(ed.) Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, pp. 33–39.

60.

PLOS ONE (n.d.). Recommended repositories. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories (accessed 25 February 2024).

61.

Rokeach

(1968) A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues 24(1): 13–33.

62.

Rosman

Bosnjak

Silber

, et al. (2022) Open science and public trust in science: results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science 31(8): 1046–1062.

63.

Russell

Vinsel

(2018) After innovation, turn to maintenance. Technology and Culture 59(1): 1–25.

64.

Schiltz

(2018) Science without publication paywalls a preamble to: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access. PLoS Biol 16(9): e3000031.

65.

Schlagwein

Conboy

Feller

, et al. (2017) “Openness” with and without information technology: a framework and a brief history. Journal of Information Technology 32(4): 297–305.

66.

Schneider

Rosman

Kelava

, 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.

Schwartz

(1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 19–45.

68.

Shapin

(2011) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

69.

Shilton

(2013) Values levers: building ethics into design. Science, Technology, & Human Values 38(3): 374–397.

70.

Shilton

(2018) Engaging values despite neutrality: challenges and approaches to values reflection during the design of internet infrastructure. Science, Technology, & Human Values 43(2): 247–269.

71.

Simmons

Nelson

Simonsohn

(2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.

72.

Soderberg

Errington

Nosek

(2020) Credibility of preprints: an interdisciplinary survey of researchers. Royal Society Open Science 7(10): 201520.

73.

Spies

(2013) The Open Science Framework. Charlottesville, VA: The University of Virginia. Available at: https://osf.io/5ezrw

74.

Star

(1995) Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

75.

Star

Ruhleder

(1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research 7(1): 111–134.

76.

Stehr

(2018) The ethos of science revisited: social and cognitive norms. In: Adolf

(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.

Szkuta

Osimo

(2016) Rebooting science? Implications of science 2.0 main trends for scientific method and research institutions. Foresight 18(3): 204–223.

78.

Taddeo

(2010) Modelling trust in artificial agents, a first step toward the analysis of e-trust. Minds and Machines 20(2): 243–257.

79.

Teixeira da Silva

Al-Khatib

Tsigaris

(2020) Spam emails in academia: issues and costs. Scientometrics 122(2): 1171–1188.

80.

Tenopir

Allard

Douglass

, et al. (2011) Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21101.

81.

Tenopir

Levine

Allard

, 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 Technology 67(10): 2344–2361.

82.

Tenopir

Rice

Allard

, et al. (2020) Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide. PLOS ONE 15(3): e0229003.

83.

Thornton

Knowles

Blair

(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, 3 March, pp. 64–76. New York: ACM.

84.

Ulven

Wangen

(2021) A systematic review of cybersecurity risks in higher education. Future Internet 13(2): 39.

85.

Van House

(2004) Science and technology studies and information studies. In: Cronin

(ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science and Technology, pp. 1–86.

86.

Walters

Daley

(2018) Enhancing institutional publication data using emergent open science services. Publications 6(2): 23.

87.

Wardle

(2023) Misunderstanding misinformation. Issues in Science and Technology 39(3): 38–40.

88.

Willinsky

(2005) The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday 10(8).

89.

Wingen

Berkessel

Simone

(2022) Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow nonscientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 5(1): 1–15.

90.

Young

Lander

(2021) Multi-Agency Research and Development Priorities for the FY 2023 Budget. Executive Office of the President. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M-21-32-Multi-Agency-Research-and-Development-Prioirties-for-FY-2023-Budget-.pdf

91.

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB