Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values

References

• Allen, C., and D. M. A. Mehler. 2019. “Open Science Challenges, Benefits and Tips in Early Career and beyond.” PLoS Biology 17: 5. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• All European Academies (ALLEA), and European Science Foundation (ESF). 2011. “The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.” Accessed 25 January 2021. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Alperin, J. P., C. M. Nieves, L. Schimanski, G. E. Fischman, M. T. Niles, and E. C. McKiernan 2018. “How Significant are the Public Dimensions of Faculty Work in Review, Promotion, and Tenure Documents?” Humanities Commons [preprint]. https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:21015/
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S. 2000. “Normative Orientations of University Faculty and Doctoral Students.” Science and Engineering Ethics 6. doi:10.1007/s11948-000-0002-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S., E. A. Ronning, R. D. Vries, and B. C. Martinson. 2010. “Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists’ Subscription to Norms of Research.” The Journal of Higher Education 81 (3): 3. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechhofer, S., D. De Roure, M. Gamble, C. Goble, and I. Buchan. 2010. “Research Objects: Towards Exchange and Reuse of Digital Knowledge.” Nature Precedings 1. doi:10.1038/npre.2010.4626.1.
   Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y., and H. Nissenbaum. 2006. “Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue.” Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (4): 4. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biagioli, M., and A. Pottage. 2022 March 19. “Dark Transparency: Hyper-Ethics at Trump’s EPA.“ Los Angeles Review of Books. Accessed 27 May 2022.https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/dark-transparency-hyper-ethics-at-trumps-epa/
   Google Scholar
• Boland, M. R., K. J. Karczewski, and N. P. Tatonetti. 2017. “Ten Simple Rules to Enable multi-site Collaborations through Data Sharing.” PLoS Computational Biology 13 (1): e1005278. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo Academicus. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. D., and J. R. Keene. 2018. “A Layered Framework for considering Open Science Practices.” Communication Research Reports 35 (4): 4. doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer, T. 2014. “Is a Bird in the Hand Worth Two in the Bush? Or, Whether Scientists Should Publish Intermediate Results.” Synthese 191 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0242-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bravo, G., F. Grimaldo, E. López-Iñesta, B. Mehmani, and F. Squazzoni. 2019. “The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five Scholarly Journals.” Nature Communications 10 (1): 322. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brembs, B. 2018. “Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12: 37. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brembs, B., K. Button, and M. Munafò. 2013. “Deep Impact.” Unintended Consequences of Journal Rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 291. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright, L. K. 2021. “Why Do Scientists Lie?” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 89. doi:10.1017/S1358246121000102.
   Google Scholar
• Burgelman, J. C., C. Pascu, K. Szkuta, R. Von Schomberg, A. Karalopoulos, K. Repanas, and M. Schouppe. 2019. “Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century.” Frontiers in Big Data 2. doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00043.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caron, B. R. 2020. “Open Scientist Handbook.” Open Scientist Handbook. doi:10.21428/8bbb7f85.35a0e14b.
   Google Scholar
• Cetina, K. K. 1991. “Merton’s Sociology of Science: The First and the Last Sociology of Science?” Contemporary Sociology 20 (4): 4. doi:10.2307/2071782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, L., A. Touré, M. Mateus, I. Martin, M. Huang, and D. Albornoz. 2018. Framing Power: Tracing Key Discourses in Open Science Policies. Toronto: ELectronic PUBlishing.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. 2015. “From Open Science to Open Innovation.” Institute for Innovation and Knowledge Management, ESADE. Accessed 12 August 2021. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/sites/default/files/pdf/1798.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chubin, D. E. 1985. “Open Science and Closed Science: Tradeoffs in a Democracy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 10 (2): 73–80. doi:10.1177/016224398501000211.
   Google Scholar
• Cohoon, J., and J. Howison. 2021. “Norms and Open Systems in Open Science.” Information & Culture 56 (2): 2. doi:10.7560/IC56201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COPE Council. 2021. “COPE Discussion Document: Diversity and Inclusivity - English.” https://publicationethics.org/files/diversity-and-inclusivity-cope-discussion-document.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cousijn, H., G. Hendricks, and A. Meadows. 2021. “Why Openness Makes Research Infrastructure Resilient.” Learned Publishing 34 (1): 1. doi:10.1002/leap.1361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai, Q., E. Shin, and C. Smith (2018). “Open and Inclusive Collaboration in Science: A Framework. OECD Science.” Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2018/07. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/2dbff737-en.
   Google Scholar
• David, P. A. 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): 2. doi:10.2202/1932-0213.1040.
   Google Scholar
• Desmond, H. 2021. “Incentivizing Replication is Insufficient to Safeguard Default Trust.” Philosophy of Science 88 (5): 906–917. doi:10.1086/715657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deuze, M. 2006. “Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture.” The Information Society 22 (2): 63–75. doi:10.1080/01972240600567170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisen, M. B., A. Akhmanova, T. E. Behrens, D. M. Harper, D. Weigel, and M. Zaidi. 2020. “Implementing a “Publish, Then Review” Model of Publishing.” eLife 9: e64910. doi:10.7554/eLife.64910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgesem, D. 2003. “On the Parallel between the Norms of Science and the Norms of Cultures on the Internet.” In Applied Ethics in Internet Research, edited by M. Thorseth, 3–12. Trondheim: NTNU.
   Google Scholar
• Else, H. 2020. “How a Torrent of COVID Science Changed Research publishing–in Seven Charts.” Nature 588 (7839): 7839. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2021. “The EU’s Open Science Policy.” Accessed 18 July 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N., L. Brierley, G. Dey, J. K. Polka, M. Pálfy, F. Nanni, and J. A. Coates. 2021. “The Evolving Role of Preprints in the Dissemination of COVID-19 Research and Their Impact on the Science Communication Landscape.” PLoS Biology 19 (4): 4. e3000959. DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavaghan, D. 2018. “Problems with the Current Approach to the Dissemination of Computational Science Research and Its Implications for Research Integrity.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 80 (12): 12. doi:10.1007/s11538-018-0499-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grahe, J. E., K. Cuccolo, D. C. Leighton, and L. D. Cramblet Alvarez. 2019. “Open Science Promotes Diverse, Just, and Sustainable Research and Educational Outcomes.” Psychology Learning & Teaching 19 (1): 5–20. doi:10.1177/1475725719869164.
   Google Scholar
• Grand, A., R. Holliman, T. Collins, and A. Adams. 2016. “We Muddle Our Way Through: Shared and Distributed Expertise in Digital Engagement with Research.” Journal of Science Communication 15 (4): 4. doi:10.22323/2.15040205.
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, S., I. Ghiga, and S. Wooding. 2017. “What Do We Know about Grant Peer Review in the Health Sciences?” F1000Research, 6: 1335 10.12688/f1000research.11917.2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haklay, M. 2013. “Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation.” In Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice, edited by D. Sui, S. Elwood, and M. Goodchild, 105–122. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7.
   Google Scholar
• Halffman, W., and S. P. J. M. Horbach. 2020. “What are Innovations in Peer Review and Editorial Assessment For?” Genome Biology 21 (1): 87. doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02004-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallonsten, O. 2021. “On the Essential Role of Organized Skepticism in Science’s “Internal and Lawful autonomy”(Eigengesetzlichkeit).” Journal of Classical Sociology. doi:10.1177/1468795X211000247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haven, T., G. Gopalakrishna, J. Tijdink, D. van der Schot, and L. Bouter. 2022. “Promoting Trust in Research and Researchers: How Open Science and Research Integrity are Intertwined.” BMC Research Notes 15 (1): 302. doi:10.1186/s13104-022-06169-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hecker, S., M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, and A. Bonn. 2018. “Innovation in Open Science, Society and policy–setting the Agenda for Citizen Science.” In Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, edited by S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, and A. Bonn, 1–23. London: UCL Press. doi:10.14324/111.9781787352339.
   Google Scholar
• Heesen, R. 2017. “Communism and the Incentive to Share in Science.” Philosophy of Science 84 (4): 698–716. doi:10.1086/693875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heesen, R. 2018. “Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable.” The Journal of Philosophy 115 (12): 661–674. doi:10.5840/jphil20181151239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., and W. Halffman. 2018. “The Changing Forms and Expectations of Peer Review.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 3 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., and W. Halffman. 2019. “Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Minerva.” Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation 10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z.
   Google Scholar
• Hosseini, M., and B. Gordijn. 2020. “A Review of the Literature on Ethical Issues Related to Scientific Authorship.” Accountability in Research 27 (5): 284–324. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1750957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseini, M., J. Lewis, H. Zwart, and B. Gordijn. 2022. “An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors per Publication.” Science and Engineering Ethics 28 (3): 25. doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2004. The Idiom of co-production. States of Knowledge: The co-production of Science and Social Order, 1–12. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S. Y., and Y. Kim. 2018. “The Ethos of Science and Its Correlates: An Empirical Analysis of Scientists.” Endorsement of Mertonian Norms. Science, Technology and Society 23 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1177/0971721817744438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolev, J., Y. Fuentes-Medel, and F. Murray. 2019. “Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Under Anonymous Evaluation.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2019 (1): 15210. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15210.
   Google Scholar
• Kovanis, M., R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, and L. Trinquart. 2016. “The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.” PLOS ONE 11 (11): e0166387. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J., C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin. 2013. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, N., and S. Leonelli. 2017. “How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 42 (2): 2. doi:10.1177/0162243916672071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, N., S. Leonelli, D. Weckowska, D. Castle, and J. Dupré. 2016. “How Do Scientists Define Openness?” Exploring the Relationship between Open Science Policies and Research Practice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36 (2): 128–141. doi:10.1177/0270467616668760.
   Google Scholar
• Lissoni, F., and F. Montobbio. 2015. “The Ownership of Academic Patents and Their Impact.” Revue Économique 66 (1): 143–171. doi:10.3917/reco.661.0143.
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B., and M. Cheng. 2008. “Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-Examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms.” Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (1): 1. doi:10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y.
   Google Scholar
• Mack, C. A. 2018. “The Ethics of Scientific Publication.” Journal of Micro-Nanolithography Mems and Moems 17: 1. doi:10.1117/1.JMM.17.1.010101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen, R. R. 2019. “Scientific Impact and the Quest for Visibility.” The FEBS Journal 286 (20): 3968–3974. doi:10.1111/febs.15043. The FEBS journal.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magalhães, J., Z. Hartz, A. Antunes, and O. M. Maria Do Rosário. 2017. “An Overview of Open Science in Times of Big Data and Innovation to Global Health.” International Journal of Innovation 5 (3): 3. doi:10.5585/iji.v5i3.219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancini, D., A. Lardo, and M. De Angelis. 2020. “Efforts Towards Openness and Transparency of Data: A Focus on Open Science Platforms” in Exploring Digital Ecosystems.” A. Lazazzara, F. Ricciardi, and S. Za edited by Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation. Vol. 33. 67–84. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23665-6_6
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, A., and I. Oransky 2020. “The Science of This Pandemic Is Moving at Dangerous Speeds.” Wired. Accessed 10 January 2021. https://www.wired.com/story/the-science-of-this-pandemic-is-moving-at-dangerous-speeds/
   Google Scholar
• McKiernan, E. C., L. A. Schimanski, C. M. Nieves, L. Matthias, M. T. Niles, and J. P. Alperin. 2019. “Use of the Journal Impact Factor in Academic Review, Promotion, and Tenure Evaluations.” PeerJ [Preprint]. Available at 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1942. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Mirowski, P. 2011 Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mirowski, P. 2018. “The Future (S) of Open Science.” Social Studies of Science 48 (2): 2. doi:10.1177/0306312718772086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitroff, I. I. 1974. “Norms and Counter-Norms in A Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 39 (4): 4. doi:10.2307/2094423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulkay, M. J. 1976. “Norms and Ideology in Science.” Social Science Information, Sociologie de la Science 15: 4/5. doi:10.1177/053901847601500406.
   Google Scholar
• Mulkay, M. J. 1980. “Interpretation and the Use of Rules: The Case of the Norms of Science.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 39 (1): 111–125. doi:10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02772.x.
   Google Scholar
• Munafò, M. R., B. A. Nosek, D. V. Bishop, K. S. Button, C. D. Chambers, U. Simonsohn, et al. 2017. ”A Manifesto for Reproducible Science.” Nature Human Behaviour 1 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, and S. Buck, et al. 2015. “Promoting an Open Research Culture.” Science 348 (6242): 6242. doi:10.1126/science.aab2374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penders, B. 2017. “Marching for the Myth of Science. A self-destructive Celebration of Scientific Exceptionalism.” EMBO Reports 18 (9): 9. doi:10.15252/embr.201744935.
   Google Scholar
• Penders, B. 2022. “Process and Bureaucracy: Scientific Reform as Civilisation.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society accepted 027046762211263. 10.1177/0270467622112638.
   Google Scholar
• Pennock, R. T. 2019. An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, D., and A. Panofsky. 2020. “Metascience as a Scientific Social Movement.” SocArxiv [Preprint]. Accessed 1 November 2021. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4dsqa
   Google Scholar
• Peters, M. A., and P. Roberts. 2012. Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age. 1st ed. Boulder: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, F. M. 2020. “Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5: 588331. doi:10.3389/frma.2020.588331.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pontille, D., and D. Torny. 2014. “The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review.” Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 4. doi:10.7264/N3542KVW.
   Google Scholar
• Radder, H. 2010. “Mertonian Values, Scientific Norms, and the Commodification of Academic Research.” In The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, edited by H. Radder, 231–258. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, E. 1999. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy 12 (3): 3. doi:10.1007/s12130-999-1026-0.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2005. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2007. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rhoten, D., and W. W. Powell. 2007. “The Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Expanded Protection versus New Models of Open Science.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 (1): 345–373. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112900.
   Google Scholar
• Roach, M., and H. Sauermann. 2017. “The Declining Interest in an Academic Career.” PloS One 12 (9): e0184130. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross-Hellauer, T. 2017. “What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review.” F1000Research 6: 588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ross-Hellauer, T., S. Reichmann, N. L. Cole, A. Fessl, T. Klebel, and N. Pontika. 2021. “Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science: A Scoping Review.” Royal Society Open Science 9 (1): 211032. doi:10.1098/rsos.211032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senabre-Hidalgo, E., J. Perelló, F. Becker, I. Bonhoure, M. Legris, and A. Cigarini. 2021. “Participation and Co-creation in Citizen Science.” In The Science of Citizen Science, edited by K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, and K. Wagenknecht, 199–218. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_11.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. 1999. “Opening up BMJ Peer Review: A Beginning that Should Lead to Complete Transparency.” British Medical Journal 318 (7175): 4–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Squazzoni, F., G. Bravo, M. Farjam, A. Marusic, B. Mehmani, M. Willis, and A. Birukou, et al. 2021b. “Peer Review and Gender Bias: A Study on 145 Scholarly Journals.” Science Advances 7 (2): eabd0299. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd0299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squazzoni, F., G. Bravo, F. Grimaldo, D. García-Costa, M. Farjam, and B. Mehmani. 2021a. “Gender Gap in Journal Submissions and Peer Review during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Study on 2329 Elsevier Journals.” PLOS ONE 16 (10): e0257919. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stack, M. 2021. Global University Rankings and the Politics of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Staunton, C., C. A. Barragán, S. Canali, C. Ho, S. Leonelli, M. Mayernik, and B. Prainsack, et al. 2021. “Open Science, Data Sharing and Solidarity: Who Benefits?” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43 (4): 115. doi:10.1007/s40656-021-00468-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strevens, M. 2017. “Scientific Sharing, Communism, and the Social Contract.” In Scientific Collaboration and Collective Knowledge: New Essays, edited by T. Boyer-Kassem, C. Mayo-Wilson, and M. Weisberg. New York: Oxford Academic. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190680534.003.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Taneja, S. L., M. Passi, S. Bhattacharya, S. A. Schueler, S. Gurram, and C. Koh. 2021. “Social Media and Research Publication Activity during Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Trend Analysis.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 23 (6): e26956. doi:10.2196/26956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennant, J., R. Agrawal, K. Baždarić, D. Brassard, T. Crick, D. J. Dunleavy, and T. R. Evans, et al. 2020. A Tale of Two ‘Opens’: Intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship. SocArXiv [Preprint] 10.31235/osf.io/2kxq8.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant, J., J. E. Beamer, J. Bosman, B. Brembs, N. C. Chung, G. Clement, and T. Crick, et al. 2019. Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development. MetaArXiv [Preprint] Accessed 1 November 2021. https://doi.org/10/gft5hx
   Google Scholar
• Teplitskiy, M., D. Acuna, A. Elamrani-Raoult, K. Körding, and J. Evans. 2018. “The Sociology of Scientific Validity: How Professional Networks Shape Judgement in Peer Review.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1825–1841. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsilipakos, L. 2022. “The Idea of an Ethically Committed Social Science.” History of the Human Sciences 35 (2): 144–166. doi:10.1177/09526951211020983.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyfield, D. 2013. “Transition to Science 2.0: ‘Remoralizing’ the Economy of Science.” Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 7: 1. doi:10.4245/sponge.v7i1.19664.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. 2021. “UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.” Accessed April 26.https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en
   Google Scholar
• Vermeulen, N., J. N. Parker, and B. Penders. 2013. “Understanding Life Together: A Brief History of Collaboration in Biology.” Endeavour 37 (3): 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2013.03.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente-Saez, R., R. Gustafsson, and L. Van den Brande. 2020. “The Dawn of an Open Exploration Era: Emergent Principles and Practices of Open Science and Innovation of University Research Teams in a Digital World.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 156: 120037. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltman, L., and N. J. Eck 2022, June 7. “The Growth of Open Peer Review.” Leiden Madtrics. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/the-growth-of-open-peer-review
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, M. D., M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, and N. Blomberg, et al. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3 (1): 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderlich, R. 1974. “The Scientific Ethos: A Clarification.” British Journal of Sociology 25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/689245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar