\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\let\cite\citep




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}










\begin{document}

\title{Open Science is Science at Web-scale~~~~}



\author[1]{Leo Mack}%
\affil[1]{OpenCon London 2017}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 16, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


2016 wasn't the year of the expert -- quite the opposite when you think
about Brexit and Trump, and how people had enough of experts. 2017 is a
bit like a big hangover, scientists still have a headache about what had
happened and how to respond. So, what has gone wrong -- and why does it
matter to open science?

I argue that we're living in an unbalanced transitional period: The
internet has helped to transform our communications systems, significant
parts of the economy, and even politics. But science is still grappling
with these changes, it cannot keep up with the new speed in politics,
economics, and communications. It therefore struggles to maintain one of
its key functions: Informing the public discourse by injecting robust
evidence into matters which are relevant to public life. To achieve
this, science must start to operate at web-scale -- and I
believe~\emph{Open} Science is the key to get there.~

When fundamental elements of societies change, unstable periods of
adaption can follow. The 1920s and 1930s are a strong example: After the
first world war, the introduction of universal suffrage in many
countries required the sudden integration of millions of new voters into
the political process and culture. In this disruptive period, populism
and even fascism flourished. In the rebalancing after 1945, science was
given an important role: Western parliaments expanded their committee
systems, increasingly inviting scientists and subject matter experts to
give evidence -- and thereby greatly impact evidence-driven politics.

Today, we're at a similar crossroads. The internet, through social
media, now allows people to engage more intensely in the public
discourse than ever before. It has also facilitated a far more diverse
media landscape. Generally, this change has the potential to improve the
quality of our democracies: More diverse, responsive, and quicker public
discourses should be a good thing. But they have also given space to
bogus claims, fake news, and populist politics in a range of areas,
including climate change,
\href{https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/of-all-the-categories-of-fake-news-health-news-is-the-worst/531540/}{health},
economics, religion, biology, and many more. Most likely, these views
will continue to exist -- but the question is how we counter them.

That should be role of science. Ironically, today's research systems are
more advanced than ever, with better methods, tools, and data to produce
superior research outputs. Where we struggle is the speed, efficiency,
and agility of how we produce scientific evidence. As the public
discourse steams ahead, fuelled by web-scale communications and media
systems, being slow has a price: It compromises the ability of
scientists to inject evidence into public discussions at the best time.
No doubt, our scientific insights are more robust than ever, credible
media outlets will still report about them, and scientists are still
invited to tell parliaments and governments on what to do. But until all
this happens, tweets might already have taken the public discourse in a
very different direction.

Therefore, we need Open Science to upgrade science to operate at
web-scale, so that it becomes more agile, efficient, and speedy. For
this, we need to remove bottlenecks in how we produce, deliver, and
preserve a diverse set of scientific outputs. Ultimately this will make
their production more transparent, increase their availability, and
improve their utilisation. Research cannot have impact when papers
remain in peer-review for 6+ months, if publications are locked away
behind paywalls, if data isn't available due to unclear anonymization
requirements, or if other research artefacts (such as software) aren't
shared because repositories are not interoperable. For science, the
problem is that the status-quo consumes resources which it does not have
-- if it wants to retain its influence in an environment where
discussions evolve quicker and require injections of evidence in more
flexible ways.

Open Science allows us to pool our existing resources, exploiting
economies of scale (e.g. when sharing datasets) and the long-tail of
highly specialised research. For this we need to think about solutions
that help to make (inter-)national science systems more interoperable
and that create connections between different research communities. The
great advantage is that Open Science can build gradually on existing
infrastructures and stakeholders. It can therefore reflect the
fragmentation and diversity which is so important to the progress and
rigour of the scientific community. But at the same time, it can help to
remove the administrative burdens, duplications, and bulkiness that
currently comes with working in science. Open Science is therefore an
agenda to modernise and relieve science -- and help scientists do what
they want to do: Drive progress and do good for society.~

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

