The conundrum challenges for Research Software and Research Data in Open Science
Day 1 | 17:20 | 00:25 | AW1.126 | Teresa Gomez-Diaz
Note: I'm reworking this at the moment, some things won't work.
Abstract
The Borgman's conundrum challenges [1] have been initially formulated concerning the difficulties to share Research Data: which Research Data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects.
In our previous work, we have proposed a Research Software Definition [2] with a formulation that we have adapted in order to propose a Research Data definition [3,4]. We have thus constructed a framework to understand and to explain Research Software and Research Data in the Open Science context [5].
This framework is constructed in three stages: definition, dissemination, and evaluation of these research outputs [2,3,4], and it is now completed with answers to the Borgman's conundrum challenges for Research Data [3] and for Research Software [6].
In this talk we will present our answers to the Borgman's conundrum challenges, and we will explain the comparison methodologies that we have developed in order to construct and to complete this Open Science framework.
It is our understanding that to provide correct and clear answers to the conundrum questions will have, as a consequence, the improvement of Research Software and Research Data sharing and dissemination practices, which, in turn, will enhance trustworthiness, correctness, rigor, reproducibility, reusability and transparency in the research endeavor.
This work extends our talks at FOSDEM:
-
[FOSDEM'21] Free/Open source Research Software production at the Gaspard-Monge Computer Science laboratory. Lessons learnt. https://archive.fosdem.org/2021/schedule/event/open_research_gaspard_monge/
-
[FOSDEM'22] On the dissemination/evaluation loop for Research Software. https://archive.fosdem.org/2022/schedule/event/open_research_cdur/
References
[1] Borgman, C.L. The conundrum of sharing research data. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2012, 63, 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22634
[2] Gomez-Diaz, T.; Recio, T. On the evaluation of research software: the CDUR procedure [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2019, 8 1353. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19994.2
[3] Gomez-Diaz, T.; Recio, T. Research Software vs. Research Data I: Towards a Research Data definition in the Open Science context. [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11 118. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.78195.2
[4] Gomez-Diaz, T.; Recio, T. Research Software vs. Research Data II: Protocols for Research Data dissemination and evaluation in the Open Science context. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11 117. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.78459.2
[5] Gomez-Diaz, T.; Recio, T. Towards an Open Science definition as a political and legal framework: on the sharing and dissemination of research outputs.
- POLIS 2020, N. 19. https://doi.org/10.58944/yuro5734
- Version 3, 2021, available at https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.4577065
[6] Gomez-Diaz, T.; Recio, T. The conundrum challenges for Research Software in Open Science, Computers, 2024, 13(11), 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13110302