In Thomson Reuters Exchange, an "Open" Conversation
Among the many changes wrought by the digital revolution, few have been as consequential to science as the movement towards open data. As the pros and cons are debated, the ongoing legal and commercial implications of copyright, protection, and access are profound, extending beyond the boundaries of scientific research and publishing.
In the latest issue of Exchange, published by the Financial & Risk business of Thomson Reuters, several articles by expert observers discuss aspects of “open” in today’s global marketplace. How, for example, does one even define “open”? And how does one navigate the intricacies of extracting value from open data?
Even a brief examination of the Web of Science illustrates the breadth of the discussion on open data in recent years. The table below presents a selection resulting from a title-word search on “open data” in articles and proceedings indexed by Thomson Reuters since 2004. The treatments range from specific fields such as ecology, chemistry, and education to broader considerations of open data in the conduct of science as a whole.
Selected Papers on Open Data
(Based on a Web of Science title-word search for 2004-2014, all fields, listed by citations)
|S. Auer, et al., “DBpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data,” Semantic Web, Proceedings (K. Aberer, et al., eds.), 4825: 722-35 2007. [Univ. Leipzig, Germany]||161|
|O.J. Reichman, M.B. Jones, M.P. Schildhauer, “Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology,” Science, 331(6018): 703-5, 2011. [Univ. California, Santa Barbara]||72|
|T.J. Vision, “Open data and the social contract of scientific publishing,” Bioscience, 60(5): 330-1, 2010. [Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill]||24|
|P. Jain, et al., “Ontology alignment for linked open data,” Semantic Web-ISWC 2012, Pt. 1 (P.F. Patel-Schneider, et al., eds.), 6496: 402-17, 2010. [Wright State Univ., Dayton, OH]||21|
|G. Boulton, et al., “Science as a public enterprise: The case for open data,” Lancet, 377(9778): 1633-5, 2011. (Univ. Edinburgh, UK; Natl. Inst. Hlth. & Clin. Excellence, London, UK; GlaxoSmithKline, London; Wellcome Trust Res. Labs, London]||18|
|J.C. Molloy, “The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open data means better science,” PLOS Biology, 9 (12): No. e1001195, 2011. [Univ. Oxford, UK]||16|
|N.M. O’Boyle, et al., “Open Data, Open Source and Open Standards in chemistry: The Blue Obelisk five years on,” Journal of Cheminformatics, 3(37): No. 37, 2011. [20 institutions worldwide]||15|
|P. Murray-Rust, “Open data in science,” Serials Review, 34(1): 52-64, 2008. [Univ. Cambridge, UK]||14|
|H.M. Krumholz, et al., “A historic moment for open science: The Yale University Open Data Access Project and Medtronic,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(12): 910, 2013. [Yale Univ. Sch. Med., New Haven, CT; Univ. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Hightown Surg., Barbury, UK]||12|
|J.C. Bradley, et al., “The Spectral Game: Leveraging open data and crowdsourcing for education,” Journal of Cheminformatics, 1(9): No. 9, 2009. [Drexel Univ., Philadelphia, PA; Univ. W. Indies, Kingston, Jamaica; Oral Roberts Univ., Tulsa, OK; ChemZoo, Wake Forest, NC]||11|
|Source: Thomson Reuters Web of Science|
To the discussions above, Thomson Reuters now adds the articles in the latest edition of Exchange—new contributions to a broad, complex, and ongoing conversation.
To access the issue, please click here.
The data and citation records included in this report are from Thomson Reuters Web of ScienceTM. Web of ScienceTM is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.