General question for the project is: In what ways can the Dutch National Commiss

General question for the project is: In what ways can the Dutch National Commission to UNESCO incentivise the implementation of OS initiatives and policies across diverse research institutions in the Netherlands, with the help of the Dutch government’s funding, to promote cooperation among and recognition of epistemic diversity?”
Aim: Incentivize Open Science promoting cooperation and recognizing diversity
For the conceptual framework of the project we concluded that these were the main relevant factors identified to use in the Conceptual Framework:
1. Awareness among institutions +
Enhanced awareness of OS initiatives promotes it >>> positive 2. Post-colonialism +/–
The effects it has, touching on inclusivity, epistemic diversity and linking it to the fact that every scientist has its own scientific bias and personal baggage. Promotion of non traditional article types (e.g. policy briefs) 3. Infrastructure for recognition and rewards +
Research and assessment methods for efficiency. Facilitates OS spread and progress of initiatives >>> positive 4. Competition –
How competition hinders the development of Open Science. In/Out fighting >>> negative I want you to write about the Competition Variable only and use one Case Study to support it. A plan of how you intend to analyze your conceptual framework by collecting available data through case study research.
The section:
includes the academic research questions you aim to answer by analyzing key factors and outcome in case studies, and related academic research objectives;
includes measures and data sources you will use in case studies to analyse key factors and outcome across these cases, to answer your research questions;
justifies the case studies you chose to conduct to answer your research questions. Your case study selection depends on the organization’s knowledge needs and the available time to collect and analyze data (feasibility).
Defacto research plan Academic research questions: how to formulate them – using the visual in CF To be able to compare findings across cases, we need to use the same definitions Sometimes a perfect measure or data may not be at hand, solve this by using similar data
Justification of case studies: decide how many and which ones, determine units of analysis (across countries, regions, companies, policies…)
So in conclusion, please, i need 250 words related to the Competition variable. Use one of the sources provided below: BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Adcock, Joanna, and Edward Fottrell. “The North-South Information Highway: Case Studies of Publication Access Among Health Researchers in Resource-Poor Countries.” Global Health Action 1, no. 1 (2008): 1-5.
Aguinis, Herman, George C. Banks, Steven G. Rogelberg, and Wayne F. Cascio. “Actionable Recommendations for Narrowing the Science-Practice Gap in Open Science.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 158 (2020): 27–35.
Babini, Dominique, and Juan D Machin-Mastromatteo. “Latin American Science Is Meant to Be Open Access: Initiatives and Current Challenges.” Information Development 31, no. 5 (2015): 477–481.
Bernstein, Richard. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. First edition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
Buehling, Kilian, Matthias Geissler, and Dorothea Strecker. “Free Access to Scientific Literature and Its Influence on the Publishing Activity in Developing Countries: The Effect of Sci‐Hub in the Field of Mathematics.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 73, no. 9 (2022): 1336–1355.
Buffon, Bertrand. La Parole Persuasive: Théorie et Pratique de l’Argumentation Rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2002.
Chakravorty, Nishant, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Kutubuddin A. Molla, and Jitendra Kumar Pattanaik. “Open Science: Challenges, Possible Solutions and the Way Forward.” Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy 88, no. 3 (2022): 456–471.
Cook, Carly N., Marc Hockings, and R. W. Carter. “Conservation in the Dark? The Information Used to Support Management Decisions.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, no. 4 (2010): 181-186.
CODATA. “Open Science for a Global Transformation: CODATA-coordinated submission to the UNESCO Open Science Consultation.” Accessed March 6, 2024.
https://codata.org/open-science-for-a-global-transformation-codata-coordinated-submission-to-the-unesco-open-science-consultation/.
Dwivedi, Shalini, and Vidhi Vashisht. “Science for All: Is it all About the Publication of Data, or Beyond?.” Medical Writing 31, no. 4 (December 2022), 16-22. Ibrahim, S, and A. Saw. “The Perils of Predatory Journals and Conferences.” Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal 14, no. 2 (2020): 1–6.
Leonelli, Sabina. Philosophy of Open Science. First edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Machin-Mastromatteo, Juan, Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, and Maria Romero-Ortiz. “Piracy of Scientific Papers in Latin America: An Analysis of Sci-Hub Usage Data.” Information Development 32, no. 5 (2016): 1806–1814.
Maddi, Abdelghani, and David Sapinho. “On the Culture of Open Access: The Sci-Hub Paradox.” Scientometrics 128, no. 10 (2023): 5647–5658.
Miedema, Franck. Open Science: The Very Idea. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2021.
Moradi, Sh, and S Abdi. “Open Science–Related Policies in Europe.” Science & Public Policy 50, no. 3 (2023): 521–530.
Nakamura, Gabriel, Bruno Eleres Soares, Valério Pillar, José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, and Leandro Duarte. “Three Pathways to Better Recognize the Expertise of Global South Researchers.” NPJ Biodiversity 2, no. 1 (2023): 1-4.
Pritchard, Duncan. What Is This Thing Called Knowledge? Third edition. London: Routledge, 2014.
Pulverer, Bernd. “Open Access—or Open Science?” The EMBO Journal 37, no. 24 (2018).
Sengupta, Papia. “Open Access Publication: Academic Colonialism or Knowledge Philanthropy?” Geoforum 118 (2021): 203–206.
Verriet, Jon. “Next Step for Implementing the Recommendation on Open Science.” UNESCO. May 20, 2022. https://www.unesco.nl/nl/artikel/volgende-stap-voor-het-implementeren-van-de-aanbeveling-ove r-open-science.
Vicente-Saez, Ruben, and Clara Martines-Fuentes. “Open Science Now: A Systematic Literature Review for an Integrated Definition.” Journal of Business Research 88 (2018): 428.
Vicente-Saez, Ruben, Robin Gustafsson, and Clara Martinez-Fuentes. “Opening up Science for a Sustainable World: An Expansive Normative Structure of Open Science in the Digital Era.” Science & Public Policy 48, no. 6 (2021): 799–813.
Voytek, Bradley. “Social Media, Open Science, and Data Science Are Inextricably Linked.” Neuron 96, no. 2 (2017): 1219-1222.
Wehn, Uta, Claudia Göbel, Anne Bowser, Libby Hepburn, and Muki Haklay. “Written Input by the CSGP Citizen Science & Open Science Community of Practice to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.” May 31, 2020.