I have been interested in trying to put some bounds on a definition of Open Science. Since I was not able to easily find a concise and agreed upon definition and because I was lacking the motivation to look hard, I naturally turned to twitter. The resultant discussion was good, identified some common themes, and provided some great links. My takeaway from this discussion is that Open Science should be:
1. open and transparent,
2. include data, code, methods, access to publications (e.g. open access, open source, and open data)
3. be repeatable and resusable,
4. be web enabled,
5. and should occur along a gradient (i.e. completely open > somewhat open > not open)
These five points are my distillation of the great response I got to my question. One of things that came out is that agreeing on a definition may only be possible at a high level. Given that there were ~25 tweets from 10 different accounts (thanks , , , , , , , and ), I think that is somewhat self evident. So as not to put words into anyone's mouths, the stream is captured below.
And after the twitterverse got a hold of this, I've got more to add!
Missing from the above definition is the science part. See bottom of list for thoughts from@brianglanz, , and myself. Stay tuned...