We want to open up science, in particular research equipment, because we claim that it is not currently very open. But how to we argue and measure openess for funding, reviews, credibility, and focus of effort? What criteria are important for openess of experimenal research?
At GOSH and beyond I want to (collaboratively - with you!) assess the openness of microfluidic technology and -research as an example for other fields. (I aim to write a review article from this. I started a draft here: https://github.com/MakerTobey/FellowFreiesWissen_Microfluidics/blob/master/Open_Microfluidics_Review_Draft.md)
Of course I can list what hardware is needed for microfluidics and which aspects are currently developed open source (and test them) - and I am doing this already with who else wants to participate. But the openness of a field goes further than that. How open are ideas shared? How easy can people enter and leave the field? Are instructions and open educational materials available? Are they based on free and open source solutions? How about experimental costs, etc? Does anyone already know a good example?
In this thread and at GOSH 2018 I would like to discuss with you how we can conduct surveys (here under scientists and perhaps industry researchers) to assess some of the social aspects? How can other aspects such as cost, detail fo methods, educational material, etc, be assessed? Where to look for quantitative evidence?
All contributions are welcome! What are your thoughts on this assessment?