Senior Research Fellow
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.research.kyoto-u.ac.jp\/app\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2025\/06\/cat-d2-img01.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nSenior Researcher at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy\u2019s Science and Technology Foresight Center. Around 1995, he began working part-time as a graduate student to digitally develop and produce the Chemical Society of Japan\u2019s English-language journal. Drawing from his work, he made improvements in a wide range of phases (including electronically submitted peer reviews, XML publishing, J-Stage improvements, digitalization, and promotional activities), and turned it into a journal with one of the fastest publication timetables in the world. In 2005, it became open access and the technology was put in place for eBook (ePub) publication. Taking advantage of his experiences, which have given him an overall picture of how academic information is distributed, he has worked make research findings from Japan more accessible (SPARC Japan, etc.). He\u2019s interested in the future of electronic journals and next-generation communication between scholars, as well as future changes in the sciences (digital transformation). Since 2012 he has been engaging in policy science research at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, focusing on forms of open science and policy development, as well as predicting future science and technology trends. He has worked as an open science expert for committees and projects of the Cabinet Office, Science Council of Japan, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, G7 Science and Technology Ministers\u2019 Meeting, and the OECD. He is a member of Kyoto University\u2019s Academic Data Innovation Unit.
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Policy-Level Open Science and Its Potential<\/h3>\n\n\n\nWhat is the \u201copen science\u201d that one frequently hears about these days?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Hayashi: According to a Cabinet Office expert panel on open science, it is \u201ca new way of engaging in science that aims to produce innovation. It does so both by opening new paths for knowledge creation through making publicly funded research results easily accessible and usable (by the scientific community, industry, and the general public), as well as by effectively promoting scientific research.\u201d1<\/sup> This is open science in its narrow sense. This definition is found in a policy document, and policy-level open science has expanded from article open access to also include the reuse of research data. So, it puts open science in this context. There is still no widely and generally shared definition of open science. While this connects to what I will say later, I explain open science as a movement that makes use of both information infrastructure that has been digitalized and networked, as well as the massive quantity of diverse information that this infrastructure opens up, thereby transforming scientific research and changing industry, society, and the relationship between science and society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: Open science in a narrow sense takes aim at three types of data. First is the evidence used for academic papers. Around the world it has become the basic route to make academic articles\u2014the research results that are deeply rooted in the scholar ecocycle\u2014open access. Also, with transparency and fairness emerging as problems surrounding academic papers, the Cabinet Office document from which the aforementioned definition was taken states, \u201cAs a general rule, the data (academic articles and their evidence) from research carried out with public funds should be publicly released.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second kind of research data is research findings as well as the data produced in the research process, which is covered by the likes of the Comprehensive Innovation Strategy. The Cabinet Office document also states, \u201cIt is preferable that insofar as possible other research and development findings also be publicly released as research data.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: While these two are comparatively easy to grasp, the third kind of data is \u201clogs of research activities and the accompanying data produced.\u201d This is the place that people ultimately envision open science will reach. Moving more \u201cupstream\u201d from the data produced late in the research process such as publications (articles, etc.) to the stage when research projects are conceived of, activity logs would allow people to understand the kind of research funds secured, the scholars that participated, the kinds of experiments carried out, the results arrived at, and the ways in which these results were brought together and published. By attaching data locators to these logs and creating networks of the latter, one can find out who contributed to a certain research project, as well as when and in what way they did so. In the open science paradigm this is one way research activities can be assessed. With broader assessments of scholars\u2019 research activities as a whole that are based on networks comprised of such diverse items, a situation will probably emerge that is healthier than the present one in which comparatively easily-quantifiable indicators (number of articles, times quoted, patents, etc.) are only used for assessment. There is the possibility that contributors (data creators, etc.) who have been hidden up until now can get the recognition they deserve and be brought into view not as simply research supporters but research partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: Speaking based on the narrow world of my experience and knowledge, I think first we could mention the sharing of data between research project members, something that seems doable but doesn\u2019t really get done. The most close-to-home benefit of open science is that current research becomes more efficient. In other words, open data encourages the proper management of research data in one\u2019s own research group and making daily work more efficient. This leads to the \u201crelative\u201d opening of the research process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also, I think it would be good if people also focus on managing and publicly releasing research data that was produced in research that has already finished. This is something that scholars actually don\u2019t want to spend time on. There are two kinds of this data: the research data of people who have left their post, and research data from the past that, having written an article or had one\u2019s intellectual curiosity satisfied, remains after moving onto the next research project. The latter is closer to home, so to speak. If research institutions offer places to store data so that one can feel secure in moving to the next research project, the scattering and loss of data can be avoided, and other scholars who see this data might end up giving rise to new research projects. Furthermore, if there is inter-university cooperation, then it would be easy to move data when changing institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: What is most important is that right now around the world discussions are being carried out regarding how to make research data be the main medium of research results, how to make it play the role that academic papers are playing today\u2014have it be something that increases scholars\u2019 acclaim and leads to promotions and the acquisition of research funding. Things are also being done to make this a reality. Even if one doesn\u2019t start from the stage at which one conceives of a research project idea, I expect that if research assessments and incentives based on research data distribution network analyses are developed, sustainable projects will unfold which support the distribution of this information. Furthermore, as these are standardized, they will also develop into the world of industry. When doing so, distortions that are not in keeping with the proper development of science, such as those which occurred with regard to academic articles (a commercial publishing industry oligopoly leading to price increases, the carving out of fields based on commercially successful magazines, and so on), should be avoided. Also, so that Japan does not fall into a situation where it has to adopt to standards created in other countries, which costs money in the end, it should have a presence in international standardization and must also think about cultivating industries in Japan that support the distribution of data. I think Japan has this chance right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: Even if publicly people say that research data management platforms which don\u2019t place a burden on scholars will be created, in reality scholars\u2019 data management work (adding annotations and the like) is indispensable, and this does place a burden on them. At present, I think there\u2019s not much that can be done about this. Therefore, what\u2019s key is the way one thinks about designing services while cultivating a shared awareness of the kind of value arrived at by this work. Then there\u2019s risk management: what\u2019s the timing and method of launching things that won\u2019t make stakeholders feel hurt? First thinking in this direction is probably best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To put it a little more concretely: if one is able to use research funds to carry out research just like one always has, is training the next generation, and is successful in one\u2019s connecting one\u2019s work to future academic research or industry, then even if there are some parts that can be made somewhat more efficient with ICT, I don\u2019t think this is something that should be rejected outright. Rather, such people should continue to engage in their research as they have done, and information technology used to support it. Before they know it, data will be managed in the back-end (in the cloud, etc.), and they\u2019ll be able to share and release this data when they want to. I think that this is one of the preferable way to do things. From there, design infrastructure and services that appeal to scholars\u2019 desires for these things to be easy to do, enjoyable, or helpful for their standing. If a minimal vital service is offered without which they cannot do research, then costs and a bit of extra work will not be things they are reluctant about, and this can also lead to a sustainable foundation for research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: As I said before, everything won\u2019t be replaced all of a sudden by open science\u2019s new values or values that are produced by the sharing and distribution of research data. First, it\u2019s important to add in these values and have them co-exist with existing ones. The question is whether universities will allow this co-existence and, once a shift in values becomes appropriate, carry it out fully. It might become a test of endurance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: I think about open science more broadly than that which is written in policy documents, and understand it to be science\u2019s digital transformation. I see the \u201copen\u201d in \u201copen science\u201d as referring to the liberation of knowledge, and therefore adopt the position that making all research that receives public funding \u201copen\u201d is only one part of open science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I also think that by liberating knowledge and information, a paradigm shift in science, industry, and society will occur; repeatedly in history society has changed when the information infrastructure changes. Thanks to Gutenberg\u2019s invention of the printing press and the development postal mail logistics, there was an explosion and opening up of information that went far beyond when things were written and manuscripts copied by hand. As a result, there was the Reformation and the Renaissance, and science advanced, giving rise to physics. Therefore, I think that being able to make information open\u2014whether relatively or by an order of magnitude\u2014via ICT information infrastructure will be the driving force of a paradigm shift, and it is inevitable that this will be accompanied by societal transformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: In short, knowledge will develop based on new science (such as data science), science will become more democratic, the borders between scientists and ordinary citizens will change, and the style of scientific research will become different as well. Also, Japan might be able to break out of its importation of Western science culture. It could become an agent that itself creates scientific capital and a philosophy of science for the open science paradigm. This is a chance that Asia as a whole also has.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, this is still some ways off, and I honestly don\u2019t think that this era will easily arrive in my lifetime. This is because behavioral transformations require generational change, as well as because there are many problems that cannot be solved with technology alone, such as those relating to societal systems, including law. The keeping of logs from when a research project is conceived up through the public release of its results, which I discussed earlier, is already technologically feasible. However, it will probably take some time before researchers will accept this. Therefore, while there is still a tendency to see open science as something fishy, only history knows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hayashi: In other words, right now is a period of transition in that society is becoming digitally native. Being a transition period, it\u2019d be great if universities, particularly younger scholars, could enjoy this situation with a forward-looking attitude\u2014to be a scholar is to be someone who actively enjoys creating new paradigms. Of course, I understand that it\u2019s difficult for younger scholars today at universities to take up something with an unclear future. While this is an unfortunate situation, I think that at the very least there\u2019s a bright future for those who can get through this, and, as for myself, I will continue to engage in activities that look to the tomorrow of the open science paradigm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n March 4th, 2019 *This article is based on content previously published on \u201cLife as a scholar: Kyoto University and Beyond,\u201d which has since been discontinued. We\u2019ve got you covered! Kazuhiro Hayashi is a senior researcher at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) who researches policy science and is working to making open science a reality. Kazuhiro HayashiSenior Research FellowNational Institute of Science and Technology PolicyMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology Senior Researcher at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy\u2019s Science and Technology Foresight Center. Around 1995, he began working part-time as a graduate student to digitally develop and produce the Chemical Society of Japan\u2019s English-language journal.\u2025<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_crdt_document":"","exclusive":false,"relatedArticles":[],"footnotes":""},"tags":[75],"class_list":["post-2224","blog","type-blog","status-publish","hentry","tag-next-generation-forum"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"What kind of data does open science policy take aim at?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Open Science is More Burdensome!?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t really have a concrete image of how the research data acquired in the research process is made \u201copen.\u201d What benefits are there for scholars who do so?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Since it appears that scholars\u2019 burdens would increase, it\u2019s hard to say whether at present they should actively dive into open science.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Society Changing Thanks to True Open Science: Enjoy the Transition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Up until now we\u2019ve been talking about open science on a policy level. In closing, I\u2019d like to ask about what you think is \u201ctrue\u201d open science.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What kind of paradigm shift do you think will occur due to the liberation of knowledge that\u2019s brought about by open data?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
(Interviewer: Asa Nakano)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"