arXiv:2010.04508v1 [cs.CY] 9 Oct 2020 A policy and legal Open Science framework: a proposal Teresa Gomez-Diaz (CNRS/LIGM), Tomas Recio (University of Cantabria) Contact: Teresa.Gomez-Diaz@u-pem.fr, Tomas.Recio@unican.es This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ V1, September 16th 2020 1 Abstract Our proposal of an Open Science definition as a political and legal framework where research outputs are shared and disseminated in order to be rendered visible, accessible, reusable is developed, standing over the concepts enhanced by the Budapest Open Science Initiative (BOAI), and by the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) and Open data movements. We elaborate this proposal through a detailed analysis of some selected EC policies, laws and the role of research evaluation practices. 2 Motivation Even if nowadays the Open Access, Free/Open Source Software (FOSS), Open Data, etc. (that we will call Open Science movements from now on) find more and more followers, adepts, and even addicts among the different key actors in the research population, our experience provides everyday examples of scientists that do not know well these movements and their consequences. Some have an idealistic or anecdotical point of view, and many are still not really aware of the deep changes that they do carry on for the research practice. The use of licenses is well acknowledged in many places, but again, our experience provides examples of scientists that do not even possess a basic understanding of the license issues. Many use software licenses under the advice of collegues that have no further understanding on licenses, author’s rights and their consequences. But the use of a wrong license can have devasting results, oppossed to what it was initially expected. It is also well known within software developer communities that code writters do pay much more attention to the quality of their outcome if it is openly and freely available, and, thus, easily exposed to other developers’ examination (and criticisms), which may have real consequences, for example, upon their career. Likewise, researchers that put preprints in places like arXiv 1 do pay special attention to the quality of the initial version in order to attract collaborators, citations, and maybe comments, that will improve the content of the initial work. Another example of potential consequences of Open Science movements in the research practice appears when noticing the current evolution of the scholarly publishing system. Indeed, there are clear signals that show that the old model dominated by few big (predator) editors is slowly becoming out of date. Yet, part of the research evaluation system is still favoring publications in some Journal titles selected under Impact Factor and Science Citation Index criteria, something that can also become outdated, see for example the analysis in [19, 20, 6]. To illustrate here some of the current publishing evolutions we can mention the recent adoption of an OPEN Roadmap by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Council as well as the Code Ocean Integrations in the ACM Digital Library to make software and data more discoverable 2 . 1. https://arxiv.org/ 2. https://www.acm.org/articles/pubs-newsletter/2020/blue-diamond-october2020 1