2020, Tennant, Jonathan P., Agrawal, Ritwik, Baždarić, Ksenija, Brassard, David, Crick, Tom, Dunleavy, Daniel J., Evans, Thomas Rhys, Gardner, Nicholas, Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Graziotin, Daniel, Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian, Gunnarson, Daniel, Havemann, Johanna, Hosseini, Mohammad, Katz, Daniel S., Knöchelmann, Marcel, Lahti, Leo, Madan, Christopher R., Manghi, Paolo, Marocchino, Alberto, Masuzzo, Paola, Murray-Rust, Peter, Narayanaswamy, Sanjay, Nilsonne, Gustav, Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel, Penders, Bart, Pourret, Olivier, Rera, Michael, Samuel, John, Steiner, Tobias, Stojanovski, Jadranka, Uribe Tirado, Alejandro, Vos, Rutger, Worthington, Simon, Yarkoni, Tal

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

2016, Dieperink, C., Hegger, D.L.T, Bakker, M.H.N., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Green, C., Driessen, P.P.J.

In Europe increasing flood risks challenge societies to diversify their Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). Such a diversification implies that actors not only focus on flood defence, but also and simultaneously on flood risk prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. There is much literature on the implementation of specific strategies and measures as well as on flood risk governance more generally. What is lacking, though, is a clear overview of the complex set of governance challenges which may result from a diversification and alignment of FRM strategies. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap. It elaborates on potential processes and mechanisms for coordinating the activities and capacities of actors that are involved on different levels and in different sectors of flood risk governance, both concerning the implementation of individual strategies and the coordination of the overall set of strategies. It identifies eight overall coordination mechanisms that have proven to be useful in this respect.