Special talk at the 3rd International Seminar on Health, Human Rights and IPR #ISHHI2017, National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi

1. Fine-tuningtheIPApproachestoFosteringOpenScience:
SomeInsightsfromanEmpiricalSurvey
Dr Arul George Scaria
Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition (CIIPC)
Assistant Professor, National Law University, Delhi
#ISHHRI 2017
NUALS, Kochi
October 13, 2017

2. OUTLINE
 Context - Open Science Movement
 PractisingOpen Science - Insights from an Empirical Survey in
India
 Policy Recommendations

3. CONTEXT
#Story 1
 Diederik Stapel - social psychologist - University ofTilburg
 2011 - “meat eaters are more selfish and less social than
vegetarians”
 Meat eaters are insecure people who feel the need to dominate
others
 https://www.peta.org/blog/study-meat-eaters-selfish-anti-social/

4. CONTEXT
#Story 1
 Utrecht train station experiment - Trash-filled environment tended
to bring out racist tendencies in individuals
 Statistical relationship between awareness of the financial crisis
and generosity
 Use of data by doctoral students/ post-docs

5. CONTEXT
#Story 1
 Two student whistle-blowers
 Final report: Prof. Stapel committed fraud in at least 55 of his
papers – Fate of 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students?

6. CONTEXT
#Story 2
 Pattium Chiranjeevi - professor of chemistry - Sri Venkateswara
University,Tirupati
 90 research papers in several scientific journals
 2004-2007 – More than 70 research papers

7. CONTEXT
#Story 2
 Strategy: Ask students to search for papers - old and obscure
journals - plagiarise
 “Well, what have you downloaded today?”
 Debarred from examination work and research guidance - Transfer
of Ph.D. students

8. CONTEXT

9. CONTEXT
 More than 70% of researchers have failed to reproduce other
scientists’ experiments [Nature, 2016]

10. CONTEXT  cherry-picking of data -> fabrication of data

11. CONTEXT
 90% of papers that have been published in academic journals are
never cited
 50% of papers are never read by anyone other than their authors,
referees and journal editors
 [https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701012.pdf]

12. CONTEXT
SOME
ALARMING
FIGURES FROM
INDIA
 Some journals add authors to papers they didn’t write, often for a fee-
29.8% of such journals are from India – 2017 study
 Papers from Indian researchers have some of the highest fraud and
retraction rates - PubMed 2000-2010 data
 India publishes the highest number (27%) of predatory journals globally -
2015 study
 The highest percentage (35%) of authors contributing to predatory
journals are from India - 2015 study
 http://retractionwatch.com/2017/09/13/authorship-sale-journals-willing-add-authors-papers-didnt-write/
 http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/11/us_scientists_more_prone_to_fa_1.html
 https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2?mc_cid=15c208707e&mc_eid=1b1c736c25
 https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2?mc_cid=15c208707e&mc_eid=1b1c736c25

13.  Replicability
 Transparency
 Collaboration
 Inclusiveness
 Quality
 Use of scarce
resources
 Socially relevant
research
 Accessibility of
research outputs
 Accessibility for
people with
disabilities
 Interaction
between science
and society
GLOBAL CRISIS

14. WHAT IS OPEN
SCIENCE?
 Open science broadly refers to scientific inquiries wherein the
characteristics of accessibility, transparency, usability, and non- or
minimal existence of IP restrictions, are evident and exist
throughout all stages of research. It is also characterised by
openness to inclusiveness, collaboration, constant and continuous
transfer of knowledge between producers and users of
knowledge, and prioritisation of research and innovation based on
social needs.
 http://ciipc.org/projects/open-science-for-an-innovative-india/

15. CHARACTERISTICS
OF OPEN SCIENCE
 Encompasses most of the ‘open’ movements like open access,
open data, open lab notes, and open research tools
 Focuses on all stages of science, unlike other open movements
which largely focus on consumption side
 ‘Transparency’ - transparency in methodology, research tools,
research data, and generation/ communication/ presentation of
results
 ‘Accessibility’ - availability in online/digital formats; at marginal
costs; enabling scientific inquiry by people with disabilities
 ‘Open data’ - data for reuse and redistribution - proper metadata -
data published as early as practical
 High priority to open problems and citizen science

16. IMPORTANCE
OF OPEN
SCIENCE
 Enhanced collaboration and transparency
 Optimal use of scarce resources
 More effective and efficient scientific inquiry
 Rapid diffusion of knowledge/ improved impact of research
 Democratisation of science
 Support for the innovation ecosystem

17. CHALLENGES
IN
PRACTISING
OPEN
SCIENCE
Insights from an Empirical Study in India:
Preliminary findings

18. SURVEY
METHODOLOGY
SURVEY DESIGN: Questionnaire - 45 questions - in English
SAMPLING:
Phase I: Researchers from five disciplines (Economics, Law, Mechanical
Engineering, Medicine, and Physics) belonging to top three research
institutions (physics - only two) in their respective fields in India –
Institutions selected with the help of scholars working in those
disciplines (N=251)
Phase II: Researchers from any discipline working at Indian institutions
(As on October 7, 2017: N= 352; 256 respondents after screening)
MODE OF DATA COLLECTION:
Phase I: Online survey links sent to institutional email ids - In case of
insufficient response from an institution, personal visits by researchers
to those institutions
Phase II: Open survey links sent to various Indian academic/ research
institutions; shared on social media, and through personal contacts

19. FORYOUR
RESEARCH, HAVE
YOU EVER USED
ANY
PUBLICATIONS/
DATA AVAILABLE
OPENLY ONTHE
INTERNET?
5.94 2.74 6.06 8.03
18.31
15.75
41.81
24.82
75.74
81.51
52.12
67.15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Publications Publications Data Data
I don't know No Yes
[Phase I (n= 202)] [Phase II (n= 148)] [Phase I (n= 165)] [Phase II (n= 148)]

20. SHARING
PRACTICES OF
RESPONDENTS
(PUBLICATIONS)
(%)
50
45.54
29.48
33.0432.05
34.82
59.61
52.68
37.82
28.57
10.89
5.36
1.28
8.04
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Phase I (n= 156) Phase II (n= 113)
Researchers working in the same team Any researcher working in the same institution
With close friends/ trusted acquaintances With anyone who asks
OA repository Personal website w/o restriction
Not shared with anyone

21. SHARING
PRACTICES OF
RESPONDENTS
(DATA)
(%)
49.12
47.87
20.17 20.21
27.19
23.4
42.1
29.79
7.89
9.57
3.5
2.13
8.77
25.53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Phase I (n= 114) Phase II (n= 113)
Researchers working in the same team Any researcher working in the same institution
With close friends/ trusted acquaintances With anyone who asks
OA repository Personal website w/o restriction
Not shared with anyone

22. FACTORS
DISCOURAGING
FROM
PUBLISHING
THROUGH OA
MODES
(%)
10.41
14.4215.97
27.88
13.88 15.38
7.63
13.4611.8
15.38
45.83 44.23
31.25
23.08
8.33
11.54
21.52
26.92
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Phase I (n= 144) Phase II (n= 104)
Did not consider it important
Wanted to improve quality before sharing openly
Fear of plagiarism
Fear that their publications may be used by others for professional
benefits
Unawareness of options for OA publishing
Unwillingness to pay APC
Inability to fund APC

23. FACTORS
DISCOURAGING
FROM SHARING
DATA OPENLY
(%)
13.33 12.26
48.88
40.57
25.18
19.81
4.44
13.2115.55
25.47
13.33
16.98
6.66 7.554.44
10.3812.59 10.3812.59
16.9814.81
12.26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Phase I (n=135) Phase II (n= 106)
Don't consider it important
Can share only when all research/ publications based on data are
completed
Can share only after proper curation
Not confident with quality of data
Fear that data may be used by others for professional purposes
Lack of time to upload to OD repositories
Lack of adequate resources to upload data to OD repositories
Data has commercial value for organisation

24. IMPORTANT
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
PUBLISHING
2.55 2.86 1.02 0.7
18.75
15 17.43
8.51 10.41
15.94
5.61
10.71
2.56 5.63
15.1
13.57
12.82
11.35 9.89
8.7
14.79
9.29
8.71
6.34
27.08
23.57
24.61
18.44 19.79
15.22
45.4
36.43
44.1 40.85
26.56
36.43 30.25
39.72
27.08 27.54
31.63
40.71
43.58
46.48
12.5 11.43
14.87
21.99
32.81 32.61
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Impact
Factor
[Phase I (n=
196)]
Impact
Factor
[Phase II (n=
144)]
Reputation
[Phase I (n=
195)]
Reputation
[Phase II (n=
144)]
OA policy
[Phase I (n=
192)]
OA policy
[Phase II (n=
144)]
Copyright
policy
[Phase I (n=
195)]
Copyright
policy
[Phase II (n=
144)]
Payment to
be made
[Phase I (n=
192)]
Payment to
be made
[Phase II (n=
144)]
Not at all Important Slightly Important Moderately Important Important Very Important

25. FREQUENCY OF
PUBLISHING
SIMPLIFIED
VERSION OF
RESEARCH
FINDINGS FOR
LAYPERSONS
35.86
28.47
31.52
25.55
22.28
28.47
5.97
10.22
4.34 7.3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Phase I (n= 184) Phase II (n= 137)
Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always

26. FREQUENCY OF
PUBLISHING
TRANSLATED
VERSION OF
RESEARCH IN
REGIONAL
LANGUAGE(S)
86.77
74.26
7.4
11.76
4.76
8.82
1.05
3.68
0 1.47
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Phase I (n= 189) Phase II (n= 136)
Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always

27. DO
RESEARCHERS
WORKING IN
YOUR
INSTITUTION
ROUTINELY
SHARE: 19.44 18.33
45.34
8.03
10
25
22.67
37.72
70.55
56.67
31.97
28.07
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Research Methodology
[Phase I (n= 180)]
Research Methodology
[Phase II (n= 121)]
Negative Results [Phase I
(n= 172)]
Negative Results [Phase II
(n= 121)]
I don't know No Yes

28. MANDATE BY
FUNDING
AGENCY/
INSTITUTIONTO
SHARE: 36.14 37.04 40 42.16
6.02 7.41 2.58
6.86
16.26 14.81
14.19
11.76
20.48 16.67
11.61
8.82
21.08 24.07
31.61 30.39
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Research Methodology
[Phase I (n= 166)]
Research Methodology
[Phase II (n= 110)]
Negative Results [Phase I
(n= 155)]
Negative Results [Phase II
(n= 110)]
I don't know Funding Agency Institution Both Neither

29. INSTITUTIONAL
FACILITIES
AVAILABLE FOR
RESEARCHERS
WITH PHYSICAL
DISABILITIES
1.81
4.39
6.06
28.95
15.15
16.67
10.3
18.42
6.06
15.79
9.09
25.44
43.63
34.21
64.24
43.86
83.63
50.88
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Phase I (n= 165) Phase II (n= 114)
Other None of the above
Flexible leave policy Disabled-friendly lab
Braille textbooks Audiobooks
Restrooms for persons with disability Wheelchair facilities
Ramp facilities

30. STEPSTAKEN BY
THE INSTITUTION
TO MAKE
RESEARCH
ACCESSIBLETO
PERSONSWITH
DISABILITIES
85.32
68.03
7.6
22.95
7.06 9.02
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Phase I (n= 184) Phase II (n= 122)
I don't know No Yes

31. SATISFACTION
WITH
INSTITUTIONAL
RULESWITH
REGARDTO: 8.96
18.18
10.21
17.24
13.43
16.67
14.48
7.95
14.59
12.64
13.43
10.71
52.41
38.64 43.06
37.93
35.07 33.33
18.62
15.91
20.43
13.79
29.1
19.05
2.06
11.36
9.48
10.34
6.71
10.71
3.44
7.95
2.18
8.05
2.23
9.52
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
IPR over research
outputs [Phase I
(n= 145)]
IPR over research
outputs [Phase II
(n= 96)]
Open access to
publications
[Phase I (n= 137)]
Open access to
publications
[Phase II (n= 96)]
Open access to
data [Phase I (n=
134)]
Open access to
data [Phase II (n=
96)]
Institutional policy does not exist Extremely satisfied
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied

32. ATTEMPT MADE BY
RESEARCHERTO
CHANGE RULES/
PRACTICES INTHEIR
INSTITUTION WITH
REGARDTO: 25
16.51
24.69
16.67
8.53
11.01
6.79
12.04
25
31.19 21.6 27.78
41.46 41.28
46.91 43.52
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
How research is conducted
[Phase I (n= 164)]
How research is conducted
[Phase II (n= 110)]
Dissemination of research
[Phase I (n= 162)]
Dissemination of research
[Phase II (n= 110)]
I have never felt the need to try to change the rules/ practices Frequently Occasionally Never

33. MOST
IMPORTANT
STEP
 Challenging the status quo

34. BROADER POLICY
MEASURES
STRENGTHENINGTHE
OPEN MOVEMENTS
 Increase awareness about open science - the importance of
sharing research outputs
 Encourage data citations - create incentives for data sharing
 Unwillingness/ inability to pay APCs -> a major factor that deters
researchers from publishing in OA modes - OA modes need to be
rethought

35. BROADER POLICY
MEASURES:
INCENTIVISE SHARING
 Institutions should take into consideration researchers’ sharing
practices while evaluating recruitment/ career-progress
applications
 Funding agencies should take into consideration researchers’
record of sharing practices while evaluating grant applications –
Evaluation of past compliance with open access/ open data
policies, and mandatory inclusion of data sharing plans in the
project proposal

36. BROADER POLICY
MEASURES:
INCREASING
INCLUSIVENESS IN
PRODUCTIONAND
CONSUMPTIONOF
SCIENCE
 Make institutions more inclusive - provision of Braille textbooks,
audiobooks, etc. extremely important
 In order to enable social engagement and citizen science,
 Simplified versions of scientific research
 Translations of research outputs in regional languages
 Initiatives like ‘Open Day’

37. BROADER POLICY
MEASURES:
INCREASING
TRANSPARENCY
 Institutions must have stronger policies for sharing negative
results, errors in data/ research, and other limitations

38. BROADER POLICY
MEASURES:
INCREASING
ROBUSTNESSOF
POLICIES
 Institutions and funding agencies must have:
 open access and open data policies with strong compliance
mechanisms

39. FINETUNING IP
APPROACHES:
 Need for radical changes in innovation policies
 Are we giving due importance to open science in innovation
policies?

40. FINETUNING IP
APPROACHES:
 Example: India’s National IP policy – Use of the term ‘open’
 “Encourage R&D including open source-based research such as Open
Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) by the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research … for new inventions for prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of diseases, especially those that are life threatening and
those that have high incidence in India”.
 “Promote ‘infusion of funds to public R&D units’ as a part of Corporate
Social Responsibility to foster a culture of open innovation”
 “Promote use of Free and Open Source Software along with adoption of
open standards”

41. FINETUNING IP
APPROACHES:
 Preventing (mis)use of IP protection – role of institutions and
funding agencies
 Adoption and proper implementation of MarrakeshTreaty
 Introduction of aTDM exception

42.  Gandhi: “If we could change ourselves, tendencies in the world
would also change… As a man changes his own nature, so does
the attitude of the world change towards him… We need not wait
to see what others do.”

43. OPEN SCIENCE PROJECT TEAM
ThankYou!
arul.scaria@nludelhi.ac.in
@arulscaria
@openscience_in
www.ciipc.org
Disclosure: This research was supported by a grant
received by CIIPC from Qualcomm Inc. However,
Qualcomm Inc. has not been involved in any stage of
the research, including the framing of research
questions and data analyses.

44. REFERENCES
 Project Page:
http://ciipc.org/projects/open-science-for-an-innovative-india/
 Survey data:
https://osf.io/9c6af/
 Relevant publications:
Arul George Scaria and Rishika Rangarajan, ‘Fine-Tuning the IP Approaches for Fostering
Open Science: Some Insights from India’ (2016) 8 WIPO Journal 109
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_journal_wpj8n1.pdf
Arul George Scaria, Satheesh Menon, and Shreyashi Ray, ‘Survey findings suggest both
individuals and institutions can do more to promote open science practices in India’ (LSE
Impact Blog, August 16, 2017)
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/08/16/survey-findings-suggest-both-
individuals-and-institutions-can-do-more-to-promote-open-science-practices-in-india/
 Open Signs Newsletter:
http://ciipc.org/projects/open-science-for-an-innovative-india/open-signs-newsletter/