“A research paper without accompanying data is incomplete”Name: Prof Alexander Refsum Jensenius
Position: Associate professor, Department of Musicology. Deputy director, RITMO Centre of Excellence. Chair, Steering Committee for the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME)
Institution: University of Oslo
More info: Home Page LinkedIn Twitter Other
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6171-8743
An interview with Prof Alexander Refsum Jensenius on 2 June 2017
“I am delighted to see the growing number of data-sharing repositories popping up these days, but I think we should also question the data quality in some of these repositories.”
Acknowledging these problems, I am currently involved in several different initiatives on structuring multimodal/multimedia data and related metadata. There are numerous technical challenges, but we are also dealing with questions related to privacy and copyright. It is at times frustrating, I have to admit. I am primarily interested in discovering new things about how we experience music, but I spend a lot of time on technical and legal issues. Looking 10 years back, though, I am happy to see that things have progressed a lot!
To me it does not make sense to talk about Open Data without also mentioning the other parts of Open Science. If someone wants to check my research findings, they need access to both the data and the analysis software (hence, methodology). That is why I share my software code on GitHub (https://github.com/alexarje/). I also choose gold open access journals as often as possible, and self-archive manuscripts in the digital library of the University of Oslo (DUO – https://www.duo.uio.no/).
Finally, what do you think would happen if public research data remained closed, and what do you think a world with far more Open Data would look like?
“I find the conservatism towards Open Science displayed in many committee reports and anonymous peer reviews, troublesome.”
I find the conservatism towards Open Science displayed in many committee reports and anonymous peer reviews, troublesome. That is why I advocate more openness also in such processes. At UiO we make all appointment processes as transparent as possible. All candidates for jobs can read the evaluation of each other, to check that the evaluation is not biased. I have also suggested a system of “Open Funding” to the Research Council of Norway. That is, both the applications and the reviews would be made available for everyone to read. People worry about someone stealing their idea, but this is not a problem if all published documents have DOIs, time-stamping and version control. I am sure that such a system would lead to better applications, better evaluation processes and, ultimately, better projects.
Copyright: Margaret Louise Fotland, University of Oslo. Creative Commons CC-BY Licence.
To more champions >