Added open scholarship principles image

Author: protohedgehog

content_development/MAIN.md

@@ -223,21 +223,21 @@ For example, there has been a strong focus on Open Science in the last few years
 
 As mentioned above, there does not seem to be a single accepted definition of what Open Science is. Ask one person, and they will tell you it is about making datasets and research papers public. Ask another, and they will tell you about a vision for a 'radical' transformation of scholarship, where all processes and outputs are instantaneously public. The extent to which different communities and disciplines have embraced and adopted Open Science practices is extremely variable. However, what is clear is that 'Open Science' in one form or another is taking off across the entire research domain, from Arts, Humanities, and [Social Sciences](https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-1-Open-Principles/blob/master/Reading%20Material_Open%20Principles/Miguel%20et%20al.%2C%202014.pdf) through to Maths, Engineering, and Physical Sciences.
 
-There are two ways too look at this. First, some might argue that the power of a definition lies in its precision, and helps to avoid distortion of those definitions - what some might, in this case, call "open washing". Second, flexibility in the definition, and its understanding and interpretation, lead to increased familiarity with a concept as a 'boundary object'. For the latter, and for Open Science, this means that while it might be interpreted differently across different communities with a variety of norms and practices, the foundational understanding that Open Science is good for public access to knowledge is universally accepted.
+There are two possible ways too look at this. First, some might argue that the power of a definition lies in its precision, and helps to avoid distortion of those definitions - what some might, in this case, call "open washing". Second, flexibility in the definition, and its understanding and interpretation, lead to increased familiarity with a concept as a ['boundary object'](https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/3220). For the latter, and for Open Science, this means that while it might be interpreted differently across different communities with a variety of norms and practices, the foundational understanding that Open Science is good for public access to knowledge is universally accepted.
 
-There are also [geopolitical](https://medium.com/@denalbz/power-and-inequality-in-open-science-discourses-9d425b0c2b63) differences that shape our understanding of Open Science. For example, in Europe, and much of the industrial world, Open Science has an inherently market-oriented language that promotes economic value, productivity, and competition, above all other factors. However, for many of those in the 'global south', Open Science is more about fostering community-building through knowledge sharing, and nurturing social networks around new technologies and infrastructures. 
+There are also [geopolitical](https://medium.com/@denalbz/power-and-inequality-in-open-science-discourses-9d425b0c2b63) differences that shape our understanding of Open Science. For example, in Europe, and much of the industrial world, Open Science often has an inherently market-oriented language that promotes economic value, productivity, and competition, above all other factors. However, for many of those in the 'global south', Open Science is more about fostering community-building through knowledge sharing, and nurturing social networks around new technologies and infrastructures.
 
 <br/>
 
 ### Open Scientists share objects to gain network effects for their work <a name="network_effects"></a>
 
-> “Because we have to coordinate with one another to get anything out of our shared free time and talents, using cognitive surplus isn’t just about accumulating individual preferences. The culture of the various groups of users matters enormously for what they expect of one another and how they work together. The culture in turn will determine how much of the value that we get out of the cognitive surplus will be merely communal (enjoyed by the participants, but not of much use for society at large) and how much of it will be civic.” - Excerpt From: Clay Shirky. _Cognitive Surplus_[Link to original source text?].
+> “Because we have to coordinate with one another to get anything out of our shared free time and talents, using cognitive surplus isn’t just about accumulating individual preferences. The culture of the various groups of users matters enormously for what they expect of one another and how they work together. The culture in turn will determine how much of the value that we get out of the cognitive surplus will be merely communal (enjoyed by the participants, but not of much use for society at large) and how much of it will be civic.” - Excerpt From: Clay Shirky, [Cognitive Surplus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Surplus).
 
-Building on a civic culture of sharing, Open Science creates new and value from every object (idea, data, method, software, results) that is openly shared, releasing the inherent value of the research process. Some of this new value accrues to the researcher who shares, some goes to the benefit of all researchers working in the same arena who reuse these objects, and some goes to researchers who can open up new research from the collective resource that these objects now enhance. This last value is the ultimate promise of Open Science: a shared surplus of research objects that can be openly mixed, mined, and melded into new, synthetic knowledge.
+Building on a civic culture of sharing, Open Science creates new value from every 'object' (idea, data, method, software, results) that is openly shared, releasing the inherent value of the entire research process. Some of this new value accrues to the researcher who shares, some goes to the benefit of all researchers working in the same arena who reuse these objects, and some goes to researchers who can open up new research from the collective resource that these objects now enhance. This last value is the ultimate promise of Open Science: a shared surplus of research objects that can be openly mixed, mined, and melded into new, synthetic knowledge.
 
-[McKiernan (et al., 2016)](https://elifesciences.org/articles/16800) demonstrate the advantages of open sharing for increasing citations, impacts, and ultimately the careers of researchers. What the 'open' researcher does to increase the holdings of the open corpus in their field adds a civic choice to these advantages. Growing the open research ecosystem helps every researcher on the planet, while simultaneously making a conscious objective towards making research a public and societal good. Thus, even within traditional systems of research(er) evaluation, the practice of Open Science is inherently beneficial to the individual.
+[McKiernan et al., (2016)](https://elifesciences.org/articles/16800) demonstrate the advantages of open sharing for increasing citations, impacts, and ultimately the careers of researchers. What the 'open' researcher does to increase the holdings of the open corpus in their field adds a civic choice to these advantages. Growing the open research ecosystem helps every researcher on the planet, while simultaneously making a conscious objective towards making research a public and societal good. Thus, even within traditional systems of research(er) evaluation, the practice of Open Science is inherently beneficial to the individual.
 
-Adding new research findings or experimental methods to an open repository/platform tends to be as easy (or easier) than sharing within a closed collection (such as a for-profit publisher). Open sharing scales better, particularly when it uses open standards-based platforms, such as the Open Science Framework. It also tends to be less fragile, since it can be migrated or ported into new platforms and spread across multiple locations. Openness adds to discoverability and access, and contributes to reproducibility.
+Adding new research findings or experimental methods to an open repository/platform tends to be as easy (or easier) than sharing within a closed collection (such as a for-profit publisher). Open sharing scales better, particularly when it uses open standards-based platforms, such as the [Open Science Framework](https://osf.io/). It also tends to be less fragile, since it can be migrated or ported into new platforms and spread across multiple locations. Openness adds to discoverability and access, and contributes to reproducibility.
 
 **The potential of openness is virtually unlimited in scope!**
 
@@ -266,7 +266,9 @@ Of note here is that much of what we are discussing here has only recently becom
 
 Now, there are no rules about Open Science, and no one individual or organisation is setting the agenda. However, what is commonly recognised is that Open Science is underpinned by specific, core principles and values. In recognition of this, there are now around [100 charters and declarations](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-aRXFiRg-VL9hpLpxoJqX6-OC-A0R2oCogHfIx52Nug/edit#gid=956616118) to do with data sharing and scholarly communication and publishing, and hundreds more [advocacy organisations](http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Advocacy_organizations_for_OA) that make openness a significant part of their mission.
 
-[INSERT IMAGE FROM TONY HERE]
+<center><img src="https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-1-Open-Principles/blob/master/content_development/images/principles.png?raw=true" width="800" /></center>
+
+<p align="center"><i>Principles of Open Scholarship, by Tony Ross-Hellauer (2017; CC BY). <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/OpenAIRE_eu/peer-review-in-the-age-of-open-science" target="_blank"></a></i></p>
 
 Note that often you will find things described as Open Science, but that do not seem to embrace these principles. These things are probably not 'true' Open Science, but more just attempting to surf the wave or join the bandwagon as a PR stunt. Such things are often called 'open washing'. The opposite is also true, that many researchers practice 'openness', but simply choose not to refer to it as this (or are unaware of the relationship).