将具有社会影响力的科学洞见视为开源软件制品
Treat societally impactful scientific insights as open-source software artifacts
AI总结：
该立场论文提出科学洞见可视为类似开源软件的协作制品，明确开放科学需求与软件工程概念的共通性，呼吁软件工程界推动科研向更开放可问责的方向变革。
摘要：
迄今为止，开放科学与软件工程专业知识之间的关联主要聚焦于以开放获取论文、开放数据以及开源工具与库的形式，公开发布软件工程研究洞见与可复现制品。在这篇立场论文中，我们提请关注另一种视角：科学洞见本身就是一种处于持续开发中、需要持续质量保障的复杂协作型制品，因此与软件制品存在诸多相似之处。考虑到当前对更开放、协作性更强且可复现的科学的呼吁；公众对科学诚信与可信度相关问题的问责要求日益提升；跨学科科学带来的方法论挑战；当涉及社会相关议题的科学洞见要转化为政策时出现的政治与传播层面的张力；以及激励和奖励那些真正希望超越传统出版习惯与文化、朝着这些方向迈进的学术工作者所面临的困境，我们进一步明确了新兴的开放科学需求与（开源）软件工程研究中已广为人知的概念之间的相似性。我们认为，软件工程专业知识的社会影响力可以远远超出软件工程研究社区的范围，并呼吁社区成员主动助力推动必要的制度与文化变革，以实现更开放、更具问责性的研究。
英文摘要：
So far, the relationship between open science and software engineering expertise has largely focused on the open release of software engineering research insights and reproducible artifacts, in the form of open-access papers, open data, and open-source tools and libraries. In this position paper, we draw attention to another perspective: scientific insight itself is a complex and collaborative artifact under continuous development and in need of continuous quality assurance, and as such, has many parallels to software artifacts. Considering current calls for more open, collaborative and reproducible science; increasing demands for public accountability on matters of scientific integrity and credibility; methodological challenges coming with transdisciplinary science; political and communication tensions when scientific insight on societally relevant topics is to be translated to policy; and struggles to incentivize and reward academics who truly want to move into these directions beyond traditional publishing habits and cultures, we make the parallels between the emerging open science requirements and concepts already well-known in (open-source) software engineering research more explicit. We argue that the societal impact of software engineering expertise can reach far beyond the software engineering research community, and call upon the community members to pro-actively help driving the necessary systems and cultural changes towards more open and accountable research.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
