The importance of open data and software: Is energy research lagging behind?

Energy policy often builds on insights gained from quantitative energy models and their underlying data. As climate change mitigation and economic concerns drive a sustained transformation of the energy sector, transparent and well-founded analyses are more important than ever. We assert that models and their associated data must be openly available to facilitate higher quality science, greater productivity through less duplicated effort, and a more effective science-policy boundary. There are also valid reasons why data and code are not open: ethical and security concerns, unwanted exposure, additional workload, and institutional or personal inertia. Overall, energy policy research ostensibly lags behind other fields in promoting more open and reproducible science. We take stock of the status quo and propose actionable steps forward for the energy research community to ensure that it can better engage with decision-makers and continues to deliver robust policy advice in a transparent and reproducible way.

[1]  Daniel Sarewitz,et al.  The pressure to publish pushes down quality , 2016, Nature.

[2]  Joseph F. DeCarolis,et al.  Modeling for insight using Tools for Energy Model Optimization and Analysis (Temoa) , 2013 .

[3]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[4]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Promoting an open research culture , 2015, Science.

[5]  J. Wicherts,et al.  Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  N. Stern What is the Economics of Climate Change , 2006 .

[7]  Link,et al.  Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results , 2014 .

[8]  Steve Pye,et al.  The iterative contribution and relevance of modelling to UK energy policy , 2009 .

[9]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  Open Source software in medical informatics - why, how and what , 2003, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[10]  Piotr Sliz,et al.  A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  Scott Chamberlain,et al.  Building Software, Building Community: Lessons from the rOpenSci Project , 2014 .

[12]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Public health and data protection: an inevitable collision or potential for a meeting of minds? , 2001, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  W. Collins,et al.  The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for Collaborative Research , 2013 .

[14]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  David L. Wheeler,et al.  GenBank , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  M. Walport,et al.  Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data , 2011, The Lancet.

[17]  Johannes E. Schindelin,et al.  Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[18]  Christopher M. Snyder,et al.  Identifying the Effect of Open Access on Citations Using a Panel of Science Journals , 2013 .

[19]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  What does research reproducibility mean? , 2016, Science Translational Medicine.

[20]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Reinventing the energy modelling–policy interface , 2016, Nature Energy.

[21]  Semida Silveira,et al.  OSeMOSYS: The Open Source Energy Modeling System: An introduction to its ethos, structure and development , 2011 .

[22]  Thomas C. Herndon,et al.  Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff , 2014 .

[23]  J. DeCarolis,et al.  The case for repeatable analysis with energy economy optimization models , 2012, 2001.10858.

[24]  Marcia McNutt,et al.  Journals unite for reproducibility , 2014, Science.