What is the extent that "Open Science" in Hostler's argument can be replaced with "quality"? In other words, management are motivated to under-recognise *all* work which goes into doing high quality research (because academics have non-institutional motivations for making work higher quality). To the extent that Open Research practices are adopted as aspects of higher quality (rather than being required institutionally as arbitrary add-ons), they will just be another example in a much larger general category of academic labour which is underrecognised but contributes to research quality (along with thorough literature reviewing, mentoring, citing properly, reviewing, etc )
If this is the case, the bonus is that efforts to ameliorate underrecognition / work-loads might cover adoption of open research practices without need for special consideration
What is the extent that "Open Science" in Hostler's argument can be replaced with "quality"? In other words, management are motivated to under-recognise *all* work which goes into doing high quality research (because academics have non-institutional motivations for making work higher quality). To the extent that Open Research practices are adopted as aspects of higher quality (rather than being required institutionally as arbitrary add-ons), they will just be another example in a much larger general category of academic labour which is underrecognised but contributes to research quality (along with thorough literature reviewing, mentoring, citing properly, reviewing, etc )
If this is the case, the bonus is that efforts to ameliorate underrecognition / work-loads might cover adoption of open research practices without need for special consideration