Search

Purpose: This paper explores the different open science policy effects on the knowledge generation process of researchers in basic sciences: biology, chemistry and physics. Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses a qualitative methodology with a content analysis approach. It uses seventeen semi-directed interviews. Findings: The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data and code reuse as primary sources. Another issue is the increase of collaboration with other colleagues in terms of the ability to collaborate faster and encouraging the exchange of ideas. However, this benefit does not translate to the division of labor in large transnational teams. Time spent on tasks like cleaning up data and code, scooping and other ethical issues are unfavorable aspects noted. Practical implications: Policymakers could use this study to enhance current open science policies in the countries. Originality/value: This study analyzes the perspectives of basic sciences researchers from two countries about open science policies. The main conclusion is the fact that open science policies should focus on the research process itself – rather than research outputs – in order to effectively tackle inequalities in science. Peer review: The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self‐reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM‐B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM‐B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Puberty is a phase in which individuals often test the boundaries of themselves and surrounding others and further define their identity – and thus their uniqueness compared to other individuals. Similarly, as Computational Social Science (CSS) grows up, it must strike a balance between its own practices and those of neighboring disciplines to achieve scientific rigor and refine its identity. However, there are certain areas within CSS that are reluctant to adopt rigorous scientific practices from other fields, which can be observed through an overreliance on passively collected data (e.g., through digital traces, wearables) without questioning the validity of such data. This paper argues that CSS should embrace the potential of combining both passive and active measurement practices to capitalize on the strengths of each approach, including objectivity and psychological quality. Additionally, the paper suggests that CSS would benefit from integrating practices and knowledge from other established disciplines, such as measurement validation, theoretical embedding, and open science practices. Based on this argument, the paper provides ten recommendations for CSS to mature as an interdisciplinary field of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changes in statistical practices and reporting have been documented by Giofrè et al. PLOS ONE 12(4), e0175583 (2017), who investigated ten statistical and open practices in two high-ranking journals (Psychological Science [PS] and Journal of Experimental Psychology-General [JEPG]): null hypothesis significance testing; confidence or credible intervals; meta-analysis of the results of multiple experiments; confidence interval interpretation; effect size interpretation; sample size determination; data exclusion; data availability; materials availability; and preregistered design and analysis plan. The investigation was based on an analysis of all papers published in these journals between 2013 and 2015. The aim of the present study was to follow up changes in both PS and JEPG in subsequent years, from 2016 to 2020, adding code availability as a further open practice. We found improvement in most practices, with some exceptions (i.e., confidence interval interpretation and meta-analysis). Despite these positive changes, our results indicate a need for further improvements in statistical practices and adoption of open practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The numerous benefits of Open Science (OS) and of the four FAIR foundational principles - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable - are increasingly valued in academia, although what OS and FAIR entail is still largely misunderstood. In such conditions, putting into practice OS and applying the FAIR principles is challenging and underrated. However, realising OS is perfectly within our grasp provided that an infrastructure supporting the management of the research lifecycle is available. ROHub (https://www.rohub.org/) is a Research Object (RO) management platform implementing three complementary technologies: Research Objects, Data Cubes and Text Mining services. ROHub enables researchers to collaboratively manage, share and preserve their research while they are still working on it (rather than after the work is finished). In this paper, three communities from Earth Sciences, namely Geohazards, Sea Monitoring and Climate Change, demonstrate how ROHub helped them to understand each other and to work openly and, more importantly, how communities of practice play an important role in facilitating reuse and interdisciplinary collaboration. These findings are illustrated with several use cases from these various communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Científica is the property of Revista Cientifica, Universidad Distrital Francisco Jose de Caldas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Científica is the property of Revista Cientifica, Universidad Distrital Francisco Jose de Caldas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To address the low reproducibility and replicability of research, Open Science Practices (OSPs) have been developed. Yet, despite increasing awareness of their potential benefits, there has been only little implementation. As journals can act as gatekeepers for scientific discoveries, a potential tendency not to mention OSPs on their websites may help to explain this implementation gap. Therefore, we examined the implementation of OSPs and potential barriers in industrial and organizational psychology and management (IOP/management) journals. Study 1 examined whether and how N = 257 journal websites referred to OSPs. We found that most journals did not mention OSPs. Specifically, only two (1.0%), five (2.5%), and 14 (6.9%) IOP/management journals mentioned preregistration, registered reports, and explicitly welcomed replications, respectively. Study 2 investigated perceived barriers to implementing OSPs with a survey among editors of the IOP/management journals from Study 1. Among the 40 responding editors, 14, 10, and five attributed the lacking implementation of OSPs to a lesser suitability of OSPs for qualitative research, missing authority, and missing familiarity with OSPs, respectively. Based on our findings, the implementation gap could be mitigated by developing new and refining extant OSPs, starting bottom-up initiatives (e.g., researchers directly contacting publishers), and increasing the availability of information on OSPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review of the dimensions of open science in research processes. A total of four databases and snowball searching were used for the comprehensive literature review during 2011–2020; then, we were able to find 98 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Also, we used thematic method to review the relevant studies and identified three categories of dimensions in the research process, namely (1) the publication and sharing category including open access, open data, transparency and reproducibility, citizen science, and crowd sourcing; (2) the infrastructure and cultural category including open infrastructure, open education, open tools, budget mechanism, open culture, and communication; and (3) governance and evaluation including policies, governance, and the ethical principles associated with open science. Open science emphasizes the efforts to open and make the scientific research process more inclusive so as to engage the inside and outside actors in the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016–12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice's prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers. Methods: From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified. Results: Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers' understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research. Conclusion: The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The open and transparent documentation of scientific processes has been established as a core antecedent of free knowledge. This also holds for generating robust insights in the scope of research projects. To convince academic peers and the public, the research process must be understandable and retraceable (reproducible), and repeatable (replicable) by others, precluding the inclusion of fluke findings into the canon of insights. In this contribution, we outline what reproducibility and replicability (R&R) could mean in the scope of different disciplines and traditions of research and which significance R&R has for generating insights in these fields. We draw on projects conducted in the scope of the Wikimedia "Open Science Fellows Program" (Fellowship Freies Wissen), an interdisciplinary, long-running funding scheme for projects contributing to open research practices. We identify twelve implemented projects from different disciplines which primarily focused on R&R, and multiple additional projects also touching on R&R. From these projects, we identify patterns and synthesize them into a roadmap of how research projects can achieve R&R across different disciplines. We further outline the ground covered by these projects and propose ways forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two studies, we examined whether open science practices, such as making materials, data, and code of a study openly accessible, positively affect public trust in science. Furthermore, we investigated whether the potential trust-damaging effects of research being funded privately (e.g. by a commercial enterprise) may be buffered by such practices. After preregistering six hypotheses, we conducted a survey study (Study 1; N = 504) and an experimental study (Study 2; N = 588) in two German general population samples. In both studies, we found evidence for the positive effects of open science practices on trust, though it should be noted that in Study 2, results were more inconsistent. We did not however find evidence for the aforementioned buffering effect. We conclude that while open science practices may contribute to increasing trust in science, the importance of making use of open science practices visible should not be underestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]