Search

Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified and introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open Science practices are integral to increasing transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research in health psychology and behavioral medicine. Drives to facilitate Open Science practices are becoming increasingly evident in journal editorial policies, including the establishment of new paper formats such as Registered Reports and Data Notes. This paper provides: (i) an overview of the current state of Open Science policies within health psychology and behavioral medicine, (ii) a call for submissions to an Article Collection of Registered Reports and Data Notes as new paper formats within the journal of Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine, (iii) an overview of Registered Reports and Data Notes, and (iv) practical considerations for authors and reviewers of Registered Reports and Data Notes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Danish Reproducibility Network (DKRN) is a grassroots initiative for establishing a peer-supportive reproducibility-focused academic network in Denmark. We modelled our approach on already existing national Reproducibility Networks. We consulted with researchers and research support professionals to identify the needs of the research community. Three themes emerged around policy implementation, training and the appropriate application of reproducible practices. The network aims to address these three themes in a strategic plan, which harnesses the benefits of grassroots initiatives. The mission of the DKRN is therefore to facilitate communication, peer-support, and the exchange of ideas through a network of topic and geographical nodes. The network is open to researchers and research support professionals from all career stages and disciplines. It aligns with broader international initiatives, and national institutions, positioning itself as a contributor to the Danish research ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing exploration of how Registered Reports can benefit individual researchers and wider research fields as part of a wider shift towards open research principles and practices. In 'Misaligned incentives in mental health research – the case for Registered Reports', Baldwin examines this in the context of mental health research, arguing that Registered Reports (RRs) can be a valuable solution to misaligned incentive structures in the field. However, this original piece was generally inclined towards how such incentives and the use of RRs can play out in the context of quantitative research. Such reflection is valuable, but to examine the case for RRs in mental health research as a field, we must also explore such practices within the context of qualitative research. In this commentary, we therefore expand and reframe this discussion to make the case for RRs in qualitative mental health research. We explore the place for qualitative research in the mental health research field and examine possibilities for how RRs fit within principles and practices in such methods. We discuss the various benefits and challenges of RRs in qualitative research, reflecting on our experiences as authors and reviewers of qualitative RRs and exploring how research infrastructure can facilitate engagement with this publishing approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is a systematic examination of the open access status of research in two flagship language testing and assessment journals: Language Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly. Coding and analysing 898 articles, we investigated (a) the prevalence of open access in four aspects—open manuscripts, open materials, open data, and open code, and (b) the relationship between open access and various characteristics of research, tests, and researchers. Our study revealed a positive trend in the adoption of open access over time, with open manuscripts and materials showing notable increases. Open code and data have remained scarce, though with a recent uptick from a low base. Notably, logistic regression results suggest inequitable participation in open access as authors from the Global South were less likely to have open manuscripts. Recognising the potential role of flagship journals as trend and standard setters, we call on the field to (a) shift towards more equitable open access models, (b) balance intellectual property concerns with validation needs, (c) recognise open code and open data with protected access via dedicated badges, and (d) adopt Research Transparency Statements, a new reporting structure inclusive of methodological and epistemological differences in open research practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The Danish Reproducibility Network (DKRN) is a grassroots initiative for establishing a peer-supportive reproducibility-focused academic network in Denmark. We modelled our approach on already existing national Reproducibility Networks. We consulted with researchers and research support professionals to identify the needs of the research community. Three themes emerged around policy implementation, training and the appropriate application of reproducible practices. The network aims to address these three themes in a strategic plan, which harnesses the benefits of grassroots initiatives. The mission of the DKRN is therefore to facilitate communication, peer-support, and the exchange of ideas through a network of topic and geographical nodes. The network is open to researchers and research support professionals from all career stages and disciplines. It aligns with broader international initiatives, and national institutions, positioning itself as a contributor to the Danish research ecosystem.

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. Aims The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘ What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

Partaking in the editorial process of an academic journal is both a challenging and rewarding experience. It takes a village of dedicated individuals with a vested interest in the dissemination and sharing of high-quality research outputs. As members of the editorial team of an open access data journal, we reflect on the emergence of data-driven open research, a new journal genre (data paper), and a new journal type (data journal) in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (AHSS). Access to data—the currency of empirical research—is valuable to the research community, crucial to scientific integrity, and leads to cumulative advancements in knowledge. It therefore requires significant investment and appropriate venues for dissemination. We illustrate the necessity of raising awareness about data-driven open research and best practices in data-driven publishing. We discuss how it involves building a community of authors and readers, establishing a company of editors, reviewers, and support staff, and passing on the practice, which has been challenging the status quo in research and publishing. Potential future directions are considered, including data peer review and reward, recognition, and funding structures for data sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Government of Ireland has set a target of achieving 100% open access to publicly funded scholarly publications by 2030. As a key element of achieving this objective, the PublishOA.ie project was established to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an all-island [Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland] digital publishing platform for Diamond Open Access journals and monographs designed to advance best practice and meet the needs of authors, readers, publishers, and research funding organisations in Irish scholarly publishing. It should be noted in this context that there is substantial 'north–south' cooperation between public bodies in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, some of whom operate on what is commonly termed an 'all-island' basis. The project commenced in November 2022 and will run until November 2024, with the submission of a Final Report. This article originated as an interim project report presented in September 2023 at the PubMet2023 conference in Zadar, Croatia. The project is unique in its mandate to report on the feasibility of a shared platform that will encompass scholarly publishing across the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, which are now, post-Brexit, inside and outside the European Union (EU): the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The project is co-led by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Ireland's leading body of experts in the Sciences and Humanities, and the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts & Humanities Research Institute of Trinity College Dublin. There are sixteen partners and affiliates from universities and organisations from the island of Ireland. The feasibility study will be based on a review of the publishing practices in the island of Ireland, with gap analysis on standards, technology, processes, copyright practices, and funding models for Diamond OA, benchmarking against other national platforms, and specifications of the requirements, leading to the delivery of a pilot national publishing platform. A set of demonstrator journals and monographs will be published using the platform, which will be actively trialled by the partner publishers and authors. PublishOA.ie aims to deliver an evidence-based understanding of Irish scholarly publishing and of the requirements of publishers to transition in whole or in part to Diamond OA. This paper provides an interim report on progress on the project as of September 2023, ten months after its commencement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2022, researchers at Dalhousie University were surveyed to assess their understanding and practice of open scholarship. The survey was designed to answer these primary questions: what are Dalhousie University researchers' existing practices and levels of knowledge regarding open scholarship, and what is their awareness and perception of institutional support for open practices? Participants were recruited through direct email, blog posts, and newsletters from the Dalhousie Libraries, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Office of Research Services, and offices of the Associate Deans of Research. During the three-week period the survey was active, 131 surveys were begun. As incomplete surveys were excluded from data analysis, the total analyzed sample size was 98. Descriptive analysis was conducted, as the number of responses was not representative of the Dalhousie University population. Most responses were from faculty, specifically in the Faculty of Medicine, followed by the Faculties of Science and Health. The majority of respondents reported sharing some type of scholarly output, though this varied by discipline and by material type. Informal sharing mechanisms were reported more frequently than formal repositories or publisher sites. Obstacles to open scholarship practices that were identified included concerns about investments of time, money, and education as well as concerns about institutional support and recognition. While many supports for open scholarship are available, there is a need to increase awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open Science practices are integral to increasing transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research in health psychology and behavioral medicine. Drives to facilitate Open Science practices are becoming increasingly evident in journal editorial policies, including the establishment of new paper formats such as Registered Reports and Data Notes. This paper provides: (i) an overview of the current state of Open Science policies within health psychology and behavioral medicine, (ii) a call for submissions to an Article Collection of Registered Reports and Data Notes as new paper formats within the journal of Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine, (iii) an overview of Registered Reports and Data Notes, and (iv) practical considerations for authors and reviewers of Registered Reports and Data Notes.

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

In 2022, researchers at Dalhousie University were surveyed to assess their understanding and practice of open scholarship. The survey was designed to answer these primary questions: what are Dalhousie University researchers' existing practices and levels of knowledge regarding open scholarship, and what is their awareness and perception of institutional support for open practices? Participants were recruited through direct email, blog posts, and newsletters from the Dalhousie Libraries, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Office of Research Services, and offices of the Associate Deans of Research. During the three-week period the survey was active,131 surveys were begun. As incomplete surveys were excluded from data analysis, the total analyzed sample size was 98. Descriptive analysis was conducted, as the number of responses was not representative of the Dalhousie University population. Most responses were from faculty, specifically in the Faculty of Medicine, followed by the Faculties of Science and Health. The majority of respondents reported sharing some type of scholarly output, though this varied by discipline and by material type. Informal sharing mechanisms were reported more frequently than formal repositories or publisher sites. Obstacles to open scholarship practices that were identified included concerns about investments of time, money, and education as well as concerns about institutional support and recognition. While many supports for open scholarship are available, there is a need to increase awareness.

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘ What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

Preprints are non-peer-reviewed and publicly available articles for open and transparent research communication. Preprint servers host the submission of such manuscripts, and despite the presence of established preprint servers, their numbers have continued to rise in recent times. A steep increasing pattern in posted preprints and their accommodating servers has been observed over the last decade. In this article, we explored the global trends in the preprint adoption and its involvement in promoting open and transparent research findings across various domains. We further emphasized the importance of preprinting, highlighting its significant impact during the pandemic through effective information sharing, and advocating for its broader integration in scholarly communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities ('value dissonance'), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as 'research citizenship' comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments, which better foster quality, openness, and responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many journals are moving towards a 'Mandatory Inclusion of Raw Data' (MIRD) model of data sharing, where it is expected that raw data be publicly accessible at article submission. While open data sharing is beneficial for some research topics and methodologies within health psychology, in other cases it may be ethically and epistemologically questionable. Here, we outline several questions that qualitative researchers might consider surrounding the ethics of open data sharing. Overall, we argue that universal open raw data mandates cannot adequately represent the diversity of qualitative research, and that MIRD may harm rigorous and ethical research practice within health psychology and beyond. Researchers should instead find ways to demonstrate rigour thorough engagement with questions surrounding data sharing. We propose that all researchers utilise the increasingly common 'data availability statement' to demonstrate reflexive engagement with issues of ethics, epistemology and participant protection when considering whether to open data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that ecology and conservation researchers should utilize open source technologies to enhance data collection and analysis in their field. Open source hardware, which allows for the study, modification, distribution, and sale of designs or hardware, can reduce costs, adapt to new situations, and improve research quality and transparency. The article provides examples of open source hardware being used in biodiversity research, such as affordable location data loggers and high-quality microscopes. It suggests publishing open source hardware designs with structured metadata and licenses, as well as reforming institutional policies to support open source hardware as part of open science practices. The article emphasizes the benefits of open source hardware for biodiversity researchers and other scientific disciplines, and encourages engagement with global practitioner communities that promote the development and use of open source hardware. The authors disclose financial support for their research and state that the opinions expressed in the article are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their affiliated organizations or the publisher. [Extracted from the article]

This editorial considers Open Science, what it is, what are its potential benefits, what are the pillars of engagement upon which it rests, and what are some of the main challenges facing its further adoption by research communities. At its core, Open Science involves sharing not only the contents of a traditional research article, but also of any source data and methodologies upon which the reported findings are based. Though some extra work may be required, usually without anyone providing additional resources to do that work, continuous developments in digital technology are making Open Science easier to implement. While not all data is suitable to be shared, Open Science practices are widely supported within the wider research community and funding organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent calls for decentring Eurocentric frameworks across fashion studies, alongside growing commitments to worker rights, calls for a circular economy, waste reduction and more sustainable materials draw attention to the complex and intractable social, environmental and political challenges facing the global sector. Here we point out how academic research is also implicated in reproducing inequalities, through practices of data collection, analysis and knowledge dissemination. Specifically, in the case of fashion, how worker representation, and indeed worker control over representations of their lived experiences, including labour activism, is lacking in academic research. In this article, we argue that DIY Academic Archiving can be utilized by academics, including fashion scholars, as a powerful tool for remaking fashion research. We propose unsettling usual practices around data management, as well as redirecting current moves for open research data. Turning instead to inspiration from radical archival theory and practice, we explore the potential for co-creating open-access digital archives of research data – here workers' own stories – to open up possibilities for workers to be more involved in the creation of public narratives about fashion. While not a panacea for resolving all the ills of the fashion industry, we see research processes where workers have more control over their own stories, and how they are used, as a critical step in reimagining fashion scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

Abstract Introduction The development and use of digital tools in various stages of research highlight the importance of novel open science methods for an integrated and accessible research system. The objective of this study was to design and validate a conceptual model of open science on healthcare research processes. Methods This research was conducted in three phases using a mixed-methods approach. The first phase employed a qualitative method, namely purposive sampling and semi-structured interview guides to collect data from healthcare researchers and managers. Influential factors of open science on research processes were extracted for refining the components and developing the proposed model; the second phase utilized a panel of experts and collective agreement through purposive sampling. The final phase involved purposive sampling and Delphi technique to validate the components of the proposed model according to researchers’ perspectives. Findings From the thematic analysis of 20 interview on the study topic, 385 codes, 38 sub-themes, and 14 main themes were extracted for the initial proposed model. These components were reviewed by expert panel members, resulting in 31 sub-themes, 13 main themes, and 4 approved themes. Ultimately, the agreed-upon model was assessed in four layers for validation by the expert panel, and all the components achieved a score of > 75% in two Delphi rounds. The validated model was presented based on the infrastructure and culture layers, as well as supervision, assessment, publication, and sharing. Conclusion To effectively implement these methods in the research process, it is essential to create cultural and infrastructural backgrounds and predefined requirements for preventing potential abuses and privacy concerns in the healthcare system. Applying these principles will lead to greater access to outputs, increasing the credibility of research results and the utilization of collective intelligence in solving healthcare system issues.

This editorial considers Open Science, what it is, what are its potential benefits, what are the pillars of engagement upon which it rests, and what are some of the main challenges facing its further adoption by research communities. At its core, Open Science involves sharing not only the contents of a traditional research article, but also of any source data and methodologies upon which the reported findings are based. Though some extra work may be required, usually without anyone providing additional resources to do that work, continuous developments in digital technology are making Open Science easier to implement. While not all data is suitable to be shared, Open Science practices are widely supported within the wider research community and funding organizations.

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘ What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

Introduction: The development and use of digital tools in various stages of research highlight the importance of novel open science methods for an integrated and accessible research system. The objective of this study was to design and validate a conceptual model of open science on healthcare research processes. Methods: This research was conducted in three phases using a mixed-methods approach. The first phase employed a qualitative method, namely purposive sampling and semi-structured interview guides to collect data from healthcare researchers and managers. Influential factors of open science on research processes were extracted for refining the components and developing the proposed model; the second phase utilized a panel of experts and collective agreement through purposive sampling. The final phase involved purposive sampling and Delphi technique to validate the components of the proposed model according to researchers' perspectives. Findings: From the thematic analysis of 20 interview on the study topic, 385 codes, 38 sub-themes, and 14 main themes were extracted for the initial proposed model. These components were reviewed by expert panel members, resulting in 31 sub-themes, 13 main themes, and 4 approved themes. Ultimately, the agreed-upon model was assessed in four layers for validation by the expert panel, and all the components achieved a score of > 75% in two Delphi rounds. The validated model was presented based on the infrastructure and culture layers, as well as supervision, assessment, publication, and sharing. Conclusion: To effectively implement these methods in the research process, it is essential to create cultural and infrastructural backgrounds and predefined requirements for preventing potential abuses and privacy concerns in the healthcare system. Applying these principles will lead to greater access to outputs, increasing the credibility of research results and the utilization of collective intelligence in solving healthcare system issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harnessing science‐based policy is key to addressing global challenges like the biodiversity and climate crises. Open research principles underpin effective science‐based policy, but the uptake of these principles is likely constrained by the politicisation, commoditisation and conflicting motives of stakeholders in the research landscape. Here, using the mission and vision statements from 129 stakeholders from across the research landscape, we explore alignment in open research principles between stakeholders. We find poor alignment between stakeholders, largely focussed around journals, societies and funders, all of which have low open research language‐use. We argue that this poor alignment stifles knowledge flow within the research landscape, ultimately limiting the mobilisation of impactful science‐based policy. We offer recommendations on how the research landscape could embrace open research principles to accelerate societies' ability to solve global challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) and societies require openly accessible high-quality knowledge as input into transparent and accountable decision-making and informed societal action. Open Science1 supports this requirement. As both enablers and logical consequences of the paradigm of Open Science, the ideas of Open Access, Open Data, and FAIR publishing principles revolutionise how academic research needs to be conceptualised, conducted, disseminated, published, and used. This 'academic openness quartet' is especially relevant for the ways in which research data are created, annotated, curated, managed, shared, reproduced, (re-)used, and further developed in academia. Greater accessibility of scientific output and scholarly data also aims at increasing the transparency and reproducibility of research results and the quality of research itself. In the applied 'academic openness quartet' perspective, they also function as remedies for academic malaises, like missing replicability of results or secrecy around research data. Against this backdrop, the present article offers a conceptual discussion on the four academic openness paradigms, their meanings, interrelations, as well as potential benefits and challenges arising from their application in data-driven research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing adoption of open science practices in the last decade has been changing the scientific landscape across fields. However, developmental science has been argued to be relatively slow in adopting open science practices. One of the barriers to applying open science practices might be a lack of knowing 'how to start' among developmental researchers. To address this issue, we followed the format of Crüwell et al. (2019) and created summaries and an annotated list of informative and actionable resources discussing ten topics in developmental science: Open science practices; Issues with reproducibility and replication; Open data, materials and code; Open access; Preregistration; Registered reports; Replication; Incentives; Collaborative developmental science. This article offers researchers in developmental science a starting point for understanding how open science intersects with developmental science. After getting familiarized with this article, developmental scientists should understand the core tenets of open and reproducible developmental science, and feel motivated to start applying open science practices in their workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dixi is the property of Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia 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.)

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

As the largest longitudinal study of adolescent brain development and behavior to date, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study® has provided immense opportunities for researchers across disciplines since its first data release in 2018. The size and scope of the study also present a number of hurdles, which range from becoming familiar with the study design and data structure to employing rigorous and reproducible analyses. The current paper is intended as a guide for researchers and reviewers working with ABCD data, highlighting the features of the data (and the strengths and limitations therein) as well as relevant analytical and methodological considerations. Additionally, we explore justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts as they pertain to the ABCD Study and other large-scale datasets. In doing so, we hope to increase both accessibility of the ABCD Study and transparency within the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience.

Partaking in the editorial process of an academic journal is both a challenging and rewarding experience. It takes a village of dedicated individuals with a vested interest in the dissemination and sharing of high-quality research outputs. As members of the editorial team of an open access data journal, we reflect on the emergence of data-driven open research, a new journal genre (data paper), and a new journal type (data journal) in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (AHSS). Access to data—the currency of empirical research—is valuable to the research community, crucial to scientific integrity, and leads to cumulative advancements in knowledge. It therefore requires significant investment and appropriate venues for dissemination. We illustrate the necessity of raising awareness about data-driven open research and best practices in data-driven publishing. We discuss how it involves building a community of authors and readers, establishing a company of editors, reviewers, and support staff, and passing on the practice, which has been challenging the status quo in research and publishing. Potential future directions are considered, including data peer review and reward, recognition, and funding structures for data sharing.

The predominant research publishing system is not equitable by design, nor optimised to advance research to create knowledge and ultimately to benefit society. Open Research Central (ORC) was created to foster the re-imagination of the research dissemination system to facilitate trust, transparency and equitable participation. In five years of operation, before dissolving, the non-profit organisation produced outputs and learnings valuable to the development of a responsible research dissemination system. We are sharing our experience in the hope that it will provide others who share the same vision and goals with useful materials to build on. We think that there remains a need for global, cross-stakeholder exploration to build collective understanding of research validation and dissemination and to pilot solutions. However, as this article will explore, enabling and supporting the development of such a collective voice and consequent action is a challenging endeavour in the current landscape and funding environment.

Abstract Harnessing science‐based policy is key to addressing global challenges like the biodiversity and climate crises. Open research principles underpin effective science‐based policy, but the uptake of these principles is likely constrained by the politicisation, commoditisation and conflicting motives of stakeholders in the research landscape. Here, using the mission and vision statements from 129 stakeholders from across the research landscape, we explore alignment in open research principles between stakeholders. We find poor alignment between stakeholders, largely focussed around journals, societies and funders, all of which have low open research language‐use. We argue that this poor alignment stifles knowledge flow within the research landscape, ultimately limiting the mobilisation of impactful science‐based policy. We offer recommendations on how the research landscape could embrace open research principles to accelerate societies' ability to solve global challenges.

Abstract 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.

The Government of Ireland has set a target of achieving 100% open access to publicly funded scholarly publications by 2030. As a key element of achieving this objective, the PublishOA.ie project was established to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an all-island [Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland] digital publishing platform for Diamond Open Access journals and monographs designed to advance best practice and meet the needs of authors, readers, publishers, and research funding organisations in Irish scholarly publishing. It should be noted in this context that there is substantial ‘north–south’ cooperation between public bodies in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, some of whom operate on what is commonly termed an ‘all-island’ basis. The project commenced in November 2022 and will run until November 2024, with the submission of a Final Report. This article originated as an interim project report presented in September 2023 at the PubMet2023 conference in Zadar, Croatia. The project is unique in its mandate to report on the feasibility of a shared platform that will encompass scholarly publishing across the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, which are now, post-Brexit, inside and outside the European Union (EU): the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The project is co-led by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Ireland’s leading body of experts in the Sciences and Humanities, and the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts & Humanities Research Institute of Trinity College Dublin. There are sixteen partners and affiliates from universities and organisations from the island of Ireland. The feasibility study will be based on a review of the publishing practices in the island of Ireland, with gap analysis on standards, technology, processes, copyright practices, and funding models for Diamond OA, benchmarking against other national platforms, and specifications of the requirements, leading to the delivery of a pilot national publishing platform. A set of demonstrator journals and monographs will be published using the platform, which will be actively trialled by the partner publishers and authors. PublishOA.ie aims to deliver an evidence-based understanding of Irish scholarly publishing and of the requirements of publishers to transition in whole or in part to Diamond OA. This paper provides an interim report on progress on the project as of September 2023, ten months after its commencement.

The open research movement has gained momentum in the last decade and no academic can ignore the necessity to make research more open, as it improves reliability, sustainability and reusability of data. In this paper, we present the results of a community-based survey concerning the extent to which open practices are known and applied within the phytolith research community. The survey covered aspects of research including the use of open source/access software and the open publication of data and papers. The answers of 81 participants show that ≥50% use open source/access software in their research, 40.7% know or use open repositories (not necessarily DOI-based), and 37% and 60.5% are predisposed to or have published gold open access and green open access/preprints, respectively. Among respondents with publications (n = 71), 49.3% stated that all their publications included full method descriptions and 53.5% expressed that ≥60% of their publications contained raw data. Overall, the results of the survey indicate that, albeit some misunderstandings about open research are still present, phytolith researchers are positive towards open research and intend to adopt its principles and practices.

In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers bein g unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first high light the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experi mental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field. [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]

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]

Open research practices are relevant to all stages of research, from conceptualization through dissemination. Here, we discuss key facets of open research, highlighting its rationales, infrastructures, behaviors, and challenges. Part I conceptualizes open research and its rationales. Part II identifies challenges such as the speed and cost of open research, the usability of open data and materials, the difficulties of conducting replication research, and the economics and sustainability of open access and open research generally. In discussing these challenges, we have sought to provide examples of good practice, describe and evaluate emerging innovations, and envision change. Part III considers ongoing coevolutions of culture, infrastructure, and behaviors and acknowledges the limitations of our review and of open research practices. We argue that open research is indeed a large part of our future, and most—if not all—challenges are surmountable, but doing so requires significant changes for many aspects of the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]