Search

AbstractPreprints 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]

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]

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]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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]

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.

This paper provides an overview of workflows in the Social Sciences and Humanities Open Marketplace discovery portal. Workflows are defined as step-by-step research scenarios pointing to resources that can be used at each stage for someone to reproduce these scenarios. Born as TEI objects in the Standardization Survival Kit, a mapping exercise was needed to transfer them into the SSH Open Marketplace and ensure their legacy. Dedicated forms are now available to create and edit workflows which provide an easy to use interface for researchers to be autonomous in the creation and design of their workflows. This paper reviews the history, the technical, and community dimensions needed to describe research workflows in the Social Sciences and Humanities. It also describes the challenges faced and the new developments envisioned so that these workflows can better reflect and serve SSH researchers.

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]

Some Nigerian universities are digitising their scholarly heritage and the high risk of loss or attack of digital records due to viruses and cyber hacks is worrisome, with far reaching consequences on the confidentiality, integrity and availability triad. This paper examines cybersecurity and institutional repository (IR) protection in Nigeria, highlighting the impact of cybersecurity and risk management. The study explores the five core frameworks of cybersecurity with emphasis on strategies for policy development and management of risk. It also analyses security threats through feedback from professionals in the referenced domain. A manual assessment was conducted with all Nigeria institutional repositories registered on opendoar.org using qualitative descriptive analysis. The sample size of the study consists of 88 librarians and information, communication and technology workers. A structured questionnaire on threats and risks of institutional repositories in Nigeria were distributed and 62(70.4%) responded. Results show that, of 198 federal, state and private universities, only 29 (14.6%) have established institutional repositories with slow adoption rate of 12.5% from 2009 to 2020, and 2019 having the highest established IR at a growth rate of 24%. Total number of items uploaded was 22,828. This paper found that DSpace open repository software had 79.3% use among institutions, while 26 institutions (89.6%) have uploaded journal articles. Hardware and software threats stood out prominently as leading causes of sub-optimal repository performance. Evaluated against an assigned weighted point system (of 31) derived from number of technical workers in IR domain, data reveals malware and malicious code as the biggest risk to repository resources, with 30.6%, followed by password attacks at 28% and IP theft 27.8% points respectively. However, hardening security systems guarding institutional hardware, software and infrastructure such as; management of identity access and operation, secure network application and data, could reduce incidents of cyber-crime. The research study recommends the development of modern cybersecurity framework for university libraries, mechanism for data defenses and redundancy strategies such as decentralisation of data and networks to mitigate the risk of vulnerability to attack and reduce loss from cyber incidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through integrating the research featured in this issue, this article describes generative areas for future research and the means to advance the impact of our field. Reflective practices related to field building and knowledge access for which Rich Ling helped to lay the groundwork are highlighted. Ling's work in mobile media and telecommunications has influenced the theoretical, methodological, and empirical opportunities for mobile communication research. Four themes for future mobile communication research have emerged: social, seamless, just, and open. These themes align with the work featured in this issue and with Ling's promotion of practices that enhance our field to develop relevancy, integrity, and ecological validity. This article places special focus on global and social justice as leading to a better understanding of mobile communication in the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the engagement in open research practices by librarians in Kwara State, Nigeria. It operates with three objectives and questions. It uses descriptive survey method as its design and adopts convenience sampling technique to select 63 librarians who filled the questionnaire titled "Questionnaire on Exploring the Engagement in Open Research by Librarians in Kwara State," which was sent to respondents through their WhatsApp groups. Findings revealed that respondents used open peer review, publishing research in open access platforms and depositing research in institutional repositories as channels of engaging in open research. It further shows that open research is of benefit to respondents by helping them in the creation of good research profiles, increasing connectivity among researchers and increasing findability and broadening readership of their works, while lack of training on open research, fear of plagiarism and lack of awareness of the open research process are the major factors retarding the engagement in open research by the respondents. This study concludes that open research is one of the mainstays of scientific evolution that enables researchers to increase visibility for their works and recommends amongst others that it is imperative for librarians in Kwara State to be making their research works available in open educational resources, it is one of the states with the highest library schools in Nigeria. Through this, students and other researchers can use their research works to broaden the status of teaching and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning are the current forefront of computer science and technology. AI and related sub-disciplines, including machine learning, are essential technologies which have enabled the widespread use of smart technology, such as smart phones, smart home appliances and even electric toothbrushes. It is AI that allows the devices used day-to-day across people’s personal lives, working lives and in industry to better anticipate and respond to our needs. However, the use of AI technology comes with a range of ethical questions – including issues around privacy, security, reliability, copyright/plagiarism and whether AI is capable of independent, conscious thought. We have seen several issues related to racial and sexual bias in AI in the recent times, putting the reliability of AI in question. Many of these issues have been brought to the forefront of cultural awareness in late 2022, early 2023, with the rise of AI art programs (and the copyright issues arising from the deep-learning methods employed to train this AI), and the popularity of ChatGPT alongside its ability to be used to mimic human output, particularly in regard to academic work. In critical areas like healthcare, the errors of AI can be fatal. With the incorporation of AI in almost every sector of our everyday life, we need to keep asking ourselves— can we trust AI, and how much? This Editorial outlines the importance of openness and transparency in the development and applications of AI to allow all users to fully understand both the benefits and risks of this ubiquitous technology, and outlines how the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Gateway on F1000Research meets these needs.

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

This case study describes the development of an open research skills framework at the University of York. The framework responds to a need for more comprehensive training, clarity and understanding around open research practices across disciplines at York, in line with the University's commitment to the long-term development of an open research culture. The framework was developed by Library, Archives and Learning Services (LALS) in partnership with practitioners from different disciplines across the University's research community. We summarize the background of open research activities at York since 2020, describe how the project was initiated and progressed during the summer of 2022, then provide an overview of the framework itself including areas for future development and consideration. We conclude with some early indicators of usage and reflections on the project, and we hope that this case study will prove useful for research support staff who may be considering developing a similar framework for their own institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers are increasingly being asked by funders, publishers and their institutions to share research data alongside written publications, and to include data availability statements to support their readers in finding this data. In the UK, UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) is one of the largest funding bodies and has had data-sharing policies for several years. This article investigates the reasons why a researcher may or may not share their data and assesses whether funders, publishers and institutions are supporting data-sharing behaviour through their policies and actions. A survey with 166 responses gave an indicative assessment of researcher opinions around data sharing, and a corpus of 3,277 journal articles retrieved from four UK institutions was analysed using multivariate logistic regression models to provide empirical evidence as to researcher behaviour around data sharing. The regression models provide insight into how this is affected by the funder, institution and publisher of the research. This study identifies that those publishers and funders who give clear guidance in their policies as to which data should be shared, and where this data should be shared, are most likely to encourage good practice in researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The commercial control of academic publishing and research infrastructure by a few oligopolistic companies has crippled the development of the open access movement and interfered with the ethical principles of informa)tion access and privacy. In recent years, vertical integration of publishers and other service providers throughout the research cycle has led to plat)formisation, characterised by datafication and commodification similar to the practices on social media platforms. Scholarly publications are treated as user-generated contents for data tracking and surveillance, resulting in profitable data products and services for research assessment, benchmark)ing and reporting. Meanwhile, the bibliodiversity and equal open access are denied by the dominant gold open access model and the privacy of researchers is being compromised by spyware embedded in research infra)structure. This article proposes four actions to challenge the platformisation of scholarly information after a brief overview of the market of academic journals and research assessments and their implications for bibliodiversity, information access, and privacy: (1) Educate researchers about commercial publishers and APCs; (2) Allocate library budget to support scholar-led and library publishing; (3) Engage in the development of public research infra)structures and copyright reform; and (4) Advocate for research assessment reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine and are placed at the top of the level-of-evidence pyramid. To date, there are several methodological resources available from international organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration that aim to aid researchers in conducting high-quality secondary research and promoting reproducibility, transparency and scientific rigour. Nevertheless, researchers still face challenges in most stages of evidence synthesis. Open research and the FAIR (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) principles are rising initiatives being increasingly implemented in primary research. However, their beneficial role in secondary research is less emphasized. This article addresses how the challenges commonly faced during evidence synthesis research could be overcome using open research practices and currently available open research tools. Despite the phenomenally simple SR workflow, researchers still find tasks such as framing the SR research question, search strategy development, data extraction, and assessing for bias, challenging. The implementation of FAIR practices, including prospective registration at the PROSPERO database, abiding with the PRISMA guidelines, and making all SR data openly available could have significant benefits in avoiding duplication of effort and reducing research waste while improving the reporting standards of SRs. Additionally, this article highlights the need for further education in open research culture to overcome ethical and motivational barriers in implementing open research practices in evidence synthesis. Finally, in the era of technological breakthroughs, artificial intelligence may eventually be incorporated into the process of SRs and should abide by the FAIR standards for open research.

Open Research aims to make research more accessible, transparent, reproducible, shared and collaborative. Doing so is meant to democratize and diversify access to knowledge and knowledge production, and ensure that research is useful outside of academic contexts. Increasing equity is therefore a key aim of the Open Research movement, yet mounting evidence demonstrates that the practices of Open Research are implemented in ways that undermine this. In response, we convened a diverse community of researchers, research managers and funders to co-create actionable recommendations for supporting the equitable implementation of Open Research. Using a co-creative modified Delphi method, we generated consensus-driven recommendations that address three key problem areas: the resource-intensive nature of Open Research, the high cost of article processing charges, and obstructive reward and recognition practices at funders and research institutions that undermine the implementation of Open Research. In this paper, we provide an overview of these issues, a detailed description of the co-creative process, and present the recommendations and the debates that surrounded them. We discuss these recommendations in relation to other recently published ones and conclude that implementing ours requires ‘global thinking’ to ensure that a systemic and inclusive approach to change is taken.

Pre-registration is an open research practice that can mitigate against questionable research practices and contribute to enhanced research outcomes, such as increased research transparency. This paper explores barriers and enablers to pre-registration, and develops an evidence-based behaviour change intervention specification to increase its uptake. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework of intervention development and COM-B model of behaviour change were used to inform the development of a mixed-methods online questionnaire, assessing barriers and enablers to pre-registration. Data were collected from 18-05-2020 to 12-07-2020, and explored using descriptive statistics, reflexive thematic analysis, and COM-B. BCW was used to develop an intervention specification. Respondents were researchers (n = 105) who were mostly engaged in psychological research (71%) and had pre-registered before (75%). Insufficient knowledge and skill (psychological capability), social support (social opportunity), time (physical opportunity), and incentivisation (reflective motivation) were the most substantial barriers to pre-registration, whereas belief in pre-registration contributing to desirable research outcomes (reflective motivation) was the most substantial enabler. These findings informed the development of an intervention specification to increase pre-registration uptake by researchers. This paper demonstrates the strong potential of BCW to facilitate open research practices. The identified barriers and enablers, intervention specification, and the behaviour change approach outlined, may be used to increase pre-registration uptake; for example, developing new or refining existing training and incentivisation interventions. This paper may inspire others to consider the strong potential of BCW to facilitate open research practices and so contribute to enhanced research outcomes.

This case study describes the development of an open research skills framework at the University of York. The framework responds to a need for more comprehensive training, clarity and understanding around open research practices across disciplines at York, in line with the University’s commitment to the long-term development of an open research culture. The framework was developed by Library, Archives and Learning Services (LALS) in partnership with practitioners from different disciplines across the University’s research community. We summarize the background of open research activities at York since 2020, describe how the project was initiated and progressed during the summer of 2022, then provide an overview of the framework itself including areas for future development and consideration. We conclude with some early indicators of usage and reflections on the project, and we hope that this case study will prove useful for research support staff who may be considering developing a similar framework for their own institution.

Abstract Many disciplines are facing a “reproducibility crisis”, which has precipitated much discussion about how to improve research integrity, reproducibility, and transparency. A unified effort across all sectors, levels, and stages of the research ecosystem is needed to coordinate goals and reforms that focus on open and transparent research practices. Promoting a more positive incentive culture for all ecosystem members is also paramount. In this commentary, we—the Local Network Leads of the UK Reproducibility Network—outline our response to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry on research integrity and reproducibility. We argue that coordinated change is needed to create (1) a positive research culture, (2) a unified stance on improving research quality, (3) common foundations for open and transparent research practice, and (4) the routinisation of this practice. For each of these areas, we outline the roles that individuals, institutions, funders, publishers, and Government can play in shaping the research ecosystem. Working together, these constituent members must also partner with sectoral and coordinating organisations to produce effective and long-lasting reforms that are fit-for-purpose and future-proof. These efforts will strengthen research quality and create research capable of generating far-reaching applications with a sustained impact on society.

Abstract The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has called for evidence on the roles that different stakeholders play in reproducibility and research integrity. Of central priority are proposals for improving research integrity and quality, as well as guidance and support for researchers. In response to this, we argue that there is one important component of research integrity that is often absent from discussion: the pedagogical consequences of how we teach, mentor, and supervise students through open scholarship. We justify the need to integrate open scholarship principles into research training within higher education and argue that pedagogical communities play a key role in fostering an inclusive culture of open scholarship. We illustrate these benefits by presenting the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT), an international grassroots community whose goal is to provide support, resources, visibility, and advocacy for the adoption of principled, open teaching and mentoring practices, whilst generating conversations about the ethics and social impact of higher-education pedagogy. Representing a diverse group of early-career researchers and students across specialisms, we advocate for greater recognition of and support for pedagogical communities, and encourage all research stakeholders to engage with these communities to enable long-term, sustainable change.

Shortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.

Music researchers work with increasingly large and complex data sets. There are few established data handling practices in the field and several conceptual, technological, and practical challenges. Furthermore, many music researchers are not equipped for (or interested in) the craft of data storage, curation, and archiving. This paper discusses some of the particular challenges that empirical music researchers face when working towards Open Research practices: handling (1) (multi)media files, (2) privacy, and (3) copyright issues. These are exemplified through MusicLab, an event series focused on fostering openness in music research. It is argued that the "best practice" suggested by the FAIR principles is too demanding in many cases, but "good enough practice" may be within reach for many. A four-layer data handling "recipe" is suggested as concrete advice for achieving "good enough practice" in empirical music research.

Critical data and metadata must be captured or created in the field, or shortly thereafter, to avoid loss. For the past 10 years, the Field Acquired Information Management Systems (FAIMS) project has developed and operated a customisable field data capture platform. Over time, we built features and approaches that incorporated the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles into born-digital datasets created during fieldwork. This paper synthesises our experience helping more than 40 projects adapt the FAIMS platform to nearly 70 research workflows in archaeology and other fieldwork domains. We review what elements of the FAIR Data Principles FAIMS was able to build into our software, how users received these capabilities, and what sociotechnical challenges impeded creation of FAIRer field data. Based on our experience, we argue that field data capture software can facilitate the production of FAIRer data, making those data much more Findable and Reusable, and somewhat more Accessible and Interoperable. Any such improvements, however, depend upon (1) making FAIR-data features an integral part of field data collection systems, minimising the burden imposed on researchers, and (2) researchers’ willingness to spend time and resources implementing FAIR Data Principles that do not provide immediate benefits to their research.