Category Archives: oa.practices

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study – Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Kelly Cobey, David Moher, Mariska M.G. Leeflang, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Eric Lam, Paul Rooprai, Ahmed Al Khalil, Nabil Islam, Hamza Algodi, Haben Dawit, Robert Adamo, Mahdi Zeghal, Matthew D.F. McInnes, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.

 

OEN Offers Freely Available Resources in Open Pedagogy & Open Educational Practices – Open Education Network Blog

Posted on by
Reply

“The Open Pedagogy Student Toolkit is a guidebook for a student audience authored by Jamie Witman, OEN Open Educational Practices Specialist. Published last month, the open educational resource (OER) is available on Pressbooks and Google Drive for students interested in developing foundational knowledge of open pedagogy. The book offers basic definitions, examines student benefits, and delves into student rights and responsibilities as co-creators. ”

Scholarly communication practices and attitudes of Egyptian junior researchers: An exploratory study – ScienceDirect

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Arab early career researchers (ECRs) are strongly encouraged to actively participate in scholarly communication activities, as it not only enhances their academic standing but also facilitates career advancement and garnering recognition from both the scientific community and the broader public. Nevertheless, the constantly evolving landscape of scholarly communication has imposed significant challenges on researchers. This paper is dedicated to an examination of the scholarly communication practices of early career researchers in Egypt, with the overarching objective of providing insights into the transformations occurring within the scholarly communication framework, particularly within the context of developing nations.

In our paper, we employed a quantitative research design to scrutinize the scholarly communication system in Egypt. This endeavor encompassed the distribution of questionnaires to early career researchers hailing from prominent Egyptian universities, resulting in a total of 441 respondents representing various academic institutions across the country.

Our analysis revealed that junior scholars predominantly adhere to conventional scholarly methodologies in their research pursuits. This conformity is, in part, attributed to the promotion system in Egypt, which places considerable emphasis on established practices, such as single-author publication, while discouraging the utilization of informal channels for garnering recognition and accolades.

The findings of this study furnish us with a more profound comprehension of the prevailing scholarly system in Egypt, which in turn can serve as a foundation for potential system enhancement. It is imperative to acknowledge, however, that this study is not without limitations. The response rate could not be precisely quantified due to the online dissemination of the questionnaires, and the distribution of respondents across diverse scholarly disciplines exhibited significant disparities.

Rewarding open practices in research publishing | Research Information

Posted on by
Reply

“Monica Moniz explains how an innovative ‘question-led’ journal series can address issues of demoralisation among academic authors, as well as advancing knowledge

Before I was a publisher, I was a researcher. This was almost 10 years ago – and, although much has changed in science publishing since then, the pressures and incentives remain the same.

I am particularly concerned that, according to a recent study by The University of Bristol and Octopus, and reported in Research Information, around a third of academics said they saw no benefit to their careers in sharing work quickly and openly – and that many are ‘demoralised by a culture that disincentivises sharing and collaboration, encourages questionable research practices, and increases the risk of bias’….

Working across communities to ensure an open future for books: views from Copim’s Archiving & Preservation team | Digital Preservation Coalition

Posted on by
Reply

by Dr Miranda Barnes

The Open Book Futures project, which began in May 2023 as an acceleration and advancement of the COPIM Project (11/2019-04/2023), continues to focus on the open access monograph, with an emphasis on Scaling Small. This principle “eschews standard approaches to organisational growth that tend to flatten community diversity through economies of scale” (Adema & Moore, 2021). Work Packages in both projects focus more broadly on infrastructure, governance, accessibility, financial models and revenue, metadata and dissemination, and experimental publishing, but also archiving and preservation. It is the combined approach and multifaceted, collaborative interaction of the work packages that leads to our best insights and outputs.

Both COPIM and Open Book Futures depend on the breadth of different groups and individuals involved, which includes scholars, librarians, publishers, infrastructure providers and advocacy groups, as well as colleagues in a variety of other roles at the universities and institutions involved in the projects. Without the perspectives, knowledge, and support of the many members of this “community of communities” (Adema, Hart, et al, 2022), any impact made by our work would be isolated and siloed. Our research into community-supported options for archiving and preservation is no different. We gain a great deal from knowing what challenges face the academic author, the scholar-led press, and the libraries wishing to support the open research agenda. Our understanding is buoyed and clarified by our conversations and collaborations with digital preservation archives, infrastructure providers, and platforms, allowing us to develop and advance tools and guidance to benefit those who need it most. And without organisations such as the DPC, Jisc, OAPEN, and DOAB, and the collective expertise and experience they share, certainly our community and efforts would be greatly diminished.

Another important community we have been engaging is that of other projects examining similar issues from different perspectives, such as the work of the Embedding Preservability Project, and its predecessor Enhancing Services to Preserve New Forms of Scholarship, both led by New York University Libraries. This project specifically considers the challenges to long-term preservation of “increasingly complex publications that are not easily represented in print.” Also the Software Preservation Network’s EaaSI, or Emulation as a Service Infrastructure, who have built a platform with preservation potential for the most complicated published works that may depend on a virtual machine to render properly. Connecting and meeting with our colleagues within these projects has been immensely beneficial, particularly for project members working on experimental publishing and digital preservation. This is just one example of the collaborative, cooperative spirit pervasive within our “community of communities” that has come to define open research.

[…]

A snapshot of the academic research culture in 2023 and how it might be improved

Posted on by
Reply

Our evaluation revealed a wide variety of barriers to more open sharing of research. While some are related to perceived or experienced biases based on personal characteristics such as gender or inequitable access to support, most result from a research culture that primarily assesses achievement and quality through traditional, peer-reviewed papers. This focus, and the resulting competition, encourages researchers to hide their work at least until a traditional journal paper is published. In some situations, these pressures lead to questionable research practices (QRPs), such as data manipulation to achieve an “interesting” or statistically significant result more likely to appeal to a journal with higher impact metrics or perceived “impact”. In general, open research practices are viewed as not beneficial, or even detrimental, to job security and career advancement. This is especially true given competing demands and the need for academics to prioritise their time on outputs that count in assessments that they are subject to.

Up front and open, shrouded in secrecy, or somewhere in between? A Meta Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research | Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  OBJECTIVE: To investigate open science practices in research published in the top five sports medicine journals from 01 May 2022 and 01 October 2022.

DESIGN: A meta-research systematic review

LITERATURE SEARCH: Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top-five sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate ((1) British Journal of Sports Medicine, (2) Journal of Sport and Health Science, (3) American Journal of Sports Medicine, (4) Medicine Science Sport and Exercise, and (5) Sports Medicine-Open). Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, grey literature, or animal or cadaver models.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and patient and public involvement (PPI).

RESULTS: 243 studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (Range: 0-8; IQR: 2). 234 studies (96%, 95% CI: 94-99%) provided an author conflict of interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62-73%) reported funding. 21 studies (9%, 95% CI: 5-12%) provided open access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8-16%) were pre-registered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-5%) reported patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION: Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans.

Authorship practices must evolve to support collaboration and open science | PLOS Biology

Posted on by
Reply

“It does not serve us well to reduce everything to articles as the only valuable output of research. But the current reality is that authorship of articles is central to research assessment, and while research assessment reform starts to take hold, journals can and should improve their authorship practices to ensure that all important contributions to how science is done today can be recognized and valued. This is essential for team science, open science, and equitable collaboration to flourish.”

Advantages and challenges to open science practices (in Russian)

Posted on by
Reply

In Russian with this English-language abstract:  The article examines open science practices in relation with the Open Science framework. The core values of open science, emerged as a response to the long-standing challenges to scientific knowledge production, include: transparency, scrutiny, critique and reproducibility; equality of opportunities; responsibility, respect and accountability; collaboration, participation and inclusion; flexibility; sustainability. These are the guiding principles for open science practices. The spread of open science practices is uneven, in terms of regional, disciplinary, gender, and institutional differences. The overview of international studies shows that open science practices are beginning to affect the whole research cycle, from idea emergence throughout the dissemination and exploitation of research results. We analyzed four most widespread practices – open data, open peer review, preregistration and registered reports, and open access. Our findings suggest that all these practices, while solving particular problems, simultaneously create new ones. To overcome new challenges, shift in the principles themselves, scheme of funding and workload sharing, evaluation and reward processes are necessary. The most challenging is the need to change research culture in accordance with Open Science values. In Russia, open access is a commonly spread practice, whereas the rest three practices yet to be discussed.

Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes | Science and Public Policy | Oxford Academic

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Lists of endorsed and discouraged scholarly publications recently emerged as an important transition in Chinese journal evaluation. Among the targeted users of these lists are researchers, who are to avoid publishing in discouraged journals and focus efforts on endorsed journals. However, it is unclear how these lists affect researchers’ valuations when choosing publication outlets. This explorative study investigates the reception of such journal lists in Chinese scientists’ research practices. Our findings suggest that three logics interact in respondents’ journal valuations: institutional evaluation regimes, differing epistemic cultures, and the influence of the commercial publishing industry. The reactive effects of both endorsed and discouraged journal lists appear to differ with the ranking status of universities, the seniority of scholars, and research fields. Apart from the new institutional evaluation regimes in this interplay, there appear to be more predominant factors than journal lists that inform publishing choices: quantitative indicators, publishers’ branding, epistemic cultures, and editorial procedures and publishing models.

 

Open Science and Policy Interface: The Tanzania Perspective | East African Journal of Science, Technology and Innovation

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  The 21st century has seen a paradigm shift in scholarly communication, with digital technology changing the entire process of the scholarly communication lifecycle. As the cost of online reference materials for research continues to rise and restrictive conditions persist, global academic and research communities are pursuing countermeasures to make knowledge equitable and accessible. This is made possible through the Open Science (OS) movement that aims to make knowledge accessible to researchers and citizens irrespective of their technical or financial capability. This paper explores open science to ascertain the status of open science practices in Tanzania. The paper highlights the policy interfaces and frameworks that favor open science practices in research endeavors. Also, it provides a baseline for understanding the situation to inform scientific research and education communities about the status of open science and possible areas of intervention. Open science is still in its infancy, although certain steps have been taken in adopting it for example the adoption of open access practices, including the creation of institutional repositories and the adoption of policies that direct its implementation. Additionally, the implementation of open data practices has been quite slow. Also, researchers and organizations in Tanzania are gradually adopting open data practices. Currently, some academic institutions, particularly public universities, have adopted and used open journal publishing systems, particularly the online journal system (OJS). The published journal articles through journal systems are freely accessible online like other open-access content, however, the journals are not yet registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) despite the fact that some are already indexed in different abstracting services such as Africa Journal Online (AJOL) and they have Digital Object Identifiers (DOI). The policy interface of open science needs to be harmonized and COSTECH is strategically positioned to take the lead.

 

Full article: Data sharing and re-use in the traumatic stress field: An international survey of trauma researchers

Posted on by
Reply

“Background:

The FAIR data principles aim to make scientific data more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. In the field of traumatic stress research, FAIR data practices can help accelerate scientific advances to improve clinical practice and can reduce participant burden. Previous studies have identified factors that influence data sharing and re-use among scientists, such as normative pressure, perceived career benefit, scholarly altruism, and availability of data repositories. No prior study has examined researcher views and practices regarding data sharing and re-use in the traumatic stress field.

Objective:

To investigate the perspectives and practices of traumatic stress researchers around the world concerning data sharing, re-use, and the implementation of FAIR data principles in order to inform development of a FAIR Data Toolkit for traumatic stress researchers.

Method:

A total of 222 researchers from 28 countries participated in an online survey available in seven languages, assessing their views on data sharing and re-use, current practices, and potential facilitators and barriers to adopting FAIR data principles.

Results:

The majority of participants held a positive outlook towards data sharing and re-use, endorsing strong scholarly altruism, ethical considerations supporting data sharing, and perceiving data re-use as advantageous for improving research quality and advancing the field. Results were largely consistent with prior surveys of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. A significant proportion of respondents reported instances of data sharing and re-use, but gold standard practices such as formally depositing data in established repositories were reported as infrequent. The study identifies potential barriers such as time constraints, funding, and familiarity with FAIR principles.

Conclusions:

These results carry crucial implications for promoting change and devising a FAIR Data Toolkit tailored for traumatic stress researchers, emphasizing aspects such as study planning, data preservation, metadata standardization, endorsing data re-use, and establishing metrics to assess scientific and societal impact.

Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences | Nature Communications

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Open science practices such as posting data or code and pre-registering analyses are increasingly prescribed and debated in the applied sciences, but the actual popularity and lifetime usage of these practices remain unknown. This study provides an assessment of attitudes toward, use of, and perceived norms regarding open science practices from a sample of authors published in top-10 (most-cited) journals and PhD students in top-20 ranked North American departments from four major social science disciplines: economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. We observe largely favorable private attitudes toward widespread lifetime usage (meaning that a researcher has used a particular practice at least once) of open science practices. As of 2020, nearly 90% of scholars had ever used at least one such practice. Support for posting data or code online is higher (88% overall support and nearly at the ceiling in some fields) than support for pre-registration (58% overall). With respect to norms, there is evidence that the scholars in our sample appear to underestimate the use of open science practices in their field. We also document that the reported lifetime prevalence of open science practices increased from 49% in 2010 to 87% a decade later.

 

Supporting open science in the Arab world | Research Information

Posted on by
Reply

“The Arab region comprises 22 member states across the Gulf, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Although economic circumstances, and available human, physical and digital capacities vary widely across these 22 states, the region as a whole has the resources and capability to play a pivotal role in the global transition towards more accessible, sustainable and inclusive research and education models.

However, while many institutions and organisations are at the forefront of this change (for example the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology and King AbdulAziz University in Saudi Arabia, the Qatar National Library and the Egyptian Knowledge Bank), there is a clear need for something more focused on the specific needs of research communities and research institutions just starting out on their journey towards openness.

That is why, at the start of 2022, the Knowledge E Foundation (a registered community interest company based in the UK) decided to develop and launch a new non-profit initiative, the Forum for Open Research in MENA (FORM) – to support the development and implementation of Open Science policies and practices in research communities and research institutions across the Arab region….”

Pandemia trouxe oportunidades para mais inclusão na ciência | RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação

Posted on by
Reply

From Google’s English:  Abstract:  Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic produced a large volume of scientific data and encouraged open science practices due to data sharing for the control of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. This scenario generated opportunities for the Open Science (AC) movement. Objective: The purpose of this article is to map the circulating narratives about AC practices during the pandemic – with emphasis on debates on public access to knowledge and practices and values ??characteristic of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). Methodology:A documental and thematic analysis of 30 scientific articles, news in the press, blog posts and institutional materials published in Portuguese was carried out, obtained by searching for keywords in SciELO, Google and libraries of the Chamber and Senate. Results: It was observed that 36.6% (11) of the documents mentioned EDI values, while 70% (21) included discussions about public and universal access to knowledge. The texts could present both themes, being counted both in the EDI and public access categories. Of the sample, 23% (7) did not mention either of these two categories and 77% presented at least one of them. Conclusion:In general, the use of open science has been associated with the rapid production of responses to the pandemic, which raises questions about the continuity of open practices in periods when this urgency is not present. As for the debate on EDI, although still incipient, the pandemic presents opportunities for more inclusive knowledge co-production and practices — with real-time public debate experiences of building evidence.