MetaArXiv Preprints | The impact of open and reproducible scholarship on students’ scientific literacy, engagement, and attitudes towards science: A review and synthesis of the evidence

Abstract:  In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness, and reproducibility of research, characterized by higher standards of scientific evidence, increased interest in open practices, and promotion of transparency. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Currently, the impact of integrating an open and reproducible approach into the curriculum on student outcomes is not well articulated in the literature. Therefore, in this paper, we provide the first comprehensive review of how integrating open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning may impact students, using a large-scale, collaborative, team-science approach. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship may impact: (1) students’ scientific literacies (i.e., students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science, and the development of transferable skills); (2) student engagement (i.e., motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration, and engagement in open research), and (3) students’ attitudes towards science (i.e., trust in science and confidence in research findings). Our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship in this area.

Why price transparency in research publishing is a positive step | Hindawi

“In 2019, Hindawi took part in the price transparency framework pilot run by Information Power on behalf of cOAlition S. Three years later and the coalition’s new Journal Comparison Service (JCS) is up and running. Hindawi is proud to be one of the publishers that has contributed data to this service. Taking part has helped us focus on the rigour of our own reporting system and has enabled us to give researchers greater choice when choosing a journal by giving more visibility to our services in our new and publicly available journal reports.

Only a few publishers took part in the pilot and the framework remains untested. It’s not yet clear how useful the JCS will be to the institutions who might want to access the service and use the data, or how the JCS will increase transparency about costs as well as pricing across the publishing industry more generally. In part, this is because it’s seen by some to provide an overly simplistic view of publishing. Compartmentalising publishing services into seven or eight different categories  (see page 20 of the JCS guidance for publishers) inevitably constrains the many different and often overlapping services that publishers provide. In addition, limiting the price breakdown of these services into the percentage that each contributes to a journal’s APC also means that the real costs aren’t visible. There are also pragmatic reasons that make it very difficult for some publishers to collect data consistently, especially for those with large portfolios that operate on multiple platforms or have journal-specific workflows. Finally, fully open-access publishers who don’t have an APC business model can’t take part, even if they want to be more transparent. However, we believe the upsides are large. Hindawi has more than 200 journals in our portfolio and the following outlines a few of the ways we, and we hope those who contribute to and access our journals, are benefiting. Our focus is on the ‘Information Power’ framework for the JCS and on the ‘Journal Quality’ information specifically (columns P-Z in the template spreadsheet). This information relates to data on the journal workflow, especially peer review (such as timings and the no of reviewers involved). We know that there is a long way to go to make all publishing services transparent, but we are learning from our participation in the JCS and will continue to explore ways to improve transparency….”

Open Access is necessary but not sufficient to ensure research integrity

This interactive session will explore the central role of open access to publications, data, instruments, protocols, code and/or scripts in fostering a culture of research integrity and public trust in research. Through discussion of contemporary investigations into misconduct, we will consider the interconnectedness of good data practices and open access with principles of research integrity. In particular, we will discuss concrete practices related to project management, data management, and training that enable validation, foster a culture of research integrity, and support greater openness in the conduct of research and dissemination of research outputs.

Commitment to Openness in Research and Research Communication – PLOS

“Open Science encompasses the entire research process and the entire research community. It empowers researchers everywhere to share valuable artifacts from each stage of their investigation and increase visibility and collaboration around their work. Every research community and individual has an opportunity to shape the activities and norms that inspire trust in their work. A commitment to Open Science, therefore, is not a pledge to adopt a few specific behaviors, but to advance openness, transparency and reproducibility in daily life as a researcher.

Together, we can cultivate a more inclusive and trustworthy future for science….”

Transition to Open Access: Tackling Complexity and Building Trust – Publishing Perspectives

“This spring, Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) presented a special “OA Innovation Seminar Series.” On behalf of Publishing Perspectives, Christopher Kenneally revisited comments from two guests who appeared in this series and are seeing positive outcomes in their transitions to open access….”

Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students’ bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Research is becoming increasingly accessible to the public via open access publications, researchers’ social media postings, outreach activities, and popular disseminations. A healthy research discourse is typified by debates, disagreements, and diverging views. Consequently, readers may rely on the information available, such as publication reference attributes and bibliometric markers, to resolve conflicts. Yet, critical voices have warned about the uncritical and one-sided use of such information to assess research. In this study we wanted to get insight into how individuals without research training place trust in research based on clues present in publication references. A questionnaire was designed to probe respondents’ perceptions of six publication attributes. A total of 148 students responded to the questionnaire of which 118 were undergraduate students (with limited experience and knowledge of research) and 27 were graduate students (with some knowledge and experience of research). The results showed that the respondents were mostly influenced by the number of citations and the recency of publication, while author names, publication type, and publication origin were less influential. There were few differences between undergraduate and graduate students, with the exception that undergraduate students more strongly favoured publications with multiple authors over publications with single authors. We discuss possible implications for teachers that incorporate research articles in their curriculum.

 

Technologies of Trust: Introduction | Allegra Lab

This post is the introduction of our thematic thread on Trust, curated by Anna Weichselbraun (University of Vienna), Shaila Seshia Galvin (Geneva Graduate Institute) and Ramah McKay (University of Pennsylvania).

What do we mean when we talk about trust? Contemporary discourses figure trust variously as a problem, an aspiration, an object of intervention, and even something to be dispensed with all together. An abiding social fact, trust appears to nourish not only interpersonal relations but also scales up to the social orders of governance, politics, and publics. Girlfriends and governments as much as experts and executives are concerned with inspiring, maintaining, and growing trust. To do so they implement a wide variety of measures: from communicative reassurances, to certification schemes, technologies of transparency and objectification, and legal measures of accountability and compliance. Despite all these efforts, the Edelman “Trust Barometer,” itself an instrument worthy of examination, notes that trust in government, media, NGOs, and business has dramatically declined since the beginning of the new millennium. And, we observe, blockchain technology is touted by some proponents as necessary for producing trust, while others see its virtue in permitting trustlessness. In the midst of this confusion and supposed crisis of trust we ask: what is trust and what does it do?

[…]

 

Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined

Abstract:  Proponents of open science often refer to issues pertaining to research integrity and vice versa. In this commentary, we argue that concepts such as responsible research practices, transparency, and open science are connected to one another, but that they each have a different focus. We argue that responsible research practices focus more on the rigorous conduct of research, transparency focuses predominantly on the complete reporting of research, and open science’s core focus is mostly about dissemination of research. Doing justice to these concepts requires action from researchers and research institutions to make research with integrity possible, easy, normative, and rewarding. For each of these levels from the Center for Open Science pyramid of behaviour change, we provide suggestions on what researchers and research institutions can do to promote a culture of research integrity. We close with a brief reflection on initiatives by other research communities and stakeholders and make a call to those working in the fields of research integrity and open science to pay closer attention to one other’s work.

 

Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined

Abstract:  Proponents of open science often refer to issues pertaining to research integrity and vice versa. In this commentary, we argue that concepts such as responsible research practices, transparency, and open science are connected to one another, but that they each have a different focus. We argue that responsible research practices focus more on the rigorous conduct of research, transparency focuses predominantly on the complete reporting of research, and open science’s core focus is mostly about dissemination of research. Doing justice to these concepts requires action from researchers and research institutions to make research with integrity possible, easy, normative, and rewarding. For each of these levels from the Center for Open Science pyramid of behaviour change, we provide suggestions on what researchers and research institutions can do to promote a culture of research integrity. We close with a brief reflection on initiatives by other research communities and stakeholders and make a call to those working in the fields of research integrity and open science to pay closer attention to one other’s work.

 

Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies – Tom Rosman, Michael Bosnjak, Henning Silber, Joanna Koßmann, Tobias Heycke, 2022

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

Open peer review is the key to tackling public health misinformation | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Digital, open access publication helped scientists share data and collaborate for the good of global public health. Greater open data policies have improved access to the data underpinning research discoveries. Meanwhile, preprints have enabled faster communication of research findings. But these shifts have not, by themselves, dispelled the conspiracies. I would also argue that the missing piece of the jigsaw is open, de-anonymised peer review….”

4 ways to increase peer review transparency to foster greater trust in the process

Putting research questions and methods before findings…

Employing more open peer review practices…

Developing shared peer-review standards and taxonomies…

Facilitating the sharing of review reports across journals….”

Frontiers | Editorial: Trust and Infrastructure in Scholarly Communications | Research Metrics and Analytics

“An ever more connected system of global research information and infrastructure is transforming all aspects of the research process from how we discover and consume content to how we communicate it and the impact that it can have. At the same time, Web 2.0 has given the ability to self-publish to anyone—a tremendous freeing of global communication, but the signal-to-noise ratio has become challenging to manage, and fake news and unreliable information abound. In this new world research participation is becoming more global (both from international and intranational perspectives); research communication is more transparent through the open access, open data, and open science movements; it is becoming ever closer to translation and societal impact as we see through the rise in importance of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, a variety of grand challenge agendas, moonshots, and the adoption of impact into the evaluation environment. Data are at the centre of this change—whether it be the need to handle data volumes, the “shape” and format of data, or data as code and as a fuel for AI—the heart of any technology strategy is not just about how we collect, manipulate, consume and deploy data, but also about how it is structured, who can find it, who has access to it, who has sovereignty over it, and what capacity they have to calculate with it. And, it is more critical than ever that we understand the provenance, context, and bias of data. As data becomes part of our most powerful tools, we have to understand the “error bars” more than ever before. With so much change it is unsurprising that the infrastructures and norms of the research world, which were built in a different time, are under stress.

As a result of this impetus to change, infrastructures that have underpinned the research conversation for 350 years are changing and, as such, are vulnerable. There has never been a more important time to consider how we trust the infrastructures that we rely upon, and how those infrastructures can engender trust in communities. Thus, the collection of articles in this Research Topic reflect a diverse range of different perspectives on how the scholarly communications research infrastructure is changing and the issues of trust in both the best and worst of times….”

Measuring Research Transparency

“Measuring the transparency and credibility of research is fundamental to our mission. By having measures of transparency and credibility we can learn about the current state of research practice, we can evaluate the impact of our interventions, we can track progress on culture change, and we can investigate whether adopting transparency behaviors is associated with increasing credibility of findings….

Many groups have conducted research projects that manually code a sample of papers from a field to assess current practices. These are useful but highly effortful. If machines can be trained to do the work, we will get much more data, more consistently, and much faster. There are at least three groups that have made meaningful progress creating scalable solutions: Ripeta, SciScore, and DataSeer. These groups are trying to make it possible, accurate, and easy to assess many papers for whether the authors shared data, used reporting standards, identified their conflicts of interest, and other transparency relevant actions….”

Opening up Science—to Skeptics – By Rohan Arcot & Hunter Gehlbach – Behavioral Scientist

“The research community is no stranger to skepticism. Its own members have been questioning the integrity of many scientific findings with particular intensity of late. In response, we have seen a swell of open science norms and practices, which provide greater transparency about key procedural details of the research process, mitigating many research skeptics’ misgivings. These open practices greatly facilitate how science is communicated—but only between scientists. 

Given the present historical moment’s critical need for science, we wondered: What if scientists allowed skeptics in the general public to look under the hood at how their studies were conducted? Could opening up the basic ideas of open science beyond scholars help combat the epidemic of science skepticism?  …”