Archives des mots-clés : open science

Preprints in Chemistry: An Exploratory Analysis of Differences with Journal Articles

Posté le par

Author : Mario Pagliaro

The exploratory analysis of the differences between preprints and the corresponding peer reviewed journal articles for ten studies first published on ChemRxiv and on Preprints, though statistically non-significant, suggests outcomes of relevance for chemistry researchers and educators.

The full transition to open science requires new education of doctoral students and young researchers on scholarly communication in the digital age.

The preliminary findings of this study will contribute to inform the curriculum of the aforementioned new courses for young chemists, eventually promoting accelerated innovation in a science that, unique amid all basic sciences, originates a huge industry central to the wealth of nations.

URL : Preprints in Chemistry: An Exploratory Analysis of Differences with Journal Articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010005

Opening up the Library: Transforming our Policies, Practices and Structures

Posté le par

Authors : Joanna Ball, Graham Stone, Sarah Thompson

Momentum is building in the transition to open access for monographs, with a number of funders developing policies and mandates in recent years.

The article argues that while libraries play an instrumental role in driving a transition to open science within their institutions this is not reflected in libraries’ approaches to collection development, which are still predicated on purchased content.

Libraries are keen to demonstrate that their purchased content is relevant to users, often promoting ‘expensive’ purchased collections over open content. Rather than relegating open to a less-visible second place, the article calls for libraries to acquire and promote open content alongside, and where appropriate with higher priority, than paid-for content.

In order to facilitate a transition to open access for monographs, cultural change and leadership is required within libraries to reimagine themselves around open content as the norm, with policies, practices and structures that communicate, enable and promote this shift. The article calls for a collaborative international approach.

URL : Opening up the Library: Transforming our Policies, Practices and Structures

Original location : https://www.liberquarterly.eu/article/10.18352/lq.10360/

Which aspects of the Open Science agenda are most relevant to scientometric research and publishing? An opinion paper

Posté le par

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Raf Guns, Michael Thelwall, Dietmar Wolfram

Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses many recommendations for possible changes in research practices, management, and publishing with the objective to increase transparency and accessibility.

This has become an important science policy issue that all disciplines should consider. Many Open Science recommendations may be valuable for the further development of research and publishing but not all are relevant to all fields.

This opinion paper considers the aspects of Open Science that are most relevant for scientometricians, discussing how they can be usefully applied.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00121

Preprints: Their Evolving Role in Science Communication

Posté le par

Authors : Iratxe Puebla, Jessica Polka, Oya Rieger

The use of preprints for the dissemination of research in some life sciences branches has increased substantially over the last few years. In this document, we discuss preprint publishing and use in the life sciences, from initial experiments back in the 1960s to the current landscape.

We explore the perspectives, advantages and perceived concerns that different stakeholders associate with preprints, and where preprints stand in the context of research assessment frameworks.

We also discuss the role of preprints in the publishing ecosystem and within open science more broadly, before outlining some remaining open questions and considerations for the future evolution of preprints.

URL : Preprints: Their Evolving Role in Science Communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ezfsk

Open Science and the Hype Cycle

Posté le par

Author : George Strawn

The introduction of a new technology or innovation is often accompanied by “ups and downs” in its fortunes. Gartner Inc. defined a so-called hype cycle to describe a general pattern that many innovations experience: technology trigger, peak of inflated expectations, trough of disillusionment, slope of enlightenment, and plateau of productivity.

This article will compare the ongoing introduction of Open Science (OS) with the hype cycle model and speculate on the relevance of that model to OS. Lest the title of this article mislead the reader, be assured that the author believes that OS should happen and that it will happen.

However, I also believe that the path to OS will be longer than many of us had hoped. I will give a brief history of the today’s “semi-open” science, define what I mean by OS, define the hype cycle and where OS is now on that cycle, and finally speculate what it will take to traverse the cycle and rise to its plateau of productivity (as described by Gartner).

URL : Open Science and the Hype Cycle

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00081

Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society

Posté le par

Authors : Daniel Toribio-Flórez, Lukas Anneser, Felipe Nathan deOliveira-Lopes, Martijn Pallandt, Isabell Tunn, Hendrik Windel

Open science (OS) is of paramount importance for the improvement of science worldwide and across research fields. Recent years have witnessed a transition toward open and transparent scientific practices, but there is still a long way to go.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are of crucial relevance in the process of steering toward the standardization of OS practices, as they will become the future decision makers of the institutional change that necessarily accompanies this transition. Thus, it is imperative to gain insight into where ECRs stand on OS practices.

Under this premise, the Open Science group of the Max Planck PhDnet designed and conducted an online survey to assess the stance toward OS practices of doctoral candidates from the Max Planck Society.

As one of the leading scientific institutions for basic research worldwide, the Max Planck Society provides a considerable population of researchers from multiple scientific fields, englobed into three sections: biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics and technology, and human and social sciences.

From an approximate total population of 5,100 doctoral candidates affiliated with the Max Planck Society, the survey collected responses from 568 doctoral candidates. The survey assessed self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of different OS practices, namely, open access publications, open data, preregistrations, registered reports, and replication studies.

ECRs seemed to hold a generally positive view toward these different practices and to be interested in learning more about them. Furthermore, we found that ECRs’ knowledge and positive attitudes predicted the extent to which they implemented these OS practices, although levels of implementation were rather low in the past. We observed differences and similarities between scientific sections.

We discuss these differences in terms of need and feasibility to apply these OS practices in specific scientific fields, but additionally in relation to the incentive systems that shape scientific communities. Lastly, we discuss the implications that these results can have for the training and career advancement of ECRs, and ultimately, for the consolidation of OS practices.

URL : Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.586992

Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology

Posté le par

Authors : Jason Chinn, Justin Pickett, Simine Vazire, Alex Holcombe

Objectives

Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers’ opinions of those practices.

Methods

We administered an anonymous survey to authors of articles published in criminology journals. Respondents self-reported their own use of 10 QRPs and 5 OSPs. They also estimated the prevalence of use by others, and reported their attitudes toward the practices.

Results

QRPs and OSPs are both common in quantitative criminology, about as common as they are in other fields. Criminologists who responded to our survey support using QRPs in some circumstances, but are even more supportive of using OSPs.

We did not detect a significant relationship between methodological training and either QRP or OSP use.

Support for QRPs is negatively and significantly associated with support for OSPs. Perceived prevalence estimates for some practices resembled a uniform distribution, suggesting criminologists have little knowledge of the proportion of researchers that engage in certain questionable practices.

Conclusions

Most quantitative criminologists in our sample use QRPs, and many use multiple QRPs. The substantial prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the validity and reproducibility of published criminological research.

We found promising levels of OSP use, albeit at levels lagging what researchers endorse. The findings thus suggest that additional reforms are needed to decrease QRP use and increase the use of OSPs.

URL : Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/bwm7s