Open research practices: unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them. (Commentary on the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative)

The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative (PROI) is a move to enlist reviewers in the promotion of data-sharing. In this commentary, I discuss objections that can be raised, first to the specific proposals in the PROI, and second to data-sharing in general. I argue that although many objections have strong counter-arguments, others merit more serious consideration. Regarding the PROI, I suggest that it could backfire if editors and authors feel coerced into data-sharing and so may not be the most pragmatic way of encouraging greater openness. More generally, while promoting data-sharing, we need to be sensitive to cases where sharing of data from human participants could create ethical problems. Furthermore, those interested in promoting reproducible science need to defend against an increased risk of data-dredging when large, multivariable datasets are shared. I end with some suggestions to avoid these unintended consequences.

Download Full-text

Results of the 2019 Wiley Open Research Survey

Septentrio Conference Series ◽

10.7557/5.4916 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Alice Wood ◽

Elizabeth Moylan ◽

Natasha White

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Data Sharing ◽

Subject Area ◽

Research Practices ◽

Research Survey ◽

Open Collaboration ◽

Open Research ◽

Publication Data ◽

Do So

Wiley has published the results of its Open Research Survey 2019. Earlier this year, over 2,600 researchers worldwide shared their thoughts and experiences of open research practices including: open access publication, data sharing, open peer review and open collaboration. For each of these areas we’ll present what motivates researchers to adopt these practices and the ways in which they do so, looking at how this varies by geography, subject area and career level. We’ll also look at the reasons why researchers might not be adopting these practices.

Download Full-text

Opening a Conversation on Open Communication Research

Journal of Communication ◽

10.1093/joc/jqab033 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Adrienne Shaw ◽

Michael Scharkow ◽

Zheng Joyce Wang

Keyword(s):

Open Science ◽

Unintended Consequences ◽

Communication Research ◽

Special Issue ◽

Open Communication ◽

Research Practices ◽

Open Research ◽

Diverse Field

Abstract Many disciplines have been debating and enacting a range of policies, procedures, and practices that fall under the umbrella term “open research” or “open science.” Following the publication of “An Agenda for Open Science in Communication”, we invited communication scholars to continue the conversation on what open research practices broadly might mean for our diverse field. Specifically, we sought work that: looked empirically at the need for and impact of open research practices; considered the unintended consequences of calls for open research practices broadly; and that reflected on what such a move would mean for qualitative and humanistic communication research. We hope the collection of articles in this special issue motivates and facilitates an ongoing conversation on open research practices in the field of communication.

Download Full-text

Enhancing Regulatory Decision Making for Postmarket Drug Safety

Management Science ◽

10.1287/mnsc.2020.3889 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Vishal Ahuja ◽

Carlos A. Alvarez ◽

John R. Birge ◽

Chad Syverson

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Operations Management ◽

The United States ◽

Pharmaceutical Products ◽

Unintended Consequences ◽

Surveillance Systems ◽

Veterans Health ◽

Health Administration ◽

Regulatory Decision ◽

Increased Risk

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the approval and safe public use of pharmaceutical products in the United States. The FDA uses postmarket surveillance systems to monitor drugs already on the market; a drug found to be associated with an increased risk of adverse events (ADEs) is subject to a recall or a warning. A flawed postmarket decision-making process can have unintended consequences for patients, create uncertainty among providers and affect their prescribing practices, and subject the FDA to unfavorable public scrutiny. The FDA’s current pharmacovigilance process suffers from several shortcomings (e.g., a high underreporting rate), often resulting in incorrect or untimely decisions. Thus, there is a need for robust, data-driven approaches to support and enhance regulatory decision making in the context of postmarket pharmacovigilance. We propose such an approach that has several appealing features—it employs large, reliable, and relevant longitudinal databases; it uses methods firmly established in literature; and it addresses selection bias and endogeneity concerns. Our approach can be used to both (i) independently validate existing safety concerns relating to a drug, such as those emanating from existing surveillance systems, and (ii) perform a holistic safety assessment by evaluating a drug’s association with other ADEs to which the users may be susceptible. We illustrate the utility of our approach by applying it retrospectively to a highly publicized FDA black box warning (BBW) for rosiglitazone, a diabetes drug. Using comprehensive data from the Veterans Health Administration on more than 320,000 diabetes patients over an eight-year period, we find that the drug was not associated with the two ADEs that led to the BBW, a conclusion that the FDA evidently reached, as it retracted the warning six years after issuing it. We demonstrate the generalizability of our approach by retroactively evaluating two additional warnings, those related to statins and atenolol, which we found to be valid. This paper was accepted by Vishal Gaur, operations management.

Download Full-text

Tutkimusaineiston avoin jakaminen – tutkimusorganisaatioiden jäsenten käsityksiä, kokemuksia ja mielipiteitä

Informaatiotutkimus ◽

10.23978/inf.77411 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 37 (4) ◽

Author(s):

Heidi Enwald

Keyword(s):

Data Sharing ◽

Data Storage ◽

Online Survey ◽

Open Science ◽

Research Data ◽

Research Field ◽

Open Research ◽

Research Organizations ◽

Data Collection Instrument ◽

In The Beginning

Open research data is data that is free to access, reuse, and redistribute. This study focuses on the perceptions, opinions and experiences of staff and researchers of research institutes on topics related to open research data. Furthermore, the differences across gender, role in the research organization and research field were investigated. An international questionnaire survey, translated into Finnish and Swedish, was used as the data collection instrument. An online survey was distributed through an open science related network to Finnish research organizations. In the end, 469 responded to all 24 questions of the survey. Findings indicate that many are still unaware or uncertain about issues related to data sharing and long-term data storage. Women as well as staff and researchers of medical and health sciences were most concerned about the possible problems associated with data sharing. Those in the beginning of their scientific careers, hesitated about sharing their data.

Download Full-text

Práticas e percepções dos pesquisadores brasileiros sobre serviços de acesso aberto a dados de pesquisa | Practices and perceptions of Brazilian researchers on open access to research data

Liinc em Revista ◽

10.18617/liinc.v15i2.4771 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 15 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Sonia Elisa Caregnato ◽

Samile Andrea de Souza Vanz ◽

Caterina Groposo Pavão ◽

Paula Caroline Jardim Schifino Passos ◽

Eduardo Borges ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Data Sharing ◽

Research Data ◽

Exploratory Analysis ◽

Data Reuse ◽

Institutional Repositories ◽

Open Research

RESUMO O artigo apresenta análise exploratória das práticas e das percepções a respeito do acesso aberto a dados de pesquisa embasada em dados coletados por meio de survey, realizada com pesquisadores brasileiros. As 4.676 respostas obtidas demonstram que, apesar do grande interesse pelo tema, evidenciado pela prevalência de variáveis relacionadas ao compartilhamento e ao uso de dados e aos repositórios institucionais, não há clareza por parte dos sujeitos sobre os principais tópicos relacionados. Conclui-se que, apesar da maioria dos pesquisadores afirmar que compartilha dados de pesquisa, a disponibilização desses dados de forma aberta e irrestrita ainda não é amplamente aceita.Palavras-chave: Dados Abertos de Pesquisa; Compartilhamento de Dados; Reuso de Dados.ABSTRACT This article presents an exploratory analysis of the practices and perceptions regarding open access to research data based on information collected by a survey with Brazilian researchers. The 4,676 responses show that, despite the great interest in the topic, evidenced by the prevalence of variables related to data sharing and use and to institutional repositories, there is no clarity on the part of the subjects on the main related topics. We conclude that, although the majority of the researchers share research data, the availability of this data in an open and unrestricted way is not yet widely accepted.Keywords: Open Research Data; Data Sharing; Data Reuse.

Download Full-text

ERJ Open Research, list of peer reviewers 2018

ERJ Open Research ◽

10.1183/23120541.10501-2019 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 10501-2019

Keyword(s):

Open Research ◽

Peer Reviewers

Download Full-text

Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽

10.3390/publications7040065 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 65 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marcel Knöchelmann

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Scholarly Communication ◽

Open Science ◽

Essential Elements ◽

Research Practices ◽

Open Research ◽

Scientific Disciplines ◽

Communication Practices ◽

Do So

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

Download Full-text

Cannabis Use and the Onset of Cigarette and E-cigarette Use: A Prospective, Longitudinal Study Among Youth in the United States

Nicotine & Tobacco Research ◽

10.1093/ntr/ntaa158 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Andrea H Weinberger ◽

Jiaqi Zhu ◽

Joun Lee ◽

Shu Xu ◽

Renee D Goodwin

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Public Health Education ◽

The United States ◽

Unintended Consequences ◽

Cannabis Use ◽

Cigarette Use ◽

Prospective Longitudinal Study ◽

Logistic Regression Models ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Prospective Longitudinal

Abstract Introduction Cigarette use is declining among youth in the United States, whereas cannabis use and e-cigarette use are increasing. Cannabis use has been linked with increased uptake and persistence of cigarette smoking among adults. The goal of this study was to examine whether cannabis use is associated with the prevalence and incidence of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual product use among U.S. youth. Methods Data included U.S. youth ages 12–17 from two waves of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (Wave 1 youth, n = 13 651; Wave 1 tobacco-naive youth, n = 10 081). Weighted logistic regression models were used to examine the association between Wave 1 cannabis use and (1) Wave 1 prevalence of cigarette/e-cigarette use among Wave 1 youth and (2) Wave 2 incidence of cigarette/e-cigarette use among Wave 1 tobacco-naive youth. Analyses were run unadjusted and adjusted for demographics and internalizing/externalizing problem symptoms. Results Wave 1 cigarette and e-cigarette use were significantly more common among youth who used versus did not use cannabis. Among Wave 1 tobacco-naive youth, Wave 1 cannabis use was associated with significantly increased incidence of cigarette and e-cigarette use by Wave 2. Conclusions Youth who use cannabis are more likely to report cigarette and e-cigarette use, and cannabis use is associated with increased risk of initiation of cigarette and e-cigarette use over 1 year. Continued success in tobacco control—specifically toward reducing smoking among adolescents—may require focusing on cannabis, e-cigarette, and cigarette use in public health education, outreach, and intervention efforts. Implications These data extend our knowledge of cigarette and e-cigarette use among youth by showing that cannabis use is associated with increased prevalence and incidence of cigarette and e-cigarette use among youth, relative to youth who do not use cannabis. The increasing popularity of cannabis use among youth and diminished perceptions of risk, coupled with the strong link between cannabis use and tobacco use, may have unintended consequences for cigarette control efforts among youth.

Download Full-text

Ethical Problems of Marketing Researchers

Journal of Marketing Research ◽

10.1177/002224378402100308 ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 21 (3) ◽

pp. 309-324 ◽

Cited By ~ 63

Author(s):

Shelby D. Hunt ◽

Lawrence B. Chonko ◽

James B. Wilcox

Keyword(s):

Codes Of Conduct ◽

Marketing Research ◽

Top Management ◽

Research Practices ◽

Ethical Problems ◽

Professional Codes ◽

Research Questions ◽

Almost All

Almost all studies on ethics in marketing research have focused on either delineating the responsibilities and obligations of researchers to respondents and clients or exploring whether various groups perceive certain marketing research practices to be ethical or unethical. The authors empirically examine four research questions: What are the major ethical problems of marketing researchers? To what extent do our professional codes of conduct address the major ethical problems of marketing researchers? How extensive are the ethical problems of marketing researchers? How effective are the actions of top management in reducing ethical problems of marketing researchers?

Download Full-text