scholarly journals A practical guide for improving transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging research

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski ◽  
Russell A. Poldrack
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Science Data ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Open Research

AbstractRecent years have seen an increase in alarming signals regarding the lack of replicability in neuroscience, psychology, and other related fields. To avoid a widespread crisis in neuroimaging research and consequent loss of credibility in the public eye, we need to improve how we do science. This article aims to be a practical guide for researchers at any stage of their careers that will help them make their research more reproducible and transparent while minimizing the additional effort that this might require. The guide covers three major topics in open science (data, code, and publications) and offers practical advice as well as highlighting advantages of adopting more open research practices that go beyond improved transparency and reproducibility.

scholarly journals Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals How open science helps researchers succeed

eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C McKiernan ◽  
Philip E Bourne ◽  
C Titus Brown ◽  
Stuart Buck ◽  
Amye Kenall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Media Attention ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
Funding Opportunities

Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.

scholarly journals Open Research: Examples of good practice, and resources across disciplines

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Kate Farran ◽  
Priya Silverstein ◽  
Aminath A. Ameen ◽  
Iliana Misheva ◽  
Camilla Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Education ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research

Open research is best described as “an umbrella term used to refer to the concepts of openness, transparency, rigor, reproducibility, replicability, and accumulation of knowledge” (Crüwell et al., 2019, p. 3). Although a lot of open research practices have commonly been discussed under the term “open science”, open research applies to all disciplines. If the concept of open research is new to you, it might be difficult for you to determine how you can apply open research practices to your research. The aim of this document is to provide resources and examples of open research practices that are relevant to your discipline. The document lists case studies of open research per discipline, and resources per discipline (organised as: general, open methods, open data, open output and open education).

Reproducibility in plant pathology: where do we stand and a way forward.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam H. Sparks ◽  
Emerson del Ponte ◽  
Kaique S. Alves ◽  
Zachary S. L. Foster ◽  
Niklaus J. Grünwald
Keyword(s):  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Computational Code ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Scientific Results

Abstract Open research practices have been highlighted extensively during the last ten years in many fields of scientific study as essential standards needed to promote transparency and reproducibility of scientific results. Scientific claims can only be evaluated based on how protocols, materials, equipment and methods were described; data were collected and prepared; and, analyses were conducted. Openly sharing protocols, data and computational code is central for current scholarly dissemination and communication, but in many fields, including plant pathology, adoption of these practices has been slow. We randomly selected 300 articles published from 2012 to 2018 across 21 journals representative of the plant pathology discipline and assigned them scores reflecting their openness and reproducibility. We found that most of the articles were not following protocols for open science, and were failing to share data or code in a reproducible way. We also propose that use of open-source tools facilitates reproducible work and analyses benefitting not just readers, but the authors as well. Finally, we also provide ideas and tools to promote open, reproducible research practices among plant pathologists.

scholarly journals A practical guide for transparency in psychological science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Klein ◽  
Tom Elis Hardwicke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Johannes Breuer ◽  
Henrik Danielsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Management Practices ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Incremental Step

The credibility of scientific claims depends upon the transparency of the research products upon which they are based (e.g., study protocols, data, materials, and analysis scripts). As psychology navigates a period of unprecedented introspection, user-friendly tools and services that support open science have flourished. There has never been a better time to embrace transparent research practices. However, the plethora of decisions and choices involved can be bewildering. Here we provide a practical guide to help researchers navigate the process of preparing and sharing the products of their research. Being an open scientist means adopting a few straightforward research management practices, which lead to less error prone, reproducible research workflows. Further, this adoption can be piecemeal – each incremental step towards complete transparency adds positive value. Transparent research practices not only improve the efficiency of individual researchers, they enhance the credibility of the knowledge generated by the scientific community.

scholarly journals Questionable and Open Research Practices: Attitudes and Perceptions among Quantitative Communication Researchers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert N Bakker ◽  
Jaidka Kokil ◽  
Timothy Dörr ◽  
Neil Fasching ◽  
Yphtach Lelkes
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Work ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Pluralistic Ignorance ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions

Abstract Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices (QRPs) are believed to be widespread, evidence for this belief is, primarily, derived from other disciplines. Therefore, it is largely unknown to what extent QRPs are used in quantitative communication research and whether researchers embrace open research practices (ORPs). We surveyed first and corresponding authors of publications in the top-20 journals in communication science. Many researchers report using one or more QRPs. We find widespread pluralistic ignorance: QRPs are generally rejected, but researchers believe they are prevalent. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices. In all, our study has implications for theories in communication that rely upon a cumulative body of empirical work: these theories are negatively affected by QRPs but can gain credibility if based upon ORPs. We outline an agenda to move forward as a discipline.

scholarly journals A Hydrologist’s Guide to Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Hall ◽  
Sheila Saia ◽  
Andrea Popp ◽  
Stan Schymanski ◽  
Niels Drost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Social Barriers ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Current State ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Practical Guidelines

<p>To have lasting impact on the scientific community and broader society, hydrologic research must be open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible. With so many different perspectives on and constant evolution of open science approaches and technologies, it can be overwhelming for hydrologists to start down the path towards or grow one’s own push for open research. Open hydrology practices are becoming more widely embraced by members of the community and key organizations, yet, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social barriers (e.g., fear of being scooped) still exist. These barriers may seem insurmountable without practical suggestions on how to proceed. Here, we propose the Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science. To increase accessibility and make the Open Hydrology Principles more tangible and actionable, we also present the Open Hydrology Practical Guidelines. Our aim is to help hydrologists transition from closed, inaccessible, not reusable, and not reproducible ways of conducting scientific work to open hydrology and empower researchers by providing information and resources to equitably grow the openness of hydrological sciences. We provide the first version of a practical open hydrology resource that may evolve with open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. We discuss some of the benefits of open science and common reservations to open science, and how hydrologists can pursue an appropriate level of openness in the presence of barriers. Further, we highlight how the practice of open hydrology can be expanded. The Open Hydrology Principles, Practical Guide, and additional resources reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology and we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join the open science conversation by contributing to the living version of this document and sharing open hydrology resources at the community-supported repository at open-hydrology.github.io.</p>

scholarly journals Questionable and open research practices: attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert N. Bakker ◽  
Kokil Jaidka ◽  
Timothy Dörr ◽  
Neil Fasching ◽  
Yphtach Lelkes
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions ◽  
Large Survey

Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices are believed to be widespread, evidence for this claim is primarily derived from other disciplines. Before change in communication research can happen, it is important to document the extent to which QRPs are used and whether researchers are open to the changes proposed by the so-called open science agenda. We conducted a large survey among authors of papers published in the top-20 journals in communication science in the last ten years (N=1039). A non-trivial percent of researchers report using one or more QRPs. While QRPs are generally considered unacceptable, researchers perceive QRPs to be common among their colleagues. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices in communication research. We end with a series of recommendations outlining what journals, institutions and researchers can do moving forward.

scholarly journals Opening a Conversation on Open Communication Research

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.

scholarly journals Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2019-111296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan G Cashin ◽  
Matthew K Bagg ◽  
Georgia C Richards ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Open Science ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Journal Policies

Scientific progress requires transparency and openness. The ability to critique, replicate and implement scientific findings depends on the transparency of the study design and methods, and the open availability of study materials, data and code. Journals are key stakeholders in supporting transparency and openness. This study aimed to evaluate 10 highest ranked pain journals’ authorship policies with respect to their support for transparent and open research practices. Two independent authors evaluated the journal policies (as at 27 May 2019) using three tools: the self-developed Transparency and Openness Evaluation Tool, the Centre for Open Science (COS) Transparency Factor and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest. We found that the journal policies had an overall low level of engagement with research transparency and openness standards. The median COS Transparency Factor score was 3.5 (IQR 2.8) of 29 possible points, and only 7 of 10 journals’ stated requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest aligned fully with the ICMJE recommendations. Improved transparency and openness of pain research has the potential to benefit all that are involved in generating and using research findings. Journal policies that endorse and facilitate transparent and open research practices will ultimately improve the evidence base that informs the care provided for people with pain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document