Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

AbstractIn the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/.

Download Full-text

Promoting Open Science to Increase the Trustworthiness of Evidence in Special Education

Council review ◽

10.1177/0014402918793138 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 85 (1) ◽

pp. 104-118 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Bryan G. Cook ◽

John Wills Lloyd ◽

David Mellor ◽

Brian A. Nosek ◽

William J. Therrien

Keyword(s):

Special Education ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Open Science ◽

Cultural Norms ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Individuals With Disabilities ◽

Science Practices ◽

Quality Of Research ◽

Selection Of

Scientific evidence should guide the selection of practice for individuals with disabilities. Scientific evidence, however, must be trustworthy to move special education toward greater empirical certainty and more effective policies and practices. Transparency, openness, and reproducibility increase the trustworthiness of evidence. We propose that researchers in special education adopt emerging open-science reforms, such as preprints, data and materials sharing, preregistration of studies and analysis plans, and Registered Reports. Adoption of these practices will require shifts in cultural norms, guidelines, and incentives. We discuss how adopting open-science practices can advance the quality of research and, consequently, policy and practice in special education.

Download Full-text

Promoting Open Science to Increase the Trustworthiness of Evidence in Special Education

10.31219/osf.io/zqr69 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Bryan G. Cook ◽

John Wills Lloyd ◽

David Thomas Mellor ◽

Brian A. Nosek ◽

William Therrien

Keyword(s):

Special Education ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Open Science ◽

Cultural Norms ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Individuals With Disabilities ◽

Science Practices ◽

Quality Of Research ◽

Selection Of

Scientific evidence should guide the selection of practice for individuals with disabilities. Scientific evidence, however, must be trustworthy to move special education toward greater empirical certainty and more effective policies and practices. Transparency, openness, and reproducibility increase the trustworthiness of evidence. We propose that researchers in special education adopt emerging open science reforms such as preprints, data and materials sharing, preregistration of studies and analysis plans, and Registered Reports. Adoption of these practices will require shifts in cultural norms, guidelines, and incentives. We discuss how adopting open science practices can advance the quality of research and, consequently, policy and practice in special education.

Download Full-text

Evaluating quality of science in CGIAR research programs: Use of bibliometrics

Outlook on Agriculture ◽

10.1177/00307270211024271 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 003072702110242

Author(s):

Max Rünzel ◽

Paolo Sarfatti ◽

Svetlana Negroustoueva

Keyword(s):

Review Process ◽

Research Output ◽

Monitoring And Evaluation ◽

Bibliometric Indicators ◽

Scientific Publications ◽

Practical Utilization ◽

Research Programs ◽

First Time ◽

Quality Of Research

When evaluating Quality of Science (QoS) in the context of development initiatives, it is essential to define adequate criteria. The objective of this perspective paper is to show how altmetric and bibliometric indicators have been used to support the evaluation of QoS in the 2020 Review of the Phase 2-CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs, 2017–2022), where, for the first time, the Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D) frame of reference has been utilized across the entire CGIAR CRP portfolio. Overall, the CRP review showed a significant output of scientific publications during the period 2017–2020, with 4,872 articles, 220,101 references, and 7.1 citations per article. Additionally, wider interest in scientific publications is demonstrated by good to high altmetrics, with average attention scores ranging from 70.8 to 806.9 with an average of 425.1. The use of selected bibliometrics was shown to be an adequate tool, for use together with other qualitative indicators to evaluate the QoS in the 12 CRPs. The CRP review process clearly demonstrated that standardized, harmonized and consistent data on research output is paramount to provide high-quality quantitative instruments and should be a priority throughout the transition toward One CGIAR. Therefore, we conclude that the QoR4D framework should be augmented by standardized bibliometric indicators embedded in measurement frameworks within the new One CGIAR. Finally, its practical utilization in monitoring and evaluation should be supported with clear guidelines.

Download Full-text

Qualitative generalising in accounting research: concepts and strategies

Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal ◽

10.1108/aaaj-04-2015-2026 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 29 (6) ◽

pp. 1100-1131 ◽

Cited By ~ 69

Author(s):

Lee D. Parker ◽

Deryl Northcott

Keyword(s):

Design Methodology ◽

Research Literature ◽

Key Factors ◽

General Applicability ◽

Information Systems Management ◽

Content Type ◽

Accounting Research ◽

Research Findings ◽

Quality Of Research

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and articulate concepts and approaches to qualitative generalisation that will offer qualitative accounting researchers avenues for enhancing and justifying the general applicability of their research findings and conclusions. Design/methodology/approach – The study and arguments draw from multidisciplinary approaches to this issue. The analysis and theorising is based on published qualitative research literatures from the fields of education, health sciences, sociology, information systems, management and marketing, as well as accounting. Findings – The paper develops two overarching generalisation concepts for application by qualitative accounting researchers. These are built upon a number of qualitative generalisation concepts that have emerged in the multidisciplinary literatures. It also articulates strategies for enhancing the generalisability of qualitative accounting research findings. Research limitations/implications – The paper provides qualitative accounting researchers with understandings, arguments and justifications for the generalisability of their research and the related potential for wider accounting and societal contributions. It also articulates the key factors that impact on the quality of research generalisation that qualitative researchers can offer. Originality/value – This paper presents the most comprehensively sourced and developed approach to the concepts, strategies and unique deliverables of qualitative generalising hitherto available in the accounting research literature.

Download Full-text

Open science reforms: Strengths, challenges, and future directions

10.35542/osf.io/sgfy8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Kathryn R. Wentzel

Keyword(s):

Research Design ◽

Educational Psychology ◽

Open Science ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Future Directions ◽

Science Practices ◽

Research Findings ◽

Potential Benefits ◽

The Impact

In this article, I comment on the potential benefits and limitations of open science reforms for improving the transparency and accountability of research, and enhancing the credibility of research findings within communities of policy and practice. Specifically, I discuss the role of replication and reproducibility of research in promoting better quality studies, the identification of generalizable principles, and relevance for practitioners and policymakers. Second, I suggest that greater attention to theory might contribute to the impact of open science practices, and discuss ways in which theory has implications for sampling, measurement and research design. Ambiguities concerning the aims of preregistration and registered reports also are highlighted. In conclusion, I discuss structural roadblocks to open science reform and reflect on the relevance of these reforms for educational psychology.

Download Full-text

Preregistration and Registered Reports

10.35542/osf.io/wrvt2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Justin Reich

Keyword(s):

Data Collection ◽

Social Science ◽

Educational Psychology ◽

Data Analytics ◽

Open Science ◽

Science Methods ◽

Special Issue ◽

Scientific Process ◽

Science Practices ◽

Post Hoc

Preregistration and registered reports are two promising open science practices for increasing transparency in the scientific process. In particular, they create transparency around one of the most consequential distinctions in research design: the data analytics decisions made before data collection and post-hoc decisions made afterwards. Preregistration involves publishing a time-stamped record of a study design before data collection or analysis. Registered reports are a publishing approach that facilitates the evaluation of research without regard for the direction or magnitude of findings. In this paper, I evaluate opportunities and challenges for these open science methods, offer initial guidelines for their use, explore relevant tensions around new practices, and illustrate examples from educational psychology and social science. This paper was accepted for publication in Educational Psychologist volume 56, issue 2; scheduled for April 2021, as a part of a special issue titled, “Educational psychology in the open science era.”This preprint has been peer reviewed, but not copy edited by the journal and may differ from the final published version. The DOI of the final published version is: [insert preprint DOI number]. Once the article is published online, it will be available at the following permanent link: [insert doi link]

Download Full-text

Social Science Research in India

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199474417.001.0001 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Social Science ◽

Research Output ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Vital Role ◽

Reference Database ◽

Data Infrastructure ◽

Quality Of Research

Social science research (SSR) has a vital role in enriching societies, by generating scientific knowledge that brings insights—even enlightenment—in understanding the dynamics of human behaviour and development. For social sciences to realize their potential in shaping public policy, it is imperative that the research ecosystem is dynamic and vibrant; the institutions governing it are robust and effective; and those producing quality research are strong and well governed. This volume elaborates on various dimensions of SSR in India, presenting a strong case for designing a comprehensive national social science policy which can meaningfully strengthen and promote a research ecosystem for improved public policymaking in the country. Addressing issues like lack of funding, availability of data, infrastructure, and quality of research output, it will serve as a national benchmark and reference database for social sciences in India.

Download Full-text

Collaboration in Giftedness and Talent Development Research

journal for the education of the gifted ◽

10.1177/0162353220912019 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 91-107

Author(s):

Matthew C. Makel ◽

Kendal N. Smith ◽

Erin M. Miller ◽

Scott J. Peters ◽

Matthew T. McBee

Keyword(s):

Gifted Education ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Large Scale ◽

Open Science ◽

Accurate Information ◽

Development Research ◽

Research Practices ◽

Science Practices ◽

Research Findings ◽

Potential Improvement

Existing research practices in gifted education have many areas for potential improvement so that they can provide useful, generalizable evidence to various stakeholders. In this article, we first review the field’s current research practices and consider the quality and utility of its research findings. Next, we discuss how open science practices increase the transparency of research so readers can more effectively evaluate its validity. Third, we introduce five large-scale collaborative research models that are being used in other fields and discuss how they could be implemented in gifted education research. Finally, we review potential challenges and limitations to implementing collaborative research models in gifted education. We believe greater use of large-scale collaboration will help the field overcome some of its methodological challenges to help provide more precise and accurate information about gifted education.

Download Full-text

Biomedical research in Nigeria: realities and misconceptions

Future Science OA ◽

10.2144/fsoa-2019-0157 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (7) ◽

pp. FSO475

Author(s):

Bashiru Garba ◽

Bashir Sa'idu

Keyword(s):

Biomedical Research ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Transfer Of Knowledge ◽

Multinational Organizations ◽

Poor Countries ◽

The Poor ◽

Research Findings ◽

Quality Of Research ◽

And Training

Investment in biomedical research is believed to drive economic growth and increase human capital, leading to increased productivity and sustainability. Unfortunately, such positive impacts are not palpable among the resource-poor countries. This can be attributed to the poor quality of research findings and the reliability of findings, which often are rarely translated to impactful products or decisions. While the Nigerian governments are making considerable efforts to improve the quality of research through increased funding, as well as sponsorship and training of scholars in technologically advanced institutions. This is in order for the transfer of knowledge to improve the livelihood of its citizens. However, there is still need for the private multinational organizations to support this course.

Download Full-text