scholarly journals How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Levin ◽  
Sabina Leonelli
Keyword(s):  
Life Sciences ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biological Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Key Questions ◽  
Science Policies

Open Science policies encourage researchers to disclose a wide range of outputs from their work, thus codifying openness as a specific set of research practices and guidelines that can be interpreted and applied consistently across disciplines and geographical settings. In this paper, we argue that this “one-size-fits-all” view of openness sidesteps key questions about the forms, implications, and goals of openness for research practice. We propose instead to interpret openness as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical, and social considerations. This interpretation creates a critical space for moving beyond the economic definitions of value embedded in the contemporary biosciences landscape and Open Science policies, and examining the diversity of interests and commitments that affect research practices in the life sciences. To illustrate these claims, we use three case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how––and how best––to make things open. These cases, drawn from ethnographic engagement with Open Science debates and semistructured interviews carried out with UK-based biologists and bioinformaticians between 2013 and 2014, show how the enactment of openness reveals judgments about what constitutes a legitimate intellectual contribution, for whom, and with what implications.

scholarly journals Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?

First Monday ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Scheliga ◽  
Sascha Friesike
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Social Dilemma ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Individual Scientist ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Opening Up

Digital technologies carry the promise of transforming science and opening up the research process. We interviewed researchers from a variety of backgrounds about their attitudes towards and experiences with openness in their research practices. We observe a considerable discrepancy between the concept of open science and scholarly reality. While many researchers support open science in theory, the individual researcher is confronted with various difficulties when putting open science into practice. We analyse the major obstacles to open science and group them into two main categories: individual obstacles and systemic obstacles. We argue that the phenomenon of open science can be seen through the prism of a social dilemma: what is in the collective best interest of the scientific community is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual scientist. We discuss the possibilities of transferring theoretical solutions to social dilemma problems to the realm of open science.

scholarly journals A survey of research quality in core facilities

eLife ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle C Kos-Braun ◽  
Björn Gerlach ◽  
Claudia Pitzer
Keyword(s):  
Data Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Experimental Equipment ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Core Facilities ◽  
First Contact ◽  
Good Research

Core facilities are an effective way of making expensive experimental equipment available to a large number of researchers, and are thus well placed to contribute to efforts to promote good research practices. Here we report the results of a survey that asked core facilities in Europe about their approaches to the promotion of good research practices, and about their interactions with users from the first contact to the publication of the results. Based on 253 responses we identified four ways that good research practices could be encouraged: (i) motivating users to follow the advice and procedures for best research practice; (ii) providing clear guidance on data-management practices; (iii) improving communication along the whole research process; and (iv) clearly defining the responsibilities of each party.

Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 365-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Stürmer ◽  
Aileen Oeberst ◽  
Roman Trötschel ◽  
Oliver Decker
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Culture ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Incentive Structures ◽  
Exploratory Survey ◽  
The Future

Abstract. Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution. While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures. A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.

Normativity, Expertise and Epistemological Paternalism in the Philosophy of Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-241
Author(s):  
Alina O. Kostina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Armchair Philosophy ◽  
Methodology Of Science ◽  
Key Questions

For almost 50 years the journal Metaphilosophy has been publishing research on a wide range of philosophical issues from the fundamental questions of ontology, epistemology and the philosophy of science to applied studies on ethics, technology and STS. The following review focuses on a number of key questions that have become the stumbling block for investigations in epistemology, philosophy and methodology of science and STS. The spotlight here is on the issues of reestablishment of normativity in philosophy of science, related to the PSP turn; new perspectives on the “armchair philosophy” and the ex cathedra principle; the misuse of scientific data by the philosophers of science; experimental philosophy and the “undermined” authority of philosophical expertise; and also we’ll find out how epistemic paternalism may become a virtue of research practice.

scholarly journals Psychology and open science in Africa: Why is it needed and how can we implement it?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soufian Azouaghe ◽  
Adeyemi Adetula ◽  
Patrick S. Forscher ◽  
Dana Basnight-Brown ◽  
Nihal Ouherrou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Western World ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Replication Crisis

The quality of scientific research is assessed not only by its positive impact on socio-economic development and human well-being, but also by its contribution to the development of valid and reliable scientific knowledge. Thus, researchers regardless of their scientific discipline, are supposed to adopt research practices based on transparency and rigor. However, the history of science and the scientific literature teach us that a part of scientific results is not systematically reproducible (Ioannidis, 2005). This is what is commonly known as the "replication crisis" which concerns the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, of which psychology is no exception.Firstly, we aim to address some aspects of the replication crisis and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). Secondly, we discuss how we can involve more labs in Africa to take part in the global research process, especially the Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA). For these goals, we will develop a tutorial for the labs in Africa, by highlighting the open science practices. In addition, we emphasize that it is substantial to identify African labs needs and factors that hinder their participating in the PSA, and the support needed from the Western world. Finally, we discuss how to make psychological science more participatory and inclusive.

scholarly journals Kielentukimuksen menetelmiä I-IV

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Self Study ◽  
Course Material ◽  
Broad Variety ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Linguistic Approaches ◽  
And Linguistics

Methods in Linguistics is a collection of articles presenting a broad variety of methods and approaches in the field of linguistics. It offers structure to the spectrum of methodological possibilities and helps the reader to identify the field of application as well as the strengths and weaknesses of different methods. The book consists of an extensive introductory part and a variety of articles, each written by experts of the method in question. It discusses questions related to different kinds of data and data collection, as well as methods used for analysing data. Since the methods used in linguistics are often related to a specific linguistic current, the book offers examples from a wide range of linguistic approaches. The book is addressed to students, researchers and other readers interested in the methods used in linguistics. The general methodological and metatheoretical knowledge offered in the introduction guides the reader through the different methodological choices presented and helps the reader to select the best method to meet her needs. First, the research process is explained step-by-step from the selection of topic and data to questions related to research design, analysis and the reporting of the results. The second part of the introduction focuses on fundamental theoretical and methodological questions, such as the criteria for knowledge, the nature of scientific knowledge and the scientific method. The third part addresses more specifically the methodology of linguistics, discussing the multifaceted nature of natural language and linguistics as a discipline. The introduction also covers many current topics in science, such as research ethics, data protection and open science principles. The book can be used as self-study material by students and researchers alike, or as course material in higher education. Learning is supported by the careful definition of terms, extensive indexes and additional readings suggested for each topic.

scholarly journals Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Research Uptake ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Science Policies

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are protransparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.

scholarly journals How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Levin ◽  
Sabina Leonelli ◽  
Dagmara Weckowska ◽  
David Castle ◽  
John Dupré
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Science Policies

scholarly journals Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall ◽  
Colin Strine
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Research Uptake ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Science Policies

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are pro-transparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document