scholarly journals Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenija Zečević ◽  
Catherine Houghton ◽  
Chris Noone ◽  
Hopin Lee ◽  
Karen Matvienko-Sikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Individual Interviews ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
Global Movement

Background: There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers. However, the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers (ECRs) have been explored to a limited extent. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data. Results: 14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within ‘Valuing Open Science’, participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public. Within ‘Creating a Culture of Open Science’ participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices. Conclusion: ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science. Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

scholarly journals Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 56
Author(s):  
Ksenija Zečević ◽  
Catherine Houghton ◽  
Chris Noone ◽  
Hopin Lee ◽  
Karen Matvienko-Sikar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Individual Interviews ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
Global Movement

Background: There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers. However, limited research has been conducted on the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data. Results: 14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within ‘Valuing Open Science’, participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public. Within ‘Creating a Culture of Open Science’ participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices. Conclusion: ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science. Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

scholarly journals Open Science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P G Allen ◽  
David Marc Anton Mehler
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Early Adoption

The movement towards open science is an unavoidable consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to afflict those who carry out the research, usually Early Career Researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits including reputational gains, increased chances of publication and a broader increase in the reliability of research. These are balanced by challenges that we have encountered, and which involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality and plausibility of research. We review three benefits, three challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices.

Open Science: A Candid Conversation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendal N. Smith ◽  
Matthew C. Makel
Keyword(s):  
Gifted Education ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Informal Conversation ◽  
Advanced Academics ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Published Research

In response to concerns about the credibility of many published research findings, open science reforms such as preregistration, data sharing, and alternative forms of publication are being increasingly adopted across scientific communities. Although journals in giftedness and advanced academics research have already implemented several of these practices, they remain unfamiliar to some researchers. In this informal conversation, Kendal Smith and Matthew Makel discuss how they came to know and use open science practices; open science values; benefits and objections; and their future aspirations for open science practices in gifted education research. Their conversation aims to help make open science practices more understandable and actionable for both early career and established researchers.

scholarly journals Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

2021 ◽  
pp. 036168432110292
Author(s):  
Madeleine Pownall ◽  
Catherine V. Talbot ◽  
Anna Henschel ◽  
Alexandra Lautarescu ◽  
Kelly E. Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Career Research ◽  
Science Movement

Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.

Open Science: A Candid Conversation

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-123
Author(s):  
Kendal N. Smith ◽  
Matthew C. Makel
Keyword(s):  
Gifted Education ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Informal Conversation ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Published Research

In response to concerns about the credibility of many published research findings, open science reforms such as preregistration, data sharing, and alternative forms of publication are being increasingly adopted across scientific communities. Although journals on giftedness and advanced academic research have already implemented several of these practices, they remain unfamiliar to some researchers. In this informal conversation, Kendal Smith and Matthew Makel discuss how they came to know and use open science practices, the values of open science, benefits and objections, and their future aspirations for open science practices in gifted education research. Their conversation aims to help make open science practices more understandable and actionable for both early career and established researchers.

scholarly journals Trusting on the Shoulders of Open Giants? Open Science Increases Trust in Science for the Public and Academics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjin Song ◽  
David Matthew Markowitz ◽  
Samuel Hardman Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Total N ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Science Movement

Researchers often focus on the benefits of adopting open science practices for improving the credibility of research studies, yet questions remain whether the general public, as well as academics, value and trust studies consistent with open science practices. In the current package of studies, we examined how open science can increase trust in science for the public and academics as well. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,214), we manipulated journal article abstracts to contain descriptions of open science practices or not. Across all studies, open science research was perceived as more credible and trustworthy than non-open science research. Study 2 explored if open science practices compensated for negative perceptions of privately-funded research versus publicly-funded research, though we did not find evidence for this claim. Finally, Study 3 examined perceptions of open science from communication science scholars and observed open science research was perceived more favorably than non-open science research, though the effect was only pronounced for early career researchers. We discuss implications for the open science movement and public trust in science.

scholarly journals Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeleine Pownall ◽  
Catherine V. Talbot ◽  
Anna Henschel ◽  
Alexandra Lautarescu ◽  
Kelly Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Career Research ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Open Science aims to improve the rigour, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the Open Science movement has been championed by some Early Career Researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the Open Science movement. We, ten feminist ECRs in psychology, from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore Open Science through a feminist lens, to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards Open Science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grassroots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which Open Science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with six practical recommendations for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with Open Science practices in their own research.

scholarly journals Implementation of an Open Science Instruction Program for Undergraduates

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Hanna ◽  
Jason Pither ◽  
Mathew Vis-Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Open Science ◽  
First Year ◽  
Science Program ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
University Of British Columbia ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
The World ◽  
Attitudinal Survey ◽  
The University

Submitted to Data Intelligence on August 15, 2020. The scientific, social, and economic advantages that accrue from Open Science practices—ways of doing research that emphasize reproducibility, transparency and accessibility at all stages of the research cycle—are now widely recognized in nations around the world and by international bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. However, program wide or coordinated instruction of undergraduate students in Open Science practices remains uncommon. At the University of British Columbia in Canada, we have started to develop a comprehensive undergraduate Open Science program that can be adapted to and woven into diverse subject curricula. We report on the context and planning of the pilot module of the program, “Open Science 101”, its implementation in first-year Biology in Fall 2019, and qualitative results of an attitudinal survey of students following their course.

Five common pitfalls in eye-tracking research

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aline Godfroid ◽  
Bronson Hui
Keyword(s):  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Eye Tracker ◽  
Spatial Accuracy ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Testing Approach ◽  
Hypothesis Testing Approach

Eye tracking has become an increasingly popular research methodology among language researchers to examine online cognitive processing of second-language (L2) speakers and bilinguals. As the scope of eye-tracking research expands, there is a need to ensure that the methodology is used properly, so as to safeguard the validity of research findings and the empirical basis upon which theories are built. We present five pitfalls in eye-tracking research that may threaten the internal or external validity of the study. We offer concrete recommendations to avoid each pitfall and demonstrate how these recommendations can be implemented so researchers may take full advantage of the opportunities of eye-tracking research. The five pitfalls occur at all stages of the research cycle. We emphasize (1) adopting a confirmatory (theory-driven, hypothesis-testing) approach to research, (2) selecting and handling eye-movement measures in a principled manner, (3) aligning the research design with the eye tracker properties (spatial accuracy, precision), (4) inspecting raw, sample-level eye-tracking data and their preprocessing by the eye-tracking software. We conclude by inviting eye-tracking researchers (5) to embrace open science practices to enhance the replication and reproducibility of their work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document