scholarly journals The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e0175583 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Giofrè ◽  
Geoff Cumming ◽  
Luca Fresc ◽  
Ingrid Boedker ◽  
Patrizio Tressoldi
Keyword(s):  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Journal Submission

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 Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Klebel ◽  
Stefan Reichmann ◽  
Jessica Polka ◽  
Gary McDowell ◽  
Naomi Penfold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Clear Information

AbstractClear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.

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 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).

scholarly journals Opportunities to Improve Academic Research Through Open Research Practices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devin R. Berg
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research

An abstract submitted to accompany a presentation at the 2018 Polytechnic Summit, June 4--6, in Lima, Peru.

scholarly journals Both Questionable and Open Research Practices Are Prevalent in Education Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 0013189X2110013
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Makel ◽  
Jaret Hodges ◽  
Bryan G. Cook ◽  
Jonathan A. Plucker
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Baseline Information

Concerns about the conduct of research are pervasive in many fields, including education. In this preregistered study, we replicated and extended previous studies from other fields by asking education researchers about 10 questionable research practices and five open research practices. We asked them to estimate the prevalence of the practices in the field, to self-report their own use of such practices, and to estimate the appropriateness of these behaviors in education research. We made predictions under four umbrella categories: comparison to psychology, geographic location, career stage, and quantitative orientation. Broadly, our results suggest that both questionable and open research practices are used by many education researchers. This baseline information will be useful as education researchers seek to understand existing social norms and grapple with whether and how to improve research practices.

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 How can we achieve a fully open future?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Open Future ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Institutes ◽  
Open Research ◽  
The World ◽  
New Type

It is time for a new type of mandate. Plan S has catalysed all sorts of action, and confusion, in the world of scholarly publishing. But it lacks teeth. Instead of encouraging libraries and research institutes to continue to prop up a dysfunctional and out-dated system with taxpayer money, research funders should mandate institutes to create a fully open, modern, technical scholarly infrastructure. This would help to overcome so much of the inertia behind the adoption of open research practices, while simultaneously resolving outstanding issues with reliability, affordability, and functionality in scholarly communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document