scholarly journals Pre-print of Assessing Open Science Practices in Phytolith Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Karoune

Open science is becoming an integral part of all scientific research but the extent of these practices in phytolith research is unknown. Phytolith analysis examines silica bodies that are initially formed within and between plant cells during the life of the plant but become deposited in sediments once the plant dies. Their use in both archaeobotanical and palaeoecological studies has been ever increasing in recent years and consequently has seen an upsurge in publications. This article aims to assess open science practices in this field by reviewing data and metadata sharing, and open access, in a sample of journal articles containing primary phytolith data from 16 prominent archaeological and palaeoecological journals (341 articles). It builds on similar studies conducted for zooarchaeology (Kansa et al. 2020) and macro-botanical remains (Lodwick 2019). Data in this study was collected concerning data format, reusability of data, inclusion of phytolith morphotype pictures for identification purposes and a fully described method, use of the International code for phytolith nomenclature (ICPN) and whether the articles were open access. Steps forward are then suggested to use as a starting point for discussions in the wider phytolith and archaeological communities to develop guidelines for greater integration of open science practices.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Kalandadze ◽  
Sara Ann Hart

The increasing adoption of open science practices in the last decade has been changing the scientific landscape across fields. However, developmental science has been relatively slow in adopting open science practices. To address this issue, we followed the format of Crüwell et al., (2019) and created summaries and an annotated list of informative and actionable resources discussing ten topics in developmental science: Open science; Reproducibility and replication; Open data, materials and code; Open access; Preregistration; Registered reports; Replication; Incentives; Collaborative developmental science.This article offers researchers and students in developmental science a starting point for understanding how open science intersects with developmental science. After getting familiarized with this article, the developmental scientist should understand the core tenets of open and reproducible developmental science, and feel motivated to start applying open science practices in their workflow.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Karoune

This is a dataset gathered to assess the state of open science practices in phytolith research. All articles presenting primary phytolith data were extracted from 16 prominent archaeological and palaeoecological journals between 2009 and 2018. In total, the dataset contains information on 341 articles. This included archaeological (n=214), palaeoenvironmental (n=53) and methodological (n=74) studies. Information was recorded regarding the data location and what type of data was included in the text and as supplementary files. There was also data recorded in relation to open access, picture inclusion, use of the International code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) and the inclusion of a full method.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kennedy Mwangi ◽  
Ben Mainye ◽  
Daniel Ouso ◽  
Esoh Kevin ◽  
Angela Muraya ◽  
...  

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing, and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident — the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20 - 50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining, and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and the challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign towards open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders, and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya.


Author(s):  
Kennedy W. Mwangi ◽  
Nyabuti Mainye ◽  
Daniel O. Ouso ◽  
Kevin Esoh ◽  
Angela W. Muraya ◽  
...  

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident — the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20–50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign toward open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya.


Author(s):  
Cagtay Fabry ◽  
Andreas Pittner ◽  
Volker Hirthammer ◽  
Michael Rethmeier

AbstractThe increasing adoption of Open Science principles has been a prevalent topic in the welding science community over the last years. Providing access to welding knowledge in the form of complex and complete datasets in addition to peer-reviewed publications can be identified as an important step to promote knowledge exchange and cooperation. There exist previous efforts on building data models specifically for fusion welding applications; however, a common agreed upon implementation that is used by the community is still lacking. One proven approach in other domains has been the use of an openly accessible and agreed upon file and data format used for archiving and sharing domain knowledge in the form of experimental data. Going into a similar direction, the welding community faces particular practical, technical, and also ideological challenges that are discussed in this paper. Collaboratively building upon previous work with modern tools and platforms, the authors motivate, propose, and outline the use of a common file format specifically tailored to the needs of the welding research community as a complement to other already established Open Science practices. Successfully establishing a culture of openly accessible research data has the potential to significantly stimulate progress in welding research.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Cousineau

Born-Open Data experiments are encouraged for better open science practices. To be adopted, Born-Open data practices must be easy to implement. Herein, I introduce a package for E-Prime such that the data files are automatically saved on a GitHub repository. The BornOpenData package for E-Prime works seamlessly and performs the upload as soon as the experiment is finished so that there is no additional steps to perform beyond placing a package call within E-Prime. Because E-Prime files are not standard tab-separated files, I also provide an R function that retrieves the data directly from GitHub into a data frame ready to be analyzed. At this time, there are no standards as to what should constitute an adequate open-access data repository so I propose a few suggestions that any future Born-Open data system could follow for easier use by the research community.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Eugenie Kornbrot

Open Science advocates recommend deposit of stimuli, data and code sufficient to support all assertions in a scientific Ms. Most ‘respectable’ journals and funding bodies have endorsed Open Science. i.e. they ‘talk the talk’. Nevertheless, most published Mss. do not ‘walk the walk’ by following the Open Science guidelines. Professional statisticians, e.g. the America Statistical Association, The Royal Statistical Society provide guidance on inferential statistics reporting that proscribes null-hypothesis statistical tests. This guidance is also widely ignored. The purpose of this Ms. is to increase the proportion of Mss. following open science practices by providing guides to transparent reporting that are easily useable by authors and reviewers. The Ms. comprises the guides themselves, already public, and a rationale as to why recommendations have been chosen, together with suggestions to promote open science practices. The guides are unique in including, in a single document, the three main phases for the conduction of replicable science: planning and execution, Ms. generation and publication; and deposit of supplementary materials. A main aim of the Ms. is to subject the guidance and justifications to peer review.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Anthony Lewis

Communication scientists devote large amounts of resources to conducting studies to improve our understanding of the social world, in hopes that our efforts contribute to improving people’s life out-comes. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the process by which our research is conducted is not always clear in journal articles or books reporting our research. This lack of process-insight (a) limits our ability to build on each other’s research, (b) limits our holistic understanding of communication processes, and (c) limits the ability of consumers of our research to put it into practice. The current article discusses recent methodological advances designed to address these issues – advances in open science practices. I provide a brief primer on the philosophy behind open science and its relevance for communication research, then provide recommendations for both novice and expert researchers to implement open science practices at multiple steps of the research pipeline.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn A. Hall ◽  
Sheila M. Saia ◽  
Andrea L. Popp ◽  
Nilay Dogulu ◽  
Stanislaus J. Schymanski ◽  
...  

Abstract. Open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research can have a significant impact on the scientific community and broader society. While more individuals and organizations within the hydrology community are embracing open science practices, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social (e.g., fear of being scooped) challenges remain. Furthermore, there are a growing number of constantly evolving open science tools, resources, and initiatives that can seem overwhelming. These challenges and the ever-evolving nature of the open science landscape may seem insurmountable for hydrologists interested in pursuing open science. Therefore, we propose general Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science for research and education and the Open Hydrology Practical Guide to improve the accessibility of currently available tools and approaches. We aim to inform and empower hydrologists as they transition to open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible research. We discuss the benefits as well as common open science challenges and how hydrologists can overcome them. The Open Hydrology Principles and Open Hydrology Practical Guide reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology; we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve and expand with emerging open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join in and help advance open science by contributing to the living version of this document and by sharing open hydrology resources in the community-supported repository (https://open-hydrology.github.io).


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dasapta Erwin Irawan ◽  
Cut Novianti Rachmi ◽  
Mochammad Tanzil Multazam ◽  
Hendy Irawan ◽  
Juneman Abraham ◽  
...  

Scholarly works have been placed as the starting point for many academia (scientists, researchers, lecturers) and lecturers to establish their research focus and academic reputation, as well as academic career. However, scholarly documents have been developed in a conventional way, the same way in centuries, in form of research reports, peer-reviewed journal articles, conference abstracts and/or patents. This paper aims to open a new horizon in scholarly works in the mind of Indonesia academia, to a more open, accessible, and inclusive manner. By introducing the open science concept, we aim for more scientific impacts, as have been developed as a movement now in the world. This concept shifts how we see scholarly works from individually-owned, closed, and centralized documents into a community-owned, opened, and distributed ones.To get a better idea of open science and how it can fit in to Indonesia’s research workflow, we reviewed papers, conference abstracts, blogs, and institutional websites under key terms “open science” and “open access”. We used free access databases: Google Scholar, ScienceOpen, Pubmed Central (PMC) and also individual journal repositories: PLOS, e-life, and F1000Research.This article is already submitted to Publications Journal (ISSN 2304-6775)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document