scholarly journals A Hydrologist's Guide to Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn A. Hall ◽  
Sheila M. Saia ◽  
Andrea L. Popp ◽  
Nilay Dogulu ◽  
Stanislaus J. Schymanski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Current State ◽  
Research And Education

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).

scholarly journals A Hydrologist’s Guide to Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Hall ◽  
Sheila Saia ◽  
Andrea Popp ◽  
Stan Schymanski ◽  
Niels Drost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Social Barriers ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Current State ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Practical Guidelines

<p>To have lasting impact on the scientific community and broader society, hydrologic research must be open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible. With so many different perspectives on and constant evolution of open science approaches and technologies, it can be overwhelming for hydrologists to start down the path towards or grow one’s own push for open research. Open hydrology practices are becoming more widely embraced by members of the community and key organizations, yet, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social barriers (e.g., fear of being scooped) still exist. These barriers may seem insurmountable without practical suggestions on how to proceed. Here, we propose the Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science. To increase accessibility and make the Open Hydrology Principles more tangible and actionable, we also present the Open Hydrology Practical Guidelines. Our aim is to help hydrologists transition from closed, inaccessible, not reusable, and not reproducible ways of conducting scientific work to open hydrology and empower researchers by providing information and resources to equitably grow the openness of hydrological sciences. We provide the first version of a practical open hydrology resource that may evolve with open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. We discuss some of the benefits of open science and common reservations to open science, and how hydrologists can pursue an appropriate level of openness in the presence of barriers. Further, we highlight how the practice of open hydrology can be expanded. The Open Hydrology Principles, Practical Guide, and additional resources reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology and we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join the open science conversation by contributing to the living version of this document and sharing open hydrology resources at the community-supported repository at open-hydrology.github.io.</p>

scholarly journals A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Klein ◽  
Tom E. Hardwicke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Johannes Breuer ◽  
Henrik Danielsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Incremental Step

The credibility of scientific claims depends upon the transparency of the research products upon which they are based (e.g., study protocols, data, materials, and analysis scripts). As psychology navigates a period of unprecedented introspection, user-friendly tools and services that support open science have flourished. However, the plethora of decisions and choices involved can be bewildering. Here we provide a practical guide to help researchers navigate the process of preparing and sharing the products of their research (e.g., choosing a repository, preparing their research products for sharing, structuring folders, etc.). Being an open scientist means adopting a few straightforward research management practices, which lead to less error prone, reproducible research workflows. Further, this adoption can be piecemeal – each incremental step towards complete transparency adds positive value. Transparent research practices not only improve the efficiency of individual researchers, they enhance the credibility of the knowledge generated by the scientific community.

Openness in geoscience - a quantitative assessment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Bosman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Publication Data ◽  
Science Application ◽  
Data Requirements ◽  
Opening Up

<p>There is growing consensus that making our research process and outputs more open is necessary to increase transparency, efficiency, reproducibility and relevance of research. With that we should be better able to contribute to answering important questions and overcoming grand challenges. Despite considerable attention for open science, including citizen science, there is no overall baseline showing the current state of openness in our field. This presentation shows results from research that quantitatively charts the adoption of open practices across the geosciences, mostly globally and across the full research workflow. They range from setting research priorities, collaboration with global south researchers and researchers in other disciplines, sharing code and data, sharing posters online, sharing early versions of papers as preprints, publishing open access, opening up peer review, using open licenses when sharing, to engaging with potential stakeholders of research outcomes and reaching out to the wider public. The assessment uses scientometric data, publication data, data from sharing platforms and journals, altmetrics data, and mining of abstracts and other outputs, aiming to address the breadth of open science practices. The resulting images show that open science application is not marginal anymore, but at the same time certainly not mainstream. It also shows that limited sharing, limited use of open licenses and limited use of permanent IDs makes this type of assessment very hard. Insights derived from the study are relevant inputs in science policy discussions on data requirements, open access, researcher training and involvement of societal partners.</p>

scholarly journals Open Developmental Science: An Overview and Annotated Reading List

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Kalandadze ◽  
Sara Ann Hart
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Core ◽  
Reading List ◽  
Annotated List ◽  
Developmental Science ◽  
Starting Point

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.

The History and Future of Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
pp. 10-33
Author(s):  
Alan Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Past ◽  
Current State ◽  
Open Access Journals

This chapter reviews the development of the modern scientific paper, from the sixteenth century forward, and explores the ways in which scientific information has been disseminated in the past. Great scientific advances of the past are discussed in the context of how they were first published, or otherwise brought to the attention of the broader scientific community, and the modern scientific publishing sector is explored. The types and categories of scientific journals are discussed, along with an overview of current publishing trends, such as the exponential increase in number of journals, changes in the ways in which researchers access the literature, and in particular the emergence and current state of open access journals. In addition, various ways in which journals are ranked are discussed, and key trends in such lists over the last ten years or so explored.

scholarly journals Publishing open, reproducible research with undergraduates

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Feld Strand ◽  
Violet Aurora Brown
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Rapid Pace ◽  
Science Collaboration ◽  
Science Framework

In response to growing concern in psychology and other sciences about low rates of replicability of published findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), there has been a movement toward conducting open and transparent research (see Chambers, 2017). This has led to changes in statistical reporting guidelines in journals (Appelbaum et al., 2018), new professional societies (e.g, Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science), frameworks for posting materials, data, code, and manuscripts (e.g., Open Science Framework, PsyArXiv), initiatives for sharing data and collaborating (e.g., Psych Science Accelerator, Study Swap), and educational resources for teaching through replication (e.g., Collaborative Replications and Education Project). This “credibility revolution” (Vazire, 2018) provides many opportunities for researchers. However, given the recency of the changes and the rapid pace of advancements (see Houtkoop et al., 2018), it may be overwhelming for faculty to know whether and how to begin incorporating open science practices into research with undergraduates.In this paper, we will not attempt to catalogue the entirety of the open science movement (see recommended resources below for more information), but will instead highlight why adopting open science practices may be particularly beneficial to conducting and publishing research with undergraduates. The first author is a faculty member at Carleton College (a small, undergraduate-only liberal arts college) and the second is a former undergraduate research assistant (URA) and lab manager in Dr. Strand’s lab, now pursuing a PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. We argue that open science practices have tremendous benefits for undergraduate students, both in creating publishable results and in preparing students to be critical consumers of science.

scholarly journals The past, present, and future of ego depletion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Inzlicht ◽  
Malte Friese
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Ego Depletion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Scientific Status ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Mere Existence

At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what is suggests about ego depletion; but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological science.

scholarly journals Born-Open Data for E-Prime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Cousineau
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Data Repository ◽  
Data Frame ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Data Practices ◽  
Data Files ◽  
Access Data

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.

scholarly journals Indonesia’s publication: Some facts that you might have missed

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dasapta Erwin Irawan
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Current State ◽  
The World

This article shows the current state of Indonesian open access scientific publishing as of 30 Nov 2017. The date is important because it's keep on progressing.--- Last week, after my article was announced as the winner of OpenCon London 2017, I was contacted by AuthorAid and offered to write a guest post. It was a very overwhelming situation, since I plunged myself in the world of open science 3 years ago. Then when I was starting to draft the blog post, there were slight changes about what topic should I be raising. Whether it should be about exploring my journey in open science or the successful rate of submission of the INArxiv preprint server that I had started since 17 Aug 2017 with some colleagues. After a long thought, I choose to cover the strength of Indonesia’s publication by looking at some facts that must have been missed by many, including Indonesian academia and rule makers.

scholarly journals Pre-print of data paper for assessing open science practices in phytolith research.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Karoune
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The State ◽  
International Code ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Data Location

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document