Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monito...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PLoS biology Jg. 21; H. 1; S. e3001949
Hauptverfasser: Cobey, Kelly D., Haustein, Stefanie, Brehaut, Jamie, Dirnagl, Ulrich, Franzen, Delwen L., Hemkens, Lars G., Presseau, Justin, Riedel, Nico, Strech, Daniel, Alperin, Juan Pablo, Costas, Rodrigo, Sena, Emily S., van Leeuwen, Thed, Ardern, Clare L., Bacellar, Isabel O. L., Camack, Nancy, Britto Correa, Marcos, Buccione, Roberto, Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio, Fergusson, Dean A., Gould van Praag, Cassandra, Hoffman, Michael M., Moraes Bielemann, Renata, Moschini, Ugo, Paschetta, Mauro, Pasquale, Valentina, Rac, Valeria E., Roskams-Edris, Dylan, Schatzl, Hermann M., Stratton, Jo Anne, Moher, David
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States Public Library of Science 24.01.2023
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Schlagworte:
Automation
Biomedical Research
Consensus
Consensus View
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
Delphi Technique
Development policy
Funding
Humans
Medical research
Medicine and Health Sciences
Open access publishing
Pandemics
Performance management
Public opinion
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Research facilities
Research institutes
Research institutions
Scholarly communication
Scholarly publishing
Science
Science Policy
Surveys
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
ISSN:1545-7885, 1544-9173, 1545-7885
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CLA is the editor-in-chief of JOSPT (Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy). The other authors declare no conflicts.
ISSN:1545-7885
1544-9173
1545-7885
DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949