Article

MapOSR - A mapping review dataset of empirical studies on Open Science

Authors:
If you want to read the PDF, try requesting it from the authors.

Abstract

Research that investigates respective researchers’ engagement in Open Science varies widely in the topics addressed, methods employed, and disciplines investigated, which makes it difficult to integrate and compare its results. To investigate current outcomes of Open Science research, and to get a better understanding on well-researched topics and research gaps, we aimed at providing an openly accessible overview of empirical studies that focus on different aspects of Open Science in different scientific disciplines, academic groups and geographical regions. In this paper, we describe a data set of studies about Open Science practices retrieved following a PRISMA approach to compile a literature review. We included studies from the Scopus and Web of Science databases with keywords relating to Open Science between the years 2000 and 2020, as well as a snowball search for relevant articles. Studies that did not investigate any aspect of Open Science, or weren’t peer-reviewed were excluded, resulting in a total of 695 remaining studies. The data set was collaboratively annotated to ensure intercoder reliability of the coded data.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Preprint
Full-text available
The basic research aptitude. It covers three main things; Identification of a problem, Space area, & Delimitation.
Article
Full-text available
This article documents how biomedical researchers in the United Kingdom understand and enact the idea of “openness.” This is of particular interest to researchers and science policy worldwide in view of the recent adoption of pioneering policies on Open Science and Open Access by the U.K. government—policies whose impact on and implications for research practice are in need of urgent evaluation, so as to decide on their eventual implementation elsewhere. This study is based on 22 in-depth interviews with U.K. researchers in systems biology, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics, which were conducted between September 2013 and February 2014. Through an analysis of the interview transcripts, we identify seven core themes that characterize researchers’ understanding of openness in science and nine factors that shape the practice of openness in research. Our findings highlight the implications that Open Science policies can have for research processes and outcomes and provide recommendations for enhancing their content, effectiveness, and implementation.
Chapter
Full-text available
In this introductory chapter we establish a common understanding of what are and what drives current changes in research and science. The concepts of Science 2.0 and Open Science will be introduced. As such we provide a short introduction to the history of science and knowledge dissemination. We explain the origins of our scientific culture which evolved around publication methods. Interdependencies of current concepts will be elucidated and it will be stated that the transition towards Open Science is a complex cultural change. Reasons as to why the change is slow are discussed and the main obstacles are identified. Next, we explain the recent changes in scientific workflows and how these cause changes in the system as a whole. Furthermore, we provide an overview on the entire book and explain what can be found in each chapter.
Article
Full-text available
The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
Article
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Article
Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate interrater agreement statistics (IRAS) for use in research on low base rate clinical diagnoses or observed behaviors. Establishing and reporting sufficient interrater agreement is essential in such studies. Yet the most commonly applied agreement statistic, Cohen's κ, has a well known sensitivity to base rates that results in a substantial penalization of interrater agreement when behaviors or diagnoses are very uncommon, a prevalent and frustrating concern in such studies. Method: We performed Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the performance of 5 of κ's alternatives (Van Eerdewegh's V, Yule's Y, Holley and Guilford's G, Scott's π, and Gwet's AC₁), alongside κ itself. The simulations investigated the robustness of these IRAS to conditions that are common in clinical research, with varying levels of behavior or diagnosis base rate, rater bias, observed interrater agreement, and sample size. Results: When the base rate was 0.5, each IRAS provided similar estimates, particularly with unbiased raters. G was the least sensitive of the IRAS to base rates. Conclusions: The results encourage the use of the G statistic for its consistent performance across the simulation conditions. We recommend separately reporting the rates of agreement on the presence and absence of a behavior or diagnosis alongside G as an index of chance corrected overall agreement.
Article
This paper explores the impact of the digital age on the work life of academics and reports research on how and whether technologies are facilitating and adapting the teaching and research practices of academics, offering a description of scholarship for the digital age. A changed landscape is emerging, which offers academics new ways of working in research and new kinds of academic output for them to use in their teaching. Two areas are considered: the conduct of research (in particular the range of activities associated with publication and dissemination of research findings) and the conduct of teaching. The links between these practices are explored in terms of a revised view of scholarship, the perspective of digital scholarship. The paper begins with a review of literature and draws on an interview study to illustrate changes in academic practice, both for teaching and research. The study of 22 academics with expertise in educational technology provides a commentary on the changes, identifying open access as important in both teaching and publication. The paper concludes with some suggestions for future work in this area.
Open science practices are on the rise: The state of social science (3s) survey.
  • G Christensen
Open Science – a loosely coupled discourse? Comparing Open Science and Open Innovation from a bibliometric point of view.
  • C Blümel
mapOSR dataset 2000-2020 (v1.0).
  • J Lasser
MapOSR - A Mapping Review Dataset of Empirical Studies on Open Science (V5_9_3_220419) [Data set].
  • J Lasser