ArticlePDF Available

The Application of Open Science Potentials in Research Processes: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Authors:
Maryam Zarghani
Maryam Zarghani
Maryam Zarghani
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Leila Nemati-Anaraki at Iran University of Medical Sciences
Leila Nemati-Anaraki
Shahram Sedghi at Iran University of Medical Sciences
Shahram Sedghi
Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli at Shahed University
Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli
Show all 5 authorsHide
Download full-text PDFDownload full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review of the dimensions of open science in research processes. A total of four databases and snowball searching were used for the comprehensive literature review during 2011–2020; then, we were able to find 98 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Also, we used thematic method to review the relevant studies and identified three categories of dimensions in the research process, namely (1) the publication and sharing category including open access, open data, transparency and reproducibility, citizen science, and crowd sourcing; (2) the infrastructure and cultural category including open infrastructure, open education, open tools, budget mechanism, open culture, and communication; and (3) governance and evaluation including policies, governance, and the ethical principles associated with open science. Open science emphasizes the efforts to open and make the scientific research process more inclusive so as to engage the inside and outside actors in the research process.
TheApplicationofOpenSciencePotentials
in.pdf
Content uploaded by Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli on Mar 09, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Application of Open Science Potentials
in.pdf
Content uploaded by Shahram Sedghi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shahram Sedghi on Sep 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371071248
The Application of Open Science Potentials in Research Processes: A
Comprehensive Literature Review
ArticleinLibri · May 2023
DOI: 10.1515/libri-2022-0007
CITATION
1
READS
165
5 authors, including:
Leila Nemati-Anaraki
Iran University of Medical Sciences
66 PUBLICATIONS407 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Shahram Sedghi
Iran University of Medical Sciences
73 PUBLICATIONS373 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli
Shahed University
110 PUBLICATIONS149 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Shahram Sedghi on 05 September 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Maryam Zarghani, Leila Nemati-Anaraki*, Shahram Sedghi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli
and Anisa Rowhani-Farid
The Application of Open Science Potentials in
Research Processes: A Comprehensive Literature
Review
https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2022-0007
Published online May 26, 2023
Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a compre-
hensive literature review of the dimensions of open science
in research processes. A total of four databases and snow-
ball searching were used for the comprehensive literature
review during 2011–2020; then, we were able to find 98
studies based on the inclusion criteria. Also, we used the-
matic method to review the relevant studies and identified
three categories of dimensions in the research process,
namely (1) the publication and sharing category including
open access, open data, transparency and reproducibility,
citizen science, and crowd sourcing; (2) the infrastructure
and cultural category including open infrastructure, open
education, open tools, budget mechanism, open culture,
and communication; and (3) governance and evaluation
including policies, governance, and the ethical principles
associated with open science. Open science emphasizes
the efforts to open and make the scientific research process
more inclusive so as to engage the inside and outside actors
in the research process.
Keywords: open research, open science, open science prac-
tices, research processes
1 Introduction
The development of the World Wide Web and other new
technologies has changed the way people access and
disseminate scientific knowledge (Yu et al. 2016), and has
made significant changes in the provision of services
through digital media (Nosek, Alter, and Banks 2015;
OECD 2015). These changes resulted from the two main
developments, digitalization of new scientific methods for
the publishing research information and the public
perception of research with an emphasis on the interaction
and participation of non-research audiences (Tucker et al.
2019). To fulfill the scientific norms that Robert Merton
considered in the form of the concepts of communism and
scientific universalism, it is necessary to fully publish
research products. In universalism, scientificclaimsare
truths independent of the personal and national charac-
teristics, or roots of their discoverers; in communism,
scientificfindings are the products of social cooperation
and are devoted to society (Anderson et al. 2010). Over the
past years, the open science (OS) movement has rapidly
changed the way research is conducted; also. it has caused
distributing, using, and reproducing research data and
methods (Wittman and Aukema 2020) in the form of a
wide range of tools and platforms to improve the quality
and transparency of science (Banks et al. 2019; Pitschan,
Schmidt, and Blume 2020). In addition, it has led to the
creation of humanitarian perspectives on free access to
research elements at the public level, and a constructive
vision about the optimal use of research outputs (Bor-
gerud and Borglund 2020).
The term open science (OS) was first coined by econo-
mist Paul David in 2003 to describe the characteristics of
scientific goods produced by the public sector in order to
*Corresponding author: Leila Nemati-Anaraki, Department of Medical
Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and
Medical Information Science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran,
Iran; and Health Management and Economics Research Center, Health
Management Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
Tehran, Iran, E-mail: nematianaraki.l@iums.ac.ir. https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-9436-2533
Maryam Zarghani, Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of
Health Management and Medical Information Science, Iran University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, E-mail: zarghani.m@iums.ac.ir. https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-6693-7785
Shahram Sedghi, Department of Medical Library and Information
Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical Information Science,
Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; and Health Management
and Economics Research Center, Health Management Research Institute,
Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,
E-mail: shahramsedghi@gmail.com. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6457-
7464
Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Department of Information Science &
Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran,
E-mail: noroozi@shahed.ac.ir. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0088-9159
Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services
Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA, E-mail: arowhani@rx.umaryland.edu. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
3637-2423
LIBRI 2023; aop
... As a developing research paradigm, OS has become one of the most prominent topics within the scientific community (Friesike et al., 2015;Fecher and Friesike, 2014). The core idea behind the OS movement is to ensure that scientific research products, including information, data, and research outputs, are freely available, transparent, and openly accessible (Zarghani et al., 2023 (OECD, 2015;Schmidt, Orth and Franck, 2016;Medeiros, 2021). For instance, OA aims to make all scholarly communications freely available with full reuse rights, while open-source and open-data initiatives focus on sharing materials like questionnaires, forms, procedures, collected data, metadata, and source code. ...
View
... Research data can come in different types: in open or controlled forms that include raw data, research data, sensitive data, government data and big data [30]. ...
Research Data Management in the Croatian Academic Community: A Research Study
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2024
This paper presents the results of an empirical research study of Croatian scientists’ use and management of research data. This research study was carried out from 28 June 2023 until 31 August 2023 using an online questionnaire consisting of 28 questions. The answers of 584 respondents working in science were filtered out for further analysis. About three-quarters of the respondents used the research data of other scientists successfully. Research data were mostly acquired from colleagues from the same department or institution. Roughly half of the respondents did not ask other scientists directly for their research data. Research data are important to the respondents mostly for raising the quality of research. Repeating someone else’s research by using their research data is still a problem. Less than one-third of the respondents provided full access to their research data mostly due to their fear of misuse. The benefits of research data sharing were recognized but few of the respondents received any reward for it. Archiving research data is a significant problem for the respondents as they dominantly use their own computers prone to failure for that activity and do not think about long-term preservation. Finally, the respondents lacked deeper knowledge of research data management.
View
... However, this data often remains underutilized because of the lack of research data sharing and reuse practices in the scientific community. In the context of Open Science (Zarghani et al. 2023), it is discussed that research data should be shared by universities and research institutes in a comprehensible and reusable manner; for realizing this, a new job profile called "data steward" became created (Seidlmayer et al. 2023). For data stewardship, the FAIR principles were formulated, for instance, by the European Commission for its "Horizon 2020" programme (European Commission 2016), meaning that shared research data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (Boeckhout, Zielhuis, and Bredenoord 2018;Wilkinson et al. 2016). ...
Information Scientists’ Motivations for Research Data Sharing and Reuse
Article
Full-text available
What are the motivations and sought gratifications leading information science researchers to share and to reuse research data? Research data are both datasets and supplementary materials such as interview guides or questionnaires. The theoretical backgrounds of this study are the Lasswell Formula of Communication, the Uses and Gratifications Theory, and the Self-determination Theory, which formed the basis for the construction of an interview guide and the interpretation of the interview transcripts. We performed 11 in-depth interviews with German information scientists, all with experiences with data. The results demonstrate that research data sharing is not a rare practice among information scientists. Due to problems with different information horizons of the sharing and the reusing researchers, the reusing of data sets is much rarer than the reuse of supplementary materials.
View
The varying openness of digital open science tools
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2021
Background : Digital tools that support open science practices play a key role in the seamless accumulation, archiving and dissemination of scholarly data, outcomes and conclusions. Despite their integration into open science practices, the providence and design of these digital tools are rarely explicitly scrutinized. This means that influential factors, such as the funding models of the parent organizations, their geographic location, and the dependency on digital infrastructures are rarely considered. Suggestions from literature and anecdotal evidence already draw attention to the impact of these factors, and raise the question of whether the open science ecosystem can realise the aspiration to become a truly “unlimited digital commons” in its current structure. Methods : In an online research approach, we compiled and analysed the geolocation, terms and conditions as well as funding models of 242 digital tools increasingly being used by researchers in various disciplines. Results : Our findings indicate that design decisions and restrictions are biased towards researchers in North American and European scholarly communities. In order to make the future open science ecosystem inclusive and operable for researchers in all world regions including Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, those should be actively included in design decision processes. Conclusions : Digital open science tools carry the promise of enabling collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups through responsive design. We therefore encourage long term funding mechanisms and ethnically as well as culturally inclusive approaches serving local prerequisites and conditions to tool design and construction allowing a globally connected digital research infrastructure to evolve in a regionally balanced manner.
View
Principles of open, transparent and reproducible science in author guidelines of sleep research and chronobiology journals
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2021
Background: "Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 27 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. The TOP Factor is a quantitative summary of the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Results: Across the 27 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25 th , 75 th percentile] 3 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 29) in sleep research and chronobiology journals. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their author guidelines.
View
The varying openness of digital open science tools
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2020
Background : Digital tools that support open science practices play a key role in the seamless accumulation, archiving and dissemination of scholarly data, outcomes and conclusions. Despite their integration into open science practices, the providence and design of these digital tools are rarely explicitly scrutinized. This means that influential factors, such as the funding models of the parent organizations, their geographic location, and the dependency on digital infrastructures are rarely considered. Suggestions from literature and anecdotal evidence already draw attention to the impact of these factors, and raise the question of whether the open science ecosystem can realise the aspiration to become a truly “unlimited digital commons” in its current structure. Methods : In an online research approach, we compiled and analysed the geolocation, terms and conditions as well as funding models of 242 digital tools increasingly being used by researchers in various disciplines. Results : Our findings indicate that design decisions and restrictions are biased towards researchers in North American and European scholarly communities. In order to make the future open science ecosystem inclusive and operable for researchers in all world regions including Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, those should be actively included in design decision processes. Conclusions : Digital open science tools carry the promise of enabling collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups through responsive design. We therefore encourage long term funding mechanisms and ethnically as well as culturally inclusive approaches serving local prerequisites and conditions to tool design and construction allowing a globally connected digital research infrastructure to evolve in a regionally balanced manner.
View
Open Access: Consolidating RRI and Open Science: understanding the potential for transformative change
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2020
In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what ‘opening up’ to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the ‘how’ of opening up in light of the ‘why’ to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI’s emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS’ co-existence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.
View
Open science for responsible innovation in Australia: understanding the expectations and priorities of scientists and researchers
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2020
Recent arguments for responsible innovation to progress beyond the narrow focus on open access and toward open science present the opportunity for a deliberate global transition to a culture of transparent and open scientific conduct that will deliver greater societal benefit. This paper presents results from a survey of 171 Australian scientists, researchers and other professionals on their expectations and perspectives of transparency and openness in current scientific research practice. The results suggest that for this cultural transition to occur, the responsibility for strengthening transparency and openness must be undertaken not only by scientists and researchers, but also research funding and delivery agencies, and even those beyond the research and innovation sector. These findings are a first step towards defining and understanding what open science means in an Australian context, and what shifts are needed from researchers, research institutions and policy makers to move toward open science for responsible innovation.
View
The motivation for citizens’ involvement in life sciences research is predicted by age and gender
Article
Full-text available
Open Science is an umbrella term encompassing multiple concepts as open access to publications, open data, open education and citizen science that aim to make science more open and transparent. Citizen science, an important facet of Open Science, actively involves non-scientists in the research process, and can potentially be beneficial for multiple actors, such as scientists, citizens, policymakers and society in general. However, the reasons that motivate different segments of the public to participate in research are still understudied. Therefore, based on data gathered from a survey conducted in Czechia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK (N = 5,870), this study explores five types of incentives that can motivate individuals to become involved in life sciences research. The results demonstrate that men and younger individuals are more persuaded by extrinsic motives (external benefits or rewards), as compared with women and older people, who are driven by intrinsic motives (that originates from within an individual). This paper shows that specific strata of the population are differentially motivated to engage in research, thereby providing relevant knowledge for effectively designing public involvement activities that target various groups of the public in research projects.
View
Open Science in Education Sciences
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2020
The Open Science movement has gained considerable traction in the last decade. The Open Science movement tries to increase trust in research results and open the access to all elements of a research project to the public. Central to these goals, Open Science has promoted five critical tenets: Open Data, Open Analysis, Open Materials, Preregistration, and Open Access. All Open Science elements can be thought of as extensions to the traditional way of achieving openness in science, which has been scientific publication of research outcomes in journals or books. Open Science in education sciences, however, has the potential to be much more than a safeguard against questionable research. Open Science in education science provides opportunities to (a) increase the transparency and therefore replicability of research and (b) develop and answer research questions about individuals with learning disabilities and learning difficulties that were previously impossible to answer due to complexities in data analysis methods. We will provide overviews of the main tenets of Open Science (i.e., Open Data, Open Analysis, Open Materials, Preregistration, and Open Access), show how they are in line with grant funding agencies’ expectations for rigorous research processes, and present resources on best practices for each of the tenets.
View
Challenges and Best Practices Associated with Sharing Research Materials and Research Data for Communication Scholars
Article
  • Aug 2020
Scientific practices are constantly evolving to meet the best practices and standards available at a point in time. In the current publication environment, advances in communication technology in tandem with concerns about the transparency of extant communication scholarship have encouraged many to reconsider how we share knowledge with one another. Among a broader suite of open science practices, two specific changes have been advocated for: sharing research materials and sharing research data. As part of an ongoing conversation within communication science, this essay summarizes and explains how researchers can critically consider so-called “open materials” and “open data” when publishing in Communication Studies as well as other communication and adjacent journals.
View
View
Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model
Article
  • Jul 2020
  • J INF SCI
As part of moves towards open knowledge practices, making peer review open is cited as a way to enable fuller scrutiny and transparency of assessments around research. There are now many flavours of open peer review in use across scholarly publishing, including where reviews are fully attributable and the reviewer is named. This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous (named) peer review – and used in the post-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform F1000Research. First, is there evidence of potential bias where a reviewer based in a specific country assesses the work of an author also based in the same country? Second, are reviewers influenced by being able to see the comments and know the origins of a previous reviewer? Based on over 4 years of open peer review data, we found some weak evidence that being based in the same country as an author may influence a reviewer’s decision, while there was insufficient evidence to conclude that being able to read an existing published review prior to submitting a review encourages conformity. Thus, while immediate publishing of peer review reports appears to be unproblematic, caution may be needed when selecting same-country reviewers in open systems if other studies confirm these results.
View