+1 Recommend
7 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How open science helps researchers succeed

      Overview Bookmark


          Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.


          Main article text


          Recognition and adoption of open research practices is growing, including new policies that increase public access to the academic literature (open access; Björk et al., 2014; Swan et al., 2015) and encourage sharing of data (open data; Heimstädt et al., 2014; Michener, 2015; Stodden et al., 2013), and code (open source; Stodden et al., 2013; Shamir et al., 2013). Such policies are often motivated by ethical, moral or utilitarian arguments (Suber, 2012; Willinsky, 2006), such as the right of taxpayers to access literature arising from publicly-funded research (Suber, 2003), or the importance of public software and data deposition for reproducibility (Poline et al., 2012; Stodden, 2011; Ince et al., 2012). Meritorious as such arguments may be, however, they do not address the practical barriers involved in changing researchers’ behavior, such as the common perception that open practices could present a risk to career advancement. In the present article, we address such concerns and suggest that the benefits of open practices outweigh the potential costs.

          We take a researcher-centric approach in outlining the benefits of open research practices. Researchers can use open practices to their advantage to gain more citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. We address common myths about open research, such as concerns about the rigor of peer review at open access journals, risks to funding and career advancement, and forfeiture of author rights. We recognize the current pressures on researchers, and offer advice on how to practice open science within the existing framework of academic evaluations and incentives. We discuss these issues with regard to four areas – publishing, funding, resource management and sharing, and career advancement – and conclude with a discussion of open questions.


          Open publications get more citations

          There is evidence that publishing openly is associated with higher citation rates (Hitchcock, 2016). For example, Eysenbach reported that articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) under their open access (OA) option were twice as likely to be cited within 4–10 months and nearly three times as likely to be cited 10–16 months after publication than non-OA articles published in the same journal (Eysenbach, 2006). Hajjem and colleagues studied over 1.3 million articles published in 10 different disciplines over a 12-year period and found that OA articles had a 36–172% advantage in citations over non-OA articles (Hajjem et al., 2006). While some controlled studies have failed to find a difference in citations between OA and non-OA articles or attribute differences to factors other than access (Davis, 2011; Davis et al., 2008; Frandsen, 2009a; Gaulé and Maystre, 2011; Lansingh and Carter, 2009), a larger number of studies confirm the OA citation advantage. Of 70 studies registered as of June 2016 in the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Europe database of citation studies, 46 (66%) found an OA citation advantage, 17 (24%) found no advantage, and 7 (10%) were inconclusive (SPARC Europe, 2016). Numerical estimates of the citation advantage in two reviews range from -5% to 600% (Swan, 2010) and 25% to 250% (Wagner, 2010). The size of the advantage observed is often dependent on discipline (Figure 1). Importantly, the OA citation advantage can be conferred regardless of whether articles are published in fully OA journals, subscription journals with OA options (hybrid journals), or self-archived in open repositories (Eysenbach, 2006; Hajjem et al., 2006; Gargouri et al., 2010; Research Information Network, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Swan, 2010; Wagner, 2010). Moreover, at least in some cases, the advantage is not explained by selection bias (i.e., authors deliberately posting their better work to open platforms), as openly archived articles receive a citation advantage regardless of whether archiving is initiated by the author or mandated by an institution or funder (Gargouri et al., 2010; Xia and Nakanishi, 2012).

          Figure 1.
          Open access articles get more citations.

          The relative citation rate (OA: non-OA) in 19 fields of research. This rate is defined as the mean citation rate of OA articles divided by the mean citation rate of non-OA articles. Multiple points for the same discipline indicate different estimates from the same study, or estimates from several studies. References by discipline: Agricultural studies (Kousha and Abdoli, 2010); Physics/astronomy (Gentil-Beccot et al., 2010; Harnad and Brody, 2004; Metcalfe, 2006); Medicine (Sahu et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2011); Computer science (Lawrence, 2001); Sociology/social sciences (Hajjem et al., 2006; Norris et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2011); Psychology (Hajjem et al., 2006); Political science (Hajjem et al., 2006; Antelman, 2004; Atchison and Bull, 2015); Management (Hajjem et al., 2006); Law (Donovan et al., 2015; Hajjem et al., 2006); Economics (Hajjem et al., 2006; McCabe and Snyder, 2015; Norris et al., 2008; Wohlrabe, 2014); Mathematics (Antelman, 2004; Davis and Fromerth, 2007; Norris et al., 2008); Health (Hajjem et al., 2006); Engineering (Antelman, 2004; Koler-Povh et al., 2014); Philosophy (Antelman, 2004); Education (Hajjem et al., 2006; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2010); Business (Hajjem et al., 2006; McCabe and Snyder, 2015); Communication studies (Zhang, 2006); Ecology (McCabe and Snyder, 2014; Norris et al., 2008); Biology (Frandsen, 2009b; Hajjem et al., 2006; McCabe and Snyder, 2014).


          Open publications get more media coverage

          One way for researchers to gain visibility is for their publications to be shared on social media and covered by mainstream media outlets. There is evidence that publishing articles openly can help researchers get noticed. A study of over 2,000 articles published in Nature Communications showed that those published openly received nearly double the number of unique tweeters and Mendeley readers as closed-access articles (Adie, 2014a). A similar study of over 1,700 Nature Communications articles found that OA articles receive 2.5–4.4 times the number of page views, and garnered more social media attention via Twitter and Facebook than non-OA articles (Wang et al., 2015). There is tentative evidence that news coverage confers a citation advantage. For example, a small quasi-experimental 1991 study found that articles covered by the New York Times received up to 73% more citations that those not covered (Phillips et al., 1991). A 2003 correlational study supported these results, reporting higher citation rates for articles covered by the media (Kiernan, 2003).

          Prestige and journal impact factor

          As Sydney Brenner wrote in 1995, ‘‘…what matters absolutely is the scientific content of a paper and…nothing will substitute for either knowing it or reading it’’ (Brenner, 1995). Unfortunately, academic institutions often rely on proxy metrics, like journal impact factor (IF), to quickly evaluate researchers’ work. The IF is a flawed metric that correlates poorly with the scientific quality of individual articles (Brembs et al., 2013; Neuberger and Counsell, 2002; PLOS Medicine Editors, 2006; Seglen, 1997). In fact, several of the present authors have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SF-DORA) recommending IF not be used as a research evaluation metric (American Society for Cell Biology, 2013). However, until institutions cease using IF in evaluations, researchers will understandably be concerned about the IF of journals in which they publish. In author surveys, researchers repeatedly rank IF and associated journal reputation as among the most important factors they consider when deciding where to publish (Nature Publishing Group, 2015; Solomon, 2014). Researchers are also aware of the associated prestige that can accompany publication in high-IF journals such as Nature or Science. Thus, OA advocates should recognize and respect the pressures on researchers to select publishing outlets based, at least in part, on IF.

          Fortunately, concerns about IF need not prevent researchers from publishing openly. For one thing, the IFs of indexed OA journals are steadily approaching those of subscription journals (Björk and Solomon, 2012). In the 2012 Journal Citation Report, over 1,000 (13%) of the journals listed with IFs were OA (Gunasekaran and Arunachalam, 2014). Of these OA journals, thirty-nine had IFs over 5.0 and nine had IFs over 10.0. Examples of OA journals in the biological and medical sciences with moderate to high 2015 IFs include PLOS Medicine (13.6), Nature Communications (11.3), and BioMed Central’s Genome Biology (11.3). The Cofactor Journal Selector Tool allows authors to search for OA journals with an IF (Cofactor Ltd, 2016). We reiterate that our goal in providing such information is not to support IF as a valid measure of scholarly impact, but to demonstrate that researchers do not have to choose between IF and OA when making publishing decisions.

          In addition, many subscription-based high-IF journals offer authors the option to pay to make their articles openly accessible. While one can debate the long-term viability and merits of a model that allows publishers to effectively reap both reader-paid and author-paid charges (Björk, 2012), in the short term, researchers who wish to publish their articles openly in traditional journals can do so. Researchers can also publish in high-IF subscription journals and self-archive openly (see section "Publish where you want and archive openly"). We hope that in the next few years, use of IF as a metric will diminish or cease entirely, but in the meantime, researchers have options to publish openly while still meeting any IF-related evaluation and career advancement criteria.

          Rigorous and transparent peer review

          Unlike most subscription journals, several OA journals have open and transparent peer review processes. Journals such as PeerJ and Royal Society’s Open Science offer reviewers the opportunity to sign their reviews and offer authors the option to publish the full peer review history alongside their articles. In 2014, PeerJ reported that 40% of reviewers sign their reports and 80% of authors choose to make their review history public (PeerJ Staff, 2014). BioMed Central’s GigaScience, all the journals in BMC’s medical series, Copernicus journals, F1000Research, and MDPI’s Life require that reviewer reports be published, either as part of a prepublication review process, or subsequent to publication. Some studies suggest open peer review may produce reviews of higher quality, including better substantiated claims and more constructive criticisms, compared to closed review (Kowalczuk et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2000). Additional studies have also argued that transparent peer review processes are linked to measures of quality (Wicherts, 2016). Other studies have reported no differences in the quality of open versus closed reviews (van Rooyen et al., 1999; van Rooyen et al., 2010). More research in this area is needed.

          Unfortunately, the myth that OA journals have poor or non-existent peer review persists. This leads many to believe that OA journals are low quality and causes researchers to be concerned that publishing in these venues will be considered less prestigious in academic evaluations. To our knowledge, there has been no controlled study comparing peer review in OA versus subscription journals. Studies used by some to argue the weakness of peer review at OA journals, such as the John Bohannon ‘sting’ (Bohannon, 2013) in which a fake paper was accepted by several OA journals, have been widely criticized in the academic community for poor methodology, including not submitting to subscription journals for comparison (Joseph, 2013; Redhead, 2013). In fact, Bohannon admitted, ‘‘Some open-access journals that have been criticized for poor quality control provided the most rigorous peer review of all’’. He cites PLOS ONE as an example, saying it was the only journal to raise ethical concerns with his submitted work (Bohannon, 2013).

          Subscription journals have not been immune to problems with peer review. In 2014, Springer and IEEE retracted over 100 published fake articles from several subscription journals (Van Noorden, 2014; Springer, 2014). Poor editorial practices at one SAGE journal opened the door to peer review fraud that eventually led 60 articles to be retracted (Bohannon, 2014; Journal of Vibration and Control, 2014). Similar issues in other subscription journals have been documented by Retraction Watch (Oransky and Marcus, 2016). Problems with peer review thus clearly exist, but are not exclusive to OA journals. Indeed, large-scale empirical analyses indicate that the reliability of the traditional peer review process itself leaves much to be desired. Bornmann and colleagues reviewed 48 studies of inter-reviewer agreement and found that the average level of agreement was low (mean ICC of .34 and Cohen’s kappa of .17) – well below what what would be considered adequate in psychometrics or other fields focused on quantitative assessment (Bornmann et al., 2010). Opening up peer review, including allowing for real-time discussions between authors and reviewers, could help address some of these issues.

          Over time, we expect that transparency will help dispel the myth of poor peer review at OA journals, as researchers read reviews and confirm that the process is typically as rigorous as that of subscription journals. Authors can use open reviews to demonstrate to academic committees the rigorousness of the peer review process in venues where they publish, and highlight reviewer comments on the importance of their work. Researchers in their capacity as reviewers can also benefit from an open approach, as this allows them to get credit for this valuable service. Platforms like Publons let researchers create reviewer profiles to showcase their work (Publons, 2016).

          Publish where you want and archive openly

          Some researchers may not see publishing in OA journals as a viable option, and may wish instead to publish in specific subscription journals seen as prestigious in their field. Importantly, there are ways to openly share work while still publishing in subscription journals.

          Preprints: Authors may provide open access to their papers by posting them as preprints prior to formal peer review and journal publication. Preprints servers are both free for authors to post and free for readers. Several archival preprint servers exist covering different subject areas (Table 1). (Note: The list in Table 1 is not all-inclusive; there are many other servers and institutional repositories that also accept preprints).

          Table 1.

          Preprint servers and general repositories accepting preprints.


          Preprint server or repository*Subject areasRepository open source?Public API?Can leave feedback?Third party persistent ID?
          arXiv arxiv.orgphysics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statisticsNoYesNoNo
          bioRxiv biorxiv.orgbiology, life sciencesNoNoYesYes (DOI)
          CERN document server physicsYes (GPL)YesNoNo
          Cogprints cogprints.orgpsychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, philosophy, biologyNoYesNoNo
          EconStor econstor.eueconomicsNoYesNoYes (Handle)
          e-LiS eprints.rclis.orglibrary and information sciencesNo§YesNoYes (Handle)
          figshare figshare.comgeneral repository for all disciplinesNoYesYesYes (DOI)
          Munich Personal RePEc Archive mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.deeconomicsNoYesNoNo
          Open Science Framework osf.iogeneral repository for all disciplinesYes (Apache 2)YesYesYes (DOI/ARK)
          PeerJ Preprints, life, medical, and computer sciencesNoYesYesYes (DOI)
          PhilSci Archive philsci-archive.pitt.eduphilosophy of scienceNo**YesNoNo
          Self-Journal of Science www.sjscience.orggeneral repository for all disciplinesNoNoYesNo
          Social Science Research Network ssrn.comsocial sciences and humanitiesNoNoYesYes (DOI)
          The Winnower thewinnower.comgeneral repository for all disciplinesNoNoYesYes (DOI)††
          Zenodo zenodo.orggeneral repository for all disciplinesYes (GPLv2)YesNoYes (DOI)

          * All these servers and repositories are indexed by Google Scholar.

          Most, if not all, of those marked ’Yes’ require some type of login or registration to leave comments.

          arXiv provides internally managed persistent identifiers.

          § e-LiS is built on open source software (EPrints), but the repository itself, including modifications to the code, plugins, etc. is not open source.

          MPRA is built on open source software (EPrints), but the repository itself, including modifications to the code, plugins, etc. is not open source.

          ** PhilSci Archive is built on open source software (EPrints), but the repository itself, including modifications to the code, plugins, etc. is not open source.

          †† The Winnower charges a $25 fee to assign a DOI.

          Many journals allow posting of preprints, including Science, Nature, and PNAS, as well as most OA journals. Journal preprint policies can be checked via Wikipedia (Wikipedia, 2016) and SHERPA/RoMEO (SHERPA/RoMEO, 2016). Of the over 2,000 publishers in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, 46% explicitly allow preprint posting. Preprints can be indexed in Google Scholar and cited in the literature, allowing authors to accrue citations while the paper is still in review. In one extreme case, one of the present authors (CTB) published a preprint that has received over 50 citations in three years (Brown et al., 2012), and was acknowledged in NIH grant reviews.

          In some fields, preprints can establish scientific priority. In physics, astronomy, and mathematics, preprints have become an integral part of the research and publication workflow (Brown, 2001; Larivière et al., 2014; Gentil-Beccot et al., 2010). Physics articles posted as preprints prior to formal publication tend to receive more citations than those published only in traditional journals (Gentil-Beccot et al., 2010; Schwarz and Kennicutt Jr, 2004; Metcalfe, 2006). Unfortunately, because of the slow adoption of preprints in the biological and medical sciences, few if any studies have been conducted to examine citation advantage conferred by preprints in these fields. However, the growing number of submissions to the quantitative biology section of arXiv, as well as to dedicated biology preprint servers such as bioRxiv and PeerJ PrePrints, should make such studies feasible. Researchers have argued for increased use of preprints in biology (Desjardins-Proulx et al., 2013). The recent Accelerating Science and Publication in biology (ASAPbio) meeting demonstrates growing interest and support for life science preprints from researchers, funders, and publishers (Berg et al., 2016; ASAPbio, 2016).

          Postprints: Authors can also archive articles on open platforms after publication in traditional journals (postprints). SHERPA/RoMEO allows authors to check policies from over 2,200 publishers, 72% of which allow authors to archive postprints, either in the form of the authors’ accepted manuscript post-peer review, or the publisher’s formatted version, depending on the policy (SHERPA/RoMEO, 2016). Of notable example is Science, which allows authors to immediately post the accepted version of their manuscript on their website, and post to larger repositories like PubMed Central six months after publication. The journal Nature likewise allows archiving of the accepted article in open repositories six months after publication.

          If the journal in which authors publish does not formally support self-archiving, authors can submit an author addendum that allows them to retain rights to post a copy of their article in an open repository. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) provides a template addendum, as well as information on author rights (SPARC, 2016). The Scholar’s Copyright Addendum Engine helps authors generate a customized addendum to send to publishers (Science Commons, 2016). Not all publishers will accept author addenda, but some are willing to negotiate the terms of their publishing agreements.

          Retain author rights and control reuse with open licenses

          To make their findings known to the world, scientists have historically forfeited ownership of the products of their intellectual labor by signing over their copyrights or granting exclusive reuse rights to publishers. In contrast, authors publishing in OA journals retain nearly all rights to their manuscripts and materials. OA articles are typically published under Creative Commons (CC) licenses, which function within the legal framework of copyright law (Creative Commons, 2016). Under these licenses, authors retain copyright, and simply grant specific (non-exclusive) reuse rights to publishers, as well as other users. Moreover, CC licenses require attribution, which allows authors to receive credit for their work and accumulate citations. Licensors can specify that attribution include not just the name of the author(s) but also a link back to the original work. Authors submitting work to an OA journal should review its submission rules to learn what license(s) the journal permits authors to select.

          If terms of a CC license are violated by a user, the licensor can revoke the license and, if the revocation is not honored, take legal action to enforce their copyright. There are several legal precedents upholding CC licenses, including: (1) Adam Curry v. Audax Publishing (Court of Amsterdam, 2006; Garlick, 2006a); (2) Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) v. Ricardo Andrés Utrera Fernández (Juzgado de Primera Instancia Número Seis de Badajoz, España, 2006; Garlick, 2006b); and (3) Gerlach v. Deutsche Volksunion (DVU) (Linksvayer, 2011). Through open licensing, researchers thus retain control over how their work is read, shared, and used by others.

          An emerging and interesting development is the adoption of rights-retention open access policies (Harvard Open Access Project, 2016). To date, such policies have been adopted by at least 60 schools and institutions worldwide, including some in Canada, Iceland, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. universities like Harvard (Harvard Library, Office for Scholary Communication, 2016) and MIT (MIT Libraries, Scholarly Publishing, 2016). These policies involve an agreement by the faculty to grant universities non-exclusive reuse rights on future published works. By putting such a policy in place prior to publication, faculty work can be openly archived without the need to negotiate with publishers to retain or recover rights; open is the default. We expect to see adoption of such policies grow in coming years.

          Publish for low-cost or no-cost

          Researchers often cite high costs, primarily in the form of article processing charges (APCs), as a barrier to publishing in OA journals. While some publishers – subscription as well as OA – do charge steep fees (Lawson, 2016; Wellcome Trust, 2016c), many others charge nothing at all. In a 2014 study of 1,357 OA journals, 71% did not request any APC (West et al., 2014). A study of over 10,300 OA journals from 2011 to 2015 likewise found 71% did not charge (Crawford, 2016). maintains a list of hundreds of no-fee OA journals across fields (Eigenfactor Project, 2016). Researchers can also search for no-cost OA journals using the Cofactor Journal Selector tool (Cofactor Ltd, 2016). Notable examples of OA journals which do not currently charge authors to publish include eLife, Royal Society’s Open Science, and all journals published by consortiums like Open Library of Humanities and SCOAP3. The Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and the Network of Scientific Journals in Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain, and Portugal (Redalyc), each host over 1,000 journals that provide free publishing for authors.

          Many other OA journals charge minimal fees, with the average APC around $665 USD (Crawford, 2016). At PeerJ, for example, a one-time membership fee of $199 USD allows an author to publish one article per year for life, subject to peer review. (Note: Since PeerJ requires the membership fee to be paid for each author up to 12 authors, the maximum cost of an article would be $2,388 USD. However, this is a one-time fee, after which subsequent articles for the same authors would be free.) Most Pensoft OA journals charge around €100–400 ($115–460 USD), while a select few are free. Ubiquity Press OA journals charge an average APC of £300 ($500 USD), with their open data and software metajournals charging £100 ($140 USD). Cogent’s OA journals all function on a flexible payment model, with authors paying only what they are able based on their financial resources. Importantly, most OA journals do not charge any additional fees for submission or color figures. These charges, as levied by many subscription publishers, can easily sum to hundreds or thousands of dollars (e.g. in Elsevier’s Neuron the first color figure is $1,000 USD, while each additional one is $275). Thus, publishing in OA journals need not be any more expensive than publishing in traditional journals, and in some cases, may cost less.

          The majority of OA publishers charging higher publication fees (e.g., PLOS or Frontiers, which typically charge upwards of $1,000 USD per manuscript) offer fee waivers upon request for authors with financial constraints. Policies vary by publisher, but frequently include automatic full waivers for authors from low-income countries, and partial waivers for those in lower-middle-income countries. Researchers in any country can request a partial or full waiver if they cannot pay. Some publishers, such as BioMed Central, F1000, Hindawi, and PeerJ, have membership programs through which institutions pay part or all of the APC for affiliated authors. Some institutions also have discretionary funds for OA publication fees. Increasingly, funders are providing OA publishing funds, or allowing researchers to write these funds into their grants. PLOS maintains a searchable list of both institutions and funders that support OA publication costs (Public Library of Science, 2016). Finally, as discussed previously in the section "Publish where you want and archive openly", researchers can make their work openly available for free by self-archiving preprints or postprints.


          Awards and special funding

          For academics in many fields, securing funding is essential to career development and success of their research program. In the last three years, new fellowships and awards for open research have been created by multiple organizations (Table 2). While there is no guarantee that these particular funding mechanisms will be maintained, they are a reflection of the changing norms in science, and illustrate the increasing opportunities to gain recognition and resources by sharing one’s work openly.

          Table 2.

          Special funding opportunities for open research, training, and advocacy.


          Shuttleworth Foundation Fellowship Programfunding for researchers working openly on diverse
          Mozilla Fellowship for Sciencefunding for researchers interested in open data and open
          Leamer-Rosenthal Prizes for Open Social Science (UC Berkeley and John Templeton Foundation)rewards social scientists for open research and education
          OpenCon Travel Scholarship (Right to Research Coalition and SPARC)funding for students and early-career researchers to attend OpenCon, and receive training in open practices and
          Preregistration Challenge (Center for Open Science)prizes for researchers who publish the results of a preregistered
          Open Science Prize (Wellcome Trust, NIH, and HHMI)funding to develop services, tools, and platforms that will increase openness in biomedical

          Funder mandates on article and data sharing

          Increasingly, funders are not only preferring but mandating open sharing of research. The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been a leader in this respect. In 2008, the NIH implemented a public access policy, requiring that all articles arising from NIH-funded projects be deposited in the National Library of Medicine’s open repository, PubMed Central, within one year of publication (Rockey, 2012). NIH also requires that projects receiving $500K or more per year in direct costs include a data management plan that specifies how researchers will share their data (National Institutes of Health, 2003). NIH intends to extend its data sharing policy to a broader segment of its portfolio in the near future. Since 2011, the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) has also encouraged sharing data, software, and other research outputs (National Science Foundation, 2011). All NSF investigators are required to submit a plan, specifying data management and availability. In 2015, U.S. government agencies, including the NSF, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Defense (DoD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and more announced plans to implement article and data sharing requirements in response to the White House Office of Science and Technology (OTSP) memo on public access (Holdren, 2013). A crowd-sourced effort has collected information on these agency policies and continues to be updated (Whitmire et al., 2015).

          Several governmental agencies and charitable foundations around the world have implemented even stronger open access mandates. For example, the Wellcome Trust’s policy states that articles from funded projects must be made openly available within six months of publication, and where it provides publishing fee support, specifically requires publication under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (Wellcome Trust, 2016b). The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) requires that all manuscripts reporting results produced using public funds must be made immediately available (NWO, 2016). Similar policies are in place at CERN (CERN, 2014), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2013), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2015) among others, and are increasingly covering data sharing. Funders recognize that certain types of data, such as clinical records, are sensitive and require special safeguards to permit sharing while protecting patient privacy. The Expert Advisory Group on Data Access (EAGDA) was recently established as a collaboration between the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, and the Medical Research Council to advise funders on best practices for creating data sharing policies for human research (Wellcome Trust, 2016a).

          Researchers can check article and data sharing policies of funders in their country via SHERPA/JULIET (SHERPA/JULIET, 2016). BioSharing also maintains a searchable database of data management and sharing policies from both funders and publishers worldwide (, 2016). Internationally, the number of open access policies has been steadily increasing over the last decade (Figure 2). Some funders, including the NIH and Wellcome Trust, have begun suspending or withholding funds if researchers do not meet their policy requirements (National Institutes of Health, 2012; Van Noorden, 2014; Wellcome Trust, 2012). Thus, researchers funded by a wide variety of sources will soon be not just encouraged but required to engage in open practices to receive and retain funding. Those already engaging in these practices will likely have a competitive advantage.

          Figure 2.
          Increase in open access policies.

          The number of open access policies registered in ROARMAP ( has increased over the last decade. Data are broken down by type of organization: research organization (e.g., a university or research institution); funder; subunit of research organization (e.g. a library within a university); funder and research organization; multiple research organizations (e.g., an organization with multiple research centers, such as Max Planck Society). Figure used with permission from Stevan Harnad.


          Resource management and sharing

          In our researcher-centric approach, the rationale for data sharing based on funder mandates could be understood simply as ‘funders want you to share, so it is in your interest to do so’. That may be a compelling but dissatisfying reason to practice openly. Fortunately, there are other compelling reasons to share.

          Documentation and reproducibility benefits

          First, submitting data and research materials to an independent repository ensures preservation and accessibility of that content in the future - both for one’s own access and for others. This is a particular benefit for responding to requests for data or materials by others. Preparation of research materials for sharing during the active phase of the project is much easier than reconstructing work from years earlier. Second, researchers who plan to release their data, software, and materials are likely to engage in behaviors that are easy to skip in the short-term but have substantial benefits in the long-term, such as clear documentation of the key products of the research. Besides direct benefits for oneself in facilitating later reuse, such practices increase the reproducibility of published findings and the ease with which other researchers can use, extend, and cite that work (Gorgolewski and Poldrack, 2016). Finally, sharing data and materials signals that researchers value transparency and have confidence in their own research.

          Gain more citations and visibility by sharing data

          Data sharing also confers a citation advantage. Piwowar and Vision (2013) analyzed over 10,000 studies with gene expression microarray data published in 2001–2009, and found an overall 9% citation advantage for papers with shared data and advantages around 30% for older studies. Henneken and Accomazzi (2011) found a 20% citation advantage for astronomy articles that linked to open datasets. Dorch et al., 2015 found a 28–50% citation advantage for astrophysics articles, while Sears (2011) reported a 35% advantage for paleoceanography articles with publicly available data. Similar positive effects of data sharing have been described in the social sciences. Gleditsch et al., 2003 found that articles in the Journal of Peace Research offering data in any form – either through appendices, URLs, or contact addresses – were cited twice as frequently on average as articles with no data but otherwise equivalent author credentials and article variables. Studies with openly published code are also more likely to be cited than those that do not open their code (Vandewalle, 2012). In addition to more citations, Pienta et al., 2010 found that data sharing is associated with higher publication productivity. Across over 7,000 NSF and NIH awards, they reported that research projects with archived data produced a median of 10 publications, versus only 5 for projects without archived data.

          Importantly, citation studies may underestimate the scientific contribution and resulting visibility associated with resource sharing, as many data sets and software packages are published as stand-alone outputs that are not associated with a paper but may be widely reused. Fortunately, new outlets for data and software papers allow researchers to describe new resources of interest without necessarily reporting novel findings (Chavan and Penev, 2011; Gorgolewski et al., 2013). There is also a growing awareness that data and software are independent, first class scholarly outputs, that need to be incorporated into the networked research ecosystem. Many open data and software repositories have mechanisms for assigning digital object identifiers (DOIs) to these products. The use of persistent, unique identifiers like DOIs has been recommended by the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles to facilitate data citation (Data Citation Synthesis Group, 2014). Researchers can register for a unique Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) (Haak et al., 2012) to track their research outputs, including datasets and software, and build a richer profile of their contributions. Together, these developments should support efforts to ‘‘make data count’’, further incentivize sharing, and ensure that data generators and software creators receive greater credit for their work (Kratz and Strasser, 2015).

          In summary, data and software sharing benefits researchers both because it is consistent with emerging mandates, and because it signals credibility and engenders good research practices that can reduce errors and promote reuse, extension, and citation.

          Career advancement

          Find new projects and collaborators

          Research collaborations are essential to advancing knowledge, but identifying and connecting with appropriate collaborators is not trivial. Open practices can make it easier for researchers to connect with one another by increasing the discoverability and visibility of one’s work, facilitating rapid access to novel data and software resources, and creating new opportunities to interact with and contribute to ongoing communal projects. For example, in 2011, one of the present authors (BAN) initiated a project to replicate a sample of studies to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science (Open Science Collaboration, 2012; Open Science Collaboration, 2014). Completing a meaningful number of replications in a single laboratory would have been difficult. Instead, the project idea was posted to a listserv as an open collaboration. Ultimately, more than 350 people contributed, with 270 earning co-authorship on the publication (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Open collaboration enabled distribution of work and expertise among many researchers, and was essential for the project’s success. Other projects have used similar approaches to successfully carry out large-scale collaborative research (Klein et al., 2014).

          Similar principles are the core of the thriving open -source scientific software ecosystem. In many scientific fields, widely used state-of-the-art data processing and analysis packages are hosted and developed openly, allowing virtually anyone to contribute. Perhaps the paradigmatic example is the scikit-learn Python package for machine learning (Pedregosa et al., 2011), which, in the space of just over five years, has attracted over 500 unique contributors, 20,000 individual code contributions, and 2,500 article citations. Producing a comparable package using a traditional closed-source approach would likely not be feasible, and would, at the very least, have required a budget of tens of millions of dollars. While scikit-learn is clearly an outlier, hundreds of other open-source scientific packages that support much more domain-specific needs depend in a similar fashion on unsolicited community contributions e.g., the NIPY group of projects in neuroimaging (Gorgolewski et al., 2016). Importantly, such contributions not only result in new functionality from which the broader scientific community can benefit, but also regularly provide their respective authors with greater community recognition, and lead to new project and employment opportunities.

          Institutional support of open research practices

          Institutions are increasingly recognizing the limitations of journal-level metrics and exploring the potential benefits of article-level and alternative metrics in evaluating the contributions of specific research outputs. In 2013, the American Society for Cell Biology, along with a group of diverse stakeholders in academia, released the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SF-DORA) (American Society for Cell Biology, 2013). The declaration recommends that institutions cease using all journal-level metrics, including journal impact factor (IF), to evaluate research for promotion and tenure decisions, and focus instead on research content. Additional recommendations include recognizing data and software as valuable research products. As of March 2016, over 12,000 individuals and more than 600 organizations have signed SF-DORA in support of the recommendations, including universities from all over the world. The 2015 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) report for The Research Excellence Framework (REF) – UK’s system for assessing research quality in higher education institutions – also rejects the use of IF and other journal metrics to evaluate researchers for hiring and promotion, and recommends institutions explore a variety of quantitative and qualitative indicators of research impact and ways to recognize sharing of diverse research outputs (Wilsdon et al., 2015).

          Several U.S. institutions have passed resolutions explicitly recognizing open practices in promotion and tenure evaluations, including Virginia Commonwealth University (Virginia Commonwealth University Faculty Senate, 2010) and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 2016). In 2014, Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences launched a pilot program to encourage faculty to archive their articles in the university’s open repository as part of the promotion and tenure process (Harvard Library, Office for Scholarly Communication, 2014). The University of Liège has gone a step further and requires publications to be included in the university’s open access repository to be considered for promotion (University of Liège, 2016). Explicit statements of the importance of open practices are even starting to appear in faculty job advertisements, such as one from LMU München asking prospective candidates to describe their open research activities (Schönbrodt, 2016).


          Open questions

          The emerging field of metascience provides some evidence about the value of open practices, but it is far from complete. There are many initiatives aimed at increasing open practices, and not yet enough published evidence about their effectiveness. For example, journals can offer badges to acknowledge open practices such as open data, open materials, and preregistration (Open Research Badges, 2016). Initial evidence from a single adopting journal, Psychological Science, and a sample of comparison journals suggests that this simple incentive increases data sharing rates from less than 3% to more than 38% (Kidwell et al., 2016). More research is needed across disciplines to follow up on this encouraging evidence. UCLA’s Knowledge Infrastructures project is an ongoing study that, among other objectives, is learning about data sharing practices and factors that discourage or promote sharing across four collaborative scientific projects (Borgman et al., 2015; Darch et al., 2015).

          Open research advocates often cite reproducibility as one of the benefits of data and code sharing (Gorgolewski and Poldrack, 2016). There is a logical argument that having access to the data, code, and materials makes it easier to reproduce the evidence that was derived from that research content. Data sharing correlates with fewer reporting errors, compared to papers with unavailable data (Wicherts, 2016), and could be due to diligent data management practices. However, there is not yet direct evidence that open practices per se are a net benefit to research progress. As a first step, the University of California at Riverside and the Center for Open Science have initiated an NSF-supported randomized trial to evaluate the impact of receiving training to use the Open Science Framework for managing, archiving, and sharing lab research materials and data. Labs across the university will be randomly assigned to receive the training, and outcomes of their research will be assessed across multiple years.

          Preregistration of research designs and analysis plans is a proposed method to increase the credibility of reported research and a means to increase transparency of the research workflow. However, preregistration is rarely practiced outside of clinical trials where it is required by law in the U.S. and as a condition for publication in most journals that publish them. Research suggests that preregistration may counter some questionable practices, such as flexible definition of analytic models and outcome variables in order to find positive results (Kaplan and Irvin, 2015). Public registration also makes it possible to compare publications and registrations of the same study to identify cases in which outcomes were changed or unreported, as is the focus of the COMPare project based at the University of Oxford (COMPare, 2016). Similar efforts include the AllTrials project, run by an international team (AllTrials, 2016), and extending beyond just preregistration of planned studies to retroactive registration and transparent reporting for previously conducted clinical trials. Another example is the AsPredicted project, which is run by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and University of California Berkeley, and offers preregistration services for any discipline (AsPredicted, 2016). To initiate similar research efforts in the basic and preclinical sciences, the Center for Open Science launched the Preregistration Challenge, offering one thousand $1,000 awards to researchers that publish the outcomes of preregistered research (Center for Open Science, 2016).

          Openness as a continuum of practices

          While there are clear definitions and best practices for open access (Chan et al., 2002), open data (Open Knowledge, 2005; Murray-Rust et al., 2010), and open source (Open Source Initiative, 2007), openness is not ‘all-or-nothing’. Not all researchers are comfortable with the same level of sharing, and there are a variety of ways to be open (see Box 1). Openness can be thus defined by a continuum of practices, starting perhaps at the most basic level with openly self-archiving postprints and reaching perhaps the highest level with openly sharing grant proposals, research protocols, and data in real time. Fully open research is a long-term goal to strive towards, not a switch we should expect to flip overnight.

          Many of the discussions about openness center around the associated fears, and we need encouragement to explore the associated benefits as well. As researchers share their work and experience the benefits, they will likely become increasingly comfortable with sharing and willing to experiment with new open practices. Acknowledging and supporting incremental steps is a way to respect researchers’ present experience and comfort, and produce a gradual culture change from closed to open research. Training of researchers early in their careers is fundamental. Graduate programs can integrate open science and modern scientific computing practices into their existing curriculum. Methods courses could incorporate training on publishing practices such as proper citation, author rights, and open access publishing options. Institutions and funders could provide skills training on self-archiving articles, data, and software to meet mandate requirements. Importantly, we recommend integrating education and training with regular curricular and workshop activities so as not to increase the time burden on already-busy students and researchers.


          The evidence that openly sharing articles, code, and data is beneficial for researchers is strong and building. Each year, more studies are published showing the open citation advantage; more funders announce policies encouraging, mandating, or specifically financing open research; and more employers are recognizing open practices in academic evaluations. In addition, a growing number of tools are making the process of sharing research outputs easier, faster, and more cost-effective. In his 2012 book Open Access, Peter Suber summed it up best: "[OA] increases a work’s visibility, retrievability, audience, usage, and citations, which all convert to career building. For publishing scholars, it would be a bargain even if it were costly, difficult, and time-consuming. But…it’s not costly, not difficult, and not time-consuming.’’ (Suber, 2012)

          Box 1.
          What can I do right now?

          Engaging in open science need not require a long-term commitment or intensive effort. There are a number of practices and resolutions that researchers can adopt with very little effort that can help advance the overall open science cause while simultaneously benefiting the individual researcher.

          1. Post free copies of previously published articles in a public repository. Over 70% of publishers allow researchers to post an author version of their manuscript online, typically 6-12 months after publication (see section "Publish where you want and archive openly").

          2. Deposit preprints of all manuscripts in publicly accessible repositories as soon as possible – ideally prior to, and no later than, the initial journal submission (see section "Postprints").

          3. Publish in open access venues whenever possible. As discussed in Prestige and journal impact factor, this need not mean forgoing traditional subscription-based journals, as many traditional journals offer the option to pay an additional charge to make one’s article openly accessible.

          4. Publicly share data and materials via a trusted repository. Whenever it is feasible, the data, materials, and analysis code used to generate the findings reported in one’s manuscripts should be shared. Many journals already require authors to share data upon request as a condition of publication; pro-actively sharing data can be significantly more efficient, and offers a variety of other benefits (see section "Resource management and sharing").

          5. Preregister studies. Publicly preregistering one’s experimental design and analysis plan in advance of data collection is an effective means of minimizing bias and enhancing credibility (see section "Open questions"). Since the preregistration document(s) can be written in a form similar to a Methods section, the additional effort required for preregistration is often minimal.


          Funding Information

          This paper was supported by the following grants:

          • FundRef, National Institute on Aging; R24AG048124 to Brian A Nosek, Courtney K Soderberg.

          • Laura and John Arnold Foundation; to Brian A Nosek, Jeffrey R Spies.

          • FundRef, John Templeton Foundation; 46545 to Brian A Nosek, Jeffrey R Spies.


          This paper arose from the ‘‘Open Source, Open Science’’ meeting held March 19-20th, 2015 at the Center for Open Science in collaboration with Mozilla Science Lab. This meeting was supported by the National Institute of Aging (R24AG048124), the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and the John Templeton Foundation (46545). The authors thank all those who responded to our public calls for comment – especially Virginia Barbour, Peter Binfield, Nazeefa Fatima, Daniel S. Katz, Sven Kochmann, Ehud Lamm, Alexei Lutay, Ben Marwick, Daniel Mietchen, Ian Mulvany, Cameron Neylon, Charles Oppenheim, Pandelis Perakakis, Richard Smith-Unna, Peter Suber, and Anne-Katharina Weilenmann – whose feedback helped us improve this manuscript.

          Competing interests

          ECM: Founder of the 'Why Open Research?' project, an open research advocacy and educational site funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation. She is also a figshare and PeerJ Preprints advisor, Center for Open Science ambassador, and OpenCon organizing committee member - all volunteer positions.

          AK: Works at the open access publisher BioMed Central, a part of the larger SpringerNature company, where she leads initiatives around open data and research and oversees a portfolio of journals in the health sciences.

          JL: Works for CrossRef and is involved in building infrastructure that supports open science research: Principles for Open Scholarly Research, open data initiatives, and open scholarly metadata.

          BAN: Employed by the non-profit Center for Open Science, which runs the Open Science Framework, and includes in its mission "increasing openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research".

          CKS: Employed by the non-profit Center for Open Science, which runs the Open Science Framework, and includes in its mission "increasing openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research".

          JRS: Employed by the non-profit Center for Open Science, which runs the Open Science Framework, and includes in its mission "increasing openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research".

          KT: Employed by the Mozilla Foundation, where she leads the organization's open science program - the Mozilla Science Lab. The Science Lab supports fellowships, training and prototyping, including work on open research badges.

          The other authors declare that no competing interests exist.

          Author contributions

          ECM, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          PEB, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          CTB, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          SB, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          AK, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          JL, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          DM, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          BAN, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          KR, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          CKS, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          JRS, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          KT, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          AU, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          KHW, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

          TY, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.


          1. 2014Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articlesFigshare[Cross Ref]

          2. AllTrials2016All trials registered, all results reported

          3. American Society for Cell Biology2013San Francisco declaration on research assessment

          4. 2004Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?College & Research Libraries65372382[Cross Ref]

          5. ASAPbio2016Opinions on preprints in biology

          6. AsPredicted2016Pre-registration made easy

          7. 2015Will open access get me cited? an analysis of the efficacy of open access publishing in political sciencePolitical Science & Politics48129137[Cross Ref]

          8. 2016Preprints for the life sciencesScience352899901[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          9. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation2015Open Access Policy

          10. Biosharing.org2016A catalogue of data preservation, management and sharing policies from international funding agencies, regulators and journals[]

          11. 2012The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment?Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology6314961504[Cross Ref]

          12. 2014Anatomy of green open accessJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology65237250[Cross Ref]

          13. 2012Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impactBMC Medicine1073[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          14. 2013Who's afraid of peer review?Science3426065[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          15. 2014Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal. Science Insider, 2014

          16. 2015Knowledge infrastructures in science: data, diversity, and digital librariesInternational Journal on Digital Libraries16207227[Cross Ref]

          17. 2010A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinantsPLoS One5e16800[Cross Ref]

          18. 2013Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rankFrontiers in Human Neuroscience7e16800[Cross Ref]

          19. 1995Loose endCurrent Biology5568[Cross Ref]

          20. 2001The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomersJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology52187200[Cross Ref]

          21. 2012A reference-free algorithm for computational normalization of shotgun sequencing datae16800

          22. Center for Open Science2016The 1,000,000 Preregistration Challenge

          23. CERN2014Open Access Policy for CERN Physics Publications

          24. 2002Budapest Open Access Initiative

          25. 2011The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity scienceBMC Bioinformatics12S2[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          26. Cofactor Ltd2016Cofactor Journal Selector Tool

          27. COMPare2016Tracking switched outcomes in clinical trials

          28. Court of Amsterdam2006Adam Curry v. Audax Publishing

          29. 2016Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015Cites & Insights Books

          30. Creative Commons2016About The Licenses

          31. 2015What lies beneath?: Knowledge infrastructures in the subseafloor biosphere and beyondInternational Journal on Digital Libraries166177[Cross Ref]

          32. Data Citation Synthesis Group2014Joint declaration of data citation principles

          33. 2007Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?Scientometrics71203215[Cross Ref]

          34. 2008Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trialBMJ 337e16800[Cross Ref]

          35. 2011Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishingFASEB Journal2521292134[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          36. 2013The case for open preprints in biologyPLOS Biology11e16800[Cross Ref]

          37. 2015The open access advantage for American law reviewsEdison: Law + Technology2015122

          38. 2015The data sharing advantage in astrophysicse16800

          39. Eigenfactor Project2016No-fee open access journals for all

          40. 2006Citation advantage of open access articlesPLoS Biology4e157[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          41. 2009aThe effects of open access on un-published documents: a case study of economics working papersJournal of Informetrics3124133[Cross Ref]

          42. 2009bThe integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system: three science fieldsInformation Processing & Management45131141[Cross Ref]

          43. 2010Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality researchPLoS One5e16800[Cross Ref]

          44. 2006aCreative Commons licenses upheld in Dutch court

          45. 2006bSpanish Court Recognizes CC-Music

          46. 2011Getting cited: Does open access help?Research Policy4013321338[Cross Ref]

          47. 2010Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physicsScientometrics84345355[Cross Ref]

          48. 2003Posting your data: will you be scooped or will you be famous?International Studies Perspectives48997[Cross Ref]

          49. 2016Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in pythonZenodo[Cross Ref]

          50. 2013Making data sharing count: a publication-based solutionFrontiers in Neuroscience7e16800[Cross Ref]

          51. 2016A practical guide for improving transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging researchbioRxiv[Cross Ref]

          52. 2014The impact factors of open access and subscription journals across fieldsCurrent Science107380

          53. 2012ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchersLearned Publishing25259264[Cross Ref]

          54. 2006Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impacte16800

          55. 2004Comparing the impact of open access (oa) vs. non-oa articles in the same journalsD-Lib Magazine10

          56. Harvard Library, Office for Scholarly Communication2014Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Recommends Open-Access Deposit for Faculty Review Process

          57. Harvard Library, Office for Scholary Communication2016Open access policies

          58. Harvard Open Access Project2016Good practices for university open-access policies

          59. 2014From toddler to teen: growth of an open data ecosystemeJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government6123135

          60. 2011Linking to data-effect on citation rates in astronomye16800

          61. 2016The effect of open access and downloads (’hits’) on citation impact: a bibliography of studies

          62. 2013Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research

          63. 2012The case for open computer programsNature482485488[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          64. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis2016IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Guidelines

          65. 2013Science magazine’s open access sting. SPARC blog, 2013

          66. Journal of Vibration and Control2014Retraction noticeJournal of Vibration and Control2016011604[Cross Ref]

          67. Juzgado de Primera Instancia Número Seis de Badajoz, España2006Sociedad General de Autores y Editores v. Ricardo Andres Utrera Fernández

          68. 2015Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over TimePLoS One10e0132382[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          69. 2016Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing TransparencyPLOS Biology14e1002456[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          70. 2003Diffusion of news about researchScience Communication25313[Cross Ref]

          71. 2014Investigating Variation in ReplicabilitySocial Psychology45142152[Cross Ref]

          72. 2014Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineeringScientometrics9810331045[Cross Ref]

          73. 2010The citation impact of open access agricultural researchOnline Information Review34772785[Cross Ref]

          74. 2013A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review modelsF1000 Posters4e16800

          75. 2015Comment: Making data countScientific Data2150039[Cross Ref]

          76. 2009Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?Ophthalmology11614251431[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          77. 2014arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationshipsJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology6511571169[Cross Ref]

          78. 2001Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impactNature411521[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          79. 2016APC data for 27 UK higher education institutions in 2015Figshare[Cross Ref]

          80. 2011Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license enforced in Germany. Creative Commons Blog, 2011

          81. 2014Identifying the effect of open access on citations using a panel of science journalsEconomic Inquiry5212841300[Cross Ref]

          82. 2015Does online availability increase citations? Theory and evidence from a panel of economics and business journalsReview of Economics and Statistics97144165[Cross Ref]

          83. 2006The citation impact of digital preprint archives for solar physics papersSolar Physics239549553[Cross Ref]

          84. 2015Ecological data sharingEcological Informatics293344[Cross Ref]

          85. MIT Libraries, Scholarly Publishing2016MIT Faculty Open Access Policy

          86. 2010Panton Principles, Principles for open data in science

          87. National Institutes of Health2003NIH Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guidance

          88. National Institutes of Health2012Upcoming Changes to Public Access Policy Reporting Requirements and Related NIH Efforts to Enhance Compliance

          89. National Science Foundation2011Digital Research Data Sharing and

          90. Nature Publishing Group2015Author Insights 2015 SurveyFigshare[Cross Ref]

          91. NWO2016Open Science

          92. 2002Impact factors: uses and abusesEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology14209211[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          93. 2008The citation advantage of open-access articlesJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology5919631972[Cross Ref]

          94. Open Knowledge2005The Open Definition

          95. Open Research Badges2016

          96. Open Science Collaboration2012An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological SciencePerspectives on Psychological Science7657660[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          97. Open Science Collaboration2014The reproducibility project: a model of large-scale collaboration for empirical research on reproducibilityImplementing Reproducible ResearchCRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group299324

          98. Open Science Collaboration2015Estimating the reproducibility of psychological scienceScience349e16800[Cross Ref]

          99. Open Source Initiative2007The Open Source Definition

          100. 2016Retraction Watch: Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

          101. 2011Scikit-learn: machine learning in PythonJournal of Machine Learning Research1228252830

          102. PeerJ Staff2014Who’s Afraid of Open Peer Review? PeerJblog, 2014

          103. 1991Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific communityNew England Journal of Medicine32511801183[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          104. 2010The enduring value of social science research: the use and reuse of primary research data

          105. 2013Data reuse and the open data citation advantagePeerJ1e16800[Cross Ref]

          106. PLOS Medicine Editors2006The impact factor gamePLOS Medicine3e16800[Cross Ref]

          107. 2012Data sharing in neuroimaging researchFrontiers in Neuroinformatics69[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          108. Public Library of Science2016Open Access

          109. Publons2016Get credit for peer review

          110. 2013OASPA’s response to the recent article in Science entitled “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?”. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, 2013

          111. Research Information Network2014Nature Communications: Citation analysis

          112. 2012Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research, Extramural Nexus

          113. 2005Effect of open access on citation rates for a small biomedical journal

          114. 2004Demographic and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and preprintse16800

          115. 2016Changing hiring practices towards research transparency: The first open science statement in a professorship advertisement

          116. Science Commons2016Scholar’s Copyright Addendum Engine

          117. 2011Data sharing effect on article citation rate in paleoceanography. Presented at Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 201110.6084/m9.figshare.1222998.v1

          118. 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating researchBMJ314497[Cross Ref]

          119. 2013Practices in source code sharing in astrophysicsAstronomy and Computing15458[Cross Ref]

          120. SHERPA/RoMEO2016Publisher copyright policies and self-archiving

          121. SHERPA/JULIET2016Research funders’ open access policies

          122. 2014A survey of authors publishing in four megajournalsPeerJ2e16800[Cross Ref]

          123. SPARC2016Author Rights & the SPARC Author Addendum

          124. SPARC Europe2016The Open Access Citation Advantage Service

          125. Springer2014Springer statement on SCIgen-generated papers in conference proceedings

          126. 2013Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by JournalsPLoS One8e16800[Cross Ref]

          127. 2011Trust your science? Open your data and codeAmstat News4092122

          128. 2003The taxpayer argument for open access. SPARC Open Access Newsletter

          129. 2012Open AccessMIT Press

          130. 2015Open access policy: Numbers, analysis, effectivenesse16800

          131. 2010The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. eprints, 2010

          132. UNESCO2013Open Access Policy concerning UNESCO publications

          133. University of Liège2016Open Access at the ULg. Open Repository and Bibliography

          134. 2014aPublishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papersNature[Cross Ref]

          135. 2014bFunders punish open-access dodgersNature508e16800[Cross Ref]

          136. 2010Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trialBMJ341e16800[Cross Ref]

          137. 1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trialBMJ3182327[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          138. 2012Code sharing is associated with research impact in image processingComputing in Science & Engineering144247[Cross Ref]

          139. Virginia Commonwealth University Faculty Senate2010VCU Faculty Senate Resolution on Open Access Publishing

          140. 2010Open access citation advantage: An annotated bibliographyIssues in Science and Technology Librarianship60[Cross Ref]

          141. 2000Open peer review: a randomised controlled trialThe British Journal of Psychiatry1764751[Cross Ref] [PubMed]

          142. 2015The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attentionScientometrics103555564[Cross Ref]

          143. Wellcome Trust2012Wellcome Trust strengthens its open access policy

          144. Wellcome Trust2016aExpert Advisory Group on Data Access

          145. Wellcome Trust2016bPosition statement in support of open and unrestricted access to published research

          146. Wellcome Trust2016cWellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15

          147. 2014Cost effectiveness of open access publicationsEconomic Inquiry5213151321[Cross Ref]

          148. 2015A table summarizing the Federal public access policies resulting from the US Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum of February 2013Figshare[Cross Ref]

          149. 2016Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journalsPLoS One11e16800[Cross Ref]

          150. Wikipedia2016List of academic journals by preprint policy

          151. 2006The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and ScholarshipMIT Press

          152. 2015The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management[Cross Ref]

          153. 2014Do open access articles in economics have a citation advantage?Munich Personal RePEc Archive56842

          154. 2012Self‐selection and the citation advantage of open access articlesOnline Information Review364051[Cross Ref]

          155. 2011Analysis on open access citation advantage: an empirical study based on oxford open journals426432

          156. 2010The growing impact of open access distance education journals: a bibliometric analysisInternational Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education24

          157. 2006The effect of open access on citation impact: A comparison study based on web citation analysisLibri56145156[Cross Ref]

          Author and article information

          [1 ]deptDepartment of Physics, Faculty of Science , National Autonomous University of Mexico , Mexico City, Mexico
          [2 ]deptOffice of the Director , National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, United States
          [3 ]deptPopulation Health and Reproduction , University of California, Davis , Davis, United States
          [4 ]Laura and John Arnold Foundation , Houston, United States
          [5 ]BioMed Central , London, United Kingdom
          [6 ]CrossRef , Oxford, United Kingdom
          [7 ]deptInstitute for Computational Engineering and Sciences , University of Texas at Austin , Austin, United States
          [8 ]Center for Open Science , Charlottesville, United States
          [9 ]deptBerkeley Institute for Data Science , University of California, Berkeley , Berkeley, United States
          [10 ]deptDepartment of Engineering and Society , University of Virginia , Charlottesville, United States
          [11 ]deptMozilla Science Lab , Mozilla Foundation , New York, United States
          [12 ]Gesmer Updegrove LLP , Boston, United States
          [13 ]deptCenter for Environmental Research, Education, and Outreach , Washington State University , Pullman, United States
          [14 ]deptInformation School , University of Washington , Seattle, United States
          [15 ]deptDepartment of Psychology , University of Texas at Austin , Austin, United States
          eLife , United Kingdom
          eLife , United Kingdom
          Author notes
          Role: Reviewing editor,
          eLife , United Kingdom
          eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
          07 July 2016
          : 5
          © 2016, McKiernan et al

          This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

          Funded by: FundRef, National Institute on Aging;
          Award ID: R24AG048124
          Award Recipient :
          Funded by: Laura and John Arnold Foundation;
          Award Recipient :
          Funded by: FundRef, John Templeton Foundation;
          Award ID: 46545
          Award Recipient :
          The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
          Point of View
          Feature Article
          Custom metadata
          Open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers.