Blog
About

1,392
views
3
recommends
+1 Recommend
7 collections
    7
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How open science helps researchers succeed

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.001

          Related collections

          Most cited references 161

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

          Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.

             Per Seglen (1997)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Who's afraid of peer review?

               John Bohannon (2013)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Affiliations
                [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
                Contributors
                Role: Reviewing editor,
                eLife , United Kingdom
                Journal
                eLife
                Elife
                eLife
                eLife
                eLife
                eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
                2050-084X
                07 July 2016
                2016
                : 5
                27387362 4973366 16800 10.7554/eLife.16800
                © 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.

                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000049, National Institute on Aging;
                Award ID: R24AG048124
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Laura and John Arnold Foundation;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000925, 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.
                Categories
                Point of View
                Feature Article
                Custom metadata
                2.5
                Open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers.

                Life sciences

                open data, open science, open source, none, research, open access

                Comments

                wrote:

                This article shows well the benefits for open science that are not that obvious. One would not expect these, so it is nice that this article can give evidence for these facts, to give more confidence to scientist that want to openly publish their article. However, I can still see that the financial benefits of publishing for a writer can go beyond these advantages, and that financial security also plays a big role when it comes to scientists who just started their carreers. 

                 

                2019-04-18 14:52 UTC
                +1
                One person recommends this

                Comment on this article