Blog
About

  • 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 148

      • 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
            (Reviewing editor)
            © 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.
            ScienceOpen disciplines:
            Keywords:

            Comments

            Comment on this article