How open science helps researchers succeed

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 151

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

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

P O Seglen (1997)

0 comments Cited 264 times     Rated -3 of 5. – based on 1 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Investigating Variation in Replicability

Richard Klein, Kate Ratliff, Michelangelo Vianello … (2014)

Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

0 comments Cited 245 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

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

P O Seglen (1997)

0 comments Cited 195 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Peter Rodgers: Role: Reviewing editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): eLife

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Elife

Journal ID (hwp): eLife

Journal ID (publisher-id): eLife

Title: eLife

Publisher: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

ISSN (Electronic): 2050-084X

Publication date (Electronic): 07 July 2016

Publication date Collection: 2016

Volume: 5

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

[16]eLife , United Kingdom

[17]eLife , United Kingdom

Author notes

emckiernan@ 123456ciencias.unam.mx

Article

Publisher ID: 16800

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16800

PMC ID: 4973366

PubMed ID: 27387362

SO-VID: 512446cf-b3d6-4d07-9c51-01e61b79fb73

License:

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 : Brian A Nosek Courtney K Soderberg

Funded by: Laura and John Arnold Foundation;

Award Recipient : Brian A Nosek Jeffrey R Spies

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000925, John Templeton Foundation;

Award ID: 46545

Award Recipient : Brian A Nosek Jeffrey R Spies

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Custom metadata

elife-xml-version 2.5

Author impact statement Open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers.

ScienceOpen disciplines: Life sciences

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

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Life sciences

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

Comments

Rosa Boone 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

One person recommends this

Comment on this article

Cited by 127

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,238

See all reference authors

- Version 1
- Version 1

How open science helps researchers succeed

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Open Research, Open Science, Open Scholarship

Most cited references 151

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

Investigating Variation in Replicability

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

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

Product

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 163

Cited by 127

Most referenced authors 1,238