91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

      other
      1 , * , 1 , 2 , *
      PLoS Biology
      Public Library of Science

      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

          The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

          Abstract

          This Perspective article offers a balanced perspective on both the benefits and the challenges involved in the adoption of open science practices, with an emphasis on the implications for Early Career Researchers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

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

          HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known.

          N L Kerr (1998)
          This article considers a practice in scientific communication termed HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one's results) in one's research report as i f it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses. Several forms of HARKing are identified and survey data are presented that suggests that at least some forms of HARKing are widely practiced and widely seen as inappropriate. I identify several reasons why scientists might HARK. Then I discuss several reasons why scientists ought not to HARK. It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing ' s costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate. To help stimulate such discussion (and for those such as myself who suspect that HARKing's costs do exceed its benefits), I conclude the article with some suggestions for deterring HARKing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature

            We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by analyzing 26,841 statistical records from 3,801 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently. The reported median effect size was D = 0.93 (interquartile range: 0.64–1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and D = 0.24 (0.11–0.42) for nonsignificant results. Median power to detect small, medium, and large effects was 0.12, 0.44, and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. This is so because sample sizes have remained small. Assuming similar true effect sizes in both disciplines, power was lower in cognitive neuroscience than in psychology. Journal impact factors negatively correlated with power. Assuming a realistic range of prior probabilities for null hypotheses, false report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings, the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic, and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency

              Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                PLoS Biol
                PLoS Biol
                plos
                plosbiol
                PLoS Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1544-9173
                1545-7885
                1 May 2019
                May 2019
                1 May 2019
                : 17
                : 5
                : e3000246
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), Wales, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Department of Psychiatry, University of Muenster, Germany
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9809-1630
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6587-2617
                Article
                PBIOLOGY-D-18-01474
                10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
                6513108
                31042704
                be52aeb9-dd02-4d88-8730-ddbcb651dff7
                © 2019 Allen, Mehler

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 14
                Funding
                We would like to thank the Wellcome Trust (104943/Z/14/Z; https://wellcome.ac.uk/) and Health and Care Research Wales (HS/14/20; https://www.healthandcareresearch.gov.wales/) for their financial support. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Perspective
                Science Policy
                Open Science
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Labor Economics
                Employment
                Careers
                Science Policy
                Open Science
                Open Data
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Data
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Peer Review
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Experimental Design
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Reproducibility
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Imaging Techniques
                Neuroimaging
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Neuroimaging
                Custom metadata
                vor-update-to-uncorrected-proof
                2019-05-13
                All relevant data is available on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wy2ek/) and in the supplementary material of this article.

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article