Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives

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

      Support for open science is growing, but motivating researchers to participate in open science can be challenging. This in-depth qualitative study draws on interviews with researchers and staff at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital during the development of its open science policy. Using thematic content analysis, we explore attitudes toward open science, the motivations and disincentives to participate, the role of patients, and attitudes to the eschewal of intellectual property rights. To be successful, an open science policy must clearly lay out expectations, boundaries and mechanisms by which researchers can engage, and must be shaped to explicitly support their values and those of key partners, including patients, research participants and industry collaborators.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 65

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

      Using thematic analysis in psychology

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

        Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

        Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A manifesto for reproducible science

            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]deptCentre for Intellectual Property Policy, Faculty of Law McGill University MontrealCanada
            [2 ]deptDepartment of Human Genetics McGill University MontrealCanada
            eLife United Kingdom
            eLife United Kingdom
            Contributors
            ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-9238
            Role: Reviewing Editor,
            eLife United Kingdom
            Journal
            eLife
            Elife
            eLife
            eLife
            eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
            2050-084X
            30 October 2017
            2017
            : 6
            29082866
            5662284
            29319
            10.7554/eLife.29319
            (Reviewing Editor)
            © 2017, Ali-Khan 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/10.13039/100008762, Genome Canada;
            Award ID: PACEOMICS
            Award Recipient :
            Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
            Award ID: PACEOMICS
            Award Recipient :
            Funded by: Genome Quebec;
            Award ID: PACEOMICS
            Award Recipient :
            Funded by: Montreal Neurological Institute;
            Award Recipient :
            Funded by: Genome Alberta;
            Award ID: PACEOMICS
            Award Recipient :
            The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
            Categories
            Feature Article
            Point of View
            Custom metadata
            A survey of researchers at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital provides insights into the challenges and opportunities involved in adopting an open science policy across an entire patient-oriented academic institution.

            Life sciences

            none, open science, intellectual property, incentives, science policy, open access

            Comments

            Comment on this article