46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives

      discussion

      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 references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book Chapter: not found

          Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research

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

            Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption

              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

                Contributors
                Role: Reviewing Editor
                Journal
                eLife
                Elife
                eLife
                eLife
                eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
                2050-084X
                30 October 2017
                2017
                : 6
                : e29319
                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
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9453-5086
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-9238
                Article
                29319
                10.7554/eLife.29319
                5662284
                29082866
                d8393c8b-b282-43f6-b073-887517e422cc
                © 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.

                History
                : 06 June 2017
                : 20 October 2017
                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
                open science,intellectual property,incentives,science policy,open access,none
                Life sciences
                open science, intellectual property, incentives, science policy, open access, none

                Comments

                Comment on this article