1
|
Blatch-Jones AJ, Lakin K, Thomas S. A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture. F1000Res 2024; 13:324. [PMID: 38826614 PMCID: PMC11140362 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.147599.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?' Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones
- School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, SO16 7NS, UK
| | - Kay Lakin
- Hatch, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, SO16 7NS, UK
| | - Sarah Thomas
- Hatch, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, SO16 7NS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ng JY, Wieland LS, Lee MS, Liu JP, Witt CM, Moher D, Cramer H. Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration. Integr Med Res 2024; 13:101047. [PMID: 38799120 PMCID: PMC11127209 DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2024.101047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2024] [Revised: 04/29/2024] [Accepted: 05/09/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
This educational article explores the convergence of open science practices and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), shedding light on the potential benefits and challenges of open science for the development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based TCIM. We emphasize the transformative shift in medical science towards open and collaborative practices, highlighting the limited application of open science in TCIM research despite its growing acceptance among patients. We define open science practices and discuss those that are applicable to TCIM, including: study registration; reporting guidelines; data, code and material sharing; preprinting; publishing open access; and reproducibility/replication studies. We explore the benefits of open science in TCIM, spanning improved research quality, increased public trust, accelerated innovation, and enhanced evidence-based decision-making. We also acknowledge challenges such as data privacy concerns, limited resources, and resistance to cultural change. We propose strategies to overcome these challenges, including ethical guidelines, education programs, funding advocacy, interdisciplinary dialogue, and patient engagement. Looking to the future, we envision the maturation of open science in TCIM, the development of TCIM-specific guidelines for open science practices, advancements in data sharing platforms, the integration of open data and artificial intelligence in TCIM research, and changes in the context of policy and regulation. We foresee a future where open science in TCIM leads to a better evidence base, informed decision-making, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transformative impacts on healthcare and research methodologies, highlighting the promising synergy between open science and TCIM for holistic, evidence-based healthcare solutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Y. Ng
- Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany
- Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - L. Susan Wieland
- Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
- Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Myeong Soo Lee
- KM Science Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Jian-ping Liu
- Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Claudia M. Witt
- Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Holger Cramer
- Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gold ER. The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science. RESEARCH POLICY 2021; 50:104226. [PMID: 34083844 PMCID: PMC8024784 DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 02/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
There is growing concern that the innovation system's ability to create wealth and attain social benefit is declining in effectiveness. This article explores the reasons for this decline and suggests a structure, the open science partnership, as one mechanism through which to slow down or reverse this decline. The article examines the empirical literature of the last century to document the decline. This literature suggests that the cost of research and innovation is increasing exponentially, that researcher productivity is declining, and, third, that these two phenomena have led to an overall flat or declining level of innovation productivity. The article then turns to three explanations for the decline - the growing complexity of science, a mismatch of incentives, and a balkanization of knowledge. Finally, the article explores the role that open science partnerships - public-private partnerships based on open access publications, open data and materials, and the avoidance of restrictive forms of intellectual property - can play in increasing the efficiency of the innovation system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E. Richard Gold
- McGill University, Faculty of Law and Faculty of Medicine, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Toribio-Flórez D, Anneser L, deOliveira-Lopes FN, Pallandt M, Tunn I, Windel H. Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society. Front Res Metr Anal 2021; 5:586992. [PMID: 33870051 PMCID: PMC8025980 DOI: 10.3389/frma.2020.586992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2020] [Accepted: 10/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Open science (OS) is of paramount importance for the improvement of science worldwide and across research fields. Recent years have witnessed a transition toward open and transparent scientific practices, but there is still a long way to go. Early career researchers (ECRs) are of crucial relevance in the process of steering toward the standardization of OS practices, as they will become the future decision makers of the institutional change that necessarily accompanies this transition. Thus, it is imperative to gain insight into where ECRs stand on OS practices. Under this premise, the Open Science group of the Max Planck PhDnet designed and conducted an online survey to assess the stance toward OS practices of doctoral candidates from the Max Planck Society. As one of the leading scientific institutions for basic research worldwide, the Max Planck Society provides a considerable population of researchers from multiple scientific fields, englobed into three sections: biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics and technology, and human and social sciences. From an approximate total population of 5,100 doctoral candidates affiliated with the Max Planck Society, the survey collected responses from 568 doctoral candidates. The survey assessed self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of different OS practices, namely, open access publications, open data, preregistrations, registered reports, and replication studies. ECRs seemed to hold a generally positive view toward these different practices and to be interested in learning more about them. Furthermore, we found that ECRs' knowledge and positive attitudes predicted the extent to which they implemented these OS practices, although levels of implementation were rather low in the past. We observed differences and similarities between scientific sections. We discuss these differences in terms of need and feasibility to apply these OS practices in specific scientific fields, but additionally in relation to the incentive systems that shape scientific communities. Lastly, we discuss the implications that these results can have for the training and career advancement of ECRs, and ultimately, for the consolidation of OS practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lukas Anneser
- Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany
| | | | | | - Isabell Tunn
- Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam, Germany
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Saraite Sariene L, Caba Pérez C, López Hernández AM. Expanding the actions of Open Government in higher education sector: From web transparency to Open Science. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0238801. [PMID: 32915833 PMCID: PMC7485769 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2019] [Accepted: 08/24/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Universities have been pressured by governments to change their way of acting and to be more responsible with the requirements of social development to face the challenges of globalization. To this end, universities must use the principles of Open Science, to allow them to be more transparent regarding the dissemination of scientific results. The purpose of this paper is firstly, to determine the progress made in Open Access policies made by the best-ranked universities regarding ARWU. Secondly, to examine influencing factors that enhance the level of openness in researching, in particular, "transparency", "reputation", "participation", "funding", "foundation" and "size". The main results show that those private and older universities, best-ranked in terms of excellence researching and those that have been gradually adopting Open Government policies concerning the dissemination of information through institutional web pages and social participation, are the most interested with complying the recommendations established by the authorities of the Open Science projects.
Collapse
|
6
|
Majumder MA, McGuire AL. Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science. THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS : A JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS 2020; 48:167-177. [PMID: 32342743 DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary A Majumder
- Mary A. Majumder, J.D., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine. Amy L. McGuire, J.D., Ph.D., is the Leon Jaworski Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. McGuire serves on the program committee for the Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholars Program in Bioethics and is immediate past president of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors
| | - Amy L McGuire
- Mary A. Majumder, J.D., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine. Amy L. McGuire, J.D., Ph.D., is the Leon Jaworski Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. McGuire serves on the program committee for the Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholars Program in Bioethics and is immediate past president of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bubela T, Gold ER, Goel V, Morgan M, Mossman K, Nickerson J, Patrick D, Edwards A. Open drug discovery of anti-virals critical for Canada’s pandemic strategy. Facets (Ott) 2020. [DOI: 10.1139/facets-2020-0079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In the event of the current COVID-19 pandemic and in preparation for future pandemics, open science can support mission-oriented research and development, as well as commercialization. Open science shares skills and resources across sectors; avoids duplication and provides the basis for rapid and effective validation due to full transparency. It is a strategy that can adjust quickly to reflect changing incentives and priorities, because it does not rely on any one actor or sector. While eschewing patents, it can ensure high-quality drugs, low pricing, and access through existing regulatory mechanisms. Open science practices and partnerships decrease transaction costs, increase diversity of actors, reduce overall costs, open new, higher-risk/higher-impact approaches to research, and provide entrepreneurs freedom to operate and freedom to innovate. We argue that it is time to re-open science, not only in its now restricted arena of fundamental research, but throughout clinical translation. Our model and attendant recommendations map onto a strategy to accelerate discovery of novel broad-spectrum anti-viral drugs and clinical trials of those drugs, from first-in-human safety-focused trials to late stage trials for efficacy. The goal is to ensure low-cost and rapid access, globally, and to ensure that Canadians do not pay a premium for drugs developed from Canadian science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tania Bubela
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
| | - E. Richard Gold
- Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1W9, Canada
| | - Vivek Goel
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Max Morgan
- M4K Pharma, Inc., Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada
- Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada
| | - Karen Mossman
- Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster Immunology Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jason Nickerson
- University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6K5, Canada
- Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1N 5C8, Canada
| | - David Patrick
- British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R4, Canada
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada
| | - Aled Edwards
- Molecular Genetics and Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1L5, Canada
- SGC, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gold ER, Ali-Khan SE, Allen L, Ballell L, Barral-Netto M, Carr D, Chalaud D, Chaplin S, Clancy MS, Clarke P, Cook-Deegan R, Dinsmore AP, Doerr M, Federer L, Hill SA, Jacobs N, Jean A, Jefferson OA, Jones C, Kahl LJ, Kariuki TM, Kassel SN, Kiley R, Kittrie ER, Kramer B, Lee WH, MacDonald E, Mangravite LM, Marincola E, Mietchen D, Molloy JC, Namchuk M, Nosek BA, Paquet S, Pirmez C, Seyller A, Skingle M, Spadotto SN, Staniszewska S, Thelwall M. An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact. Gates Open Res 2019; 3:1442. [PMID: 31850398 PMCID: PMC6904887 DOI: 10.12688/gatesopenres.12958.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E. Richard Gold
- Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 0C7, Canada
| | - Sarah E. Ali-Khan
- Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada
- Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (TOSI), Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada
| | | | - Lluis Ballell
- Diseases of the Developing World, Global Health R&D, GlaxoSmithKline, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Damien Chalaud
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada
| | | | - Matthew S. Clancy
- US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 20024, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Lisa Federer
- US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA
| | - Steven A. Hill
- Research England, UK Research and Innovation, Bristol, BS34 8SR, UK
| | | | - Antoine Jean
- Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada
| | - Osmat Azzam Jefferson
- Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia
- The Lens, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Sophie N. Kassel
- Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada
| | | | | | - Bianca Kramer
- Utrecht University Library, Utrecht, CX, 3584, The Netherlands
| | - Wen Hwa Lee
- Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK
| | - Emily MacDonald
- Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada
| | | | | | - Daniel Mietchen
- Data Science Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA
| | | | | | - Brian A. Nosek
- Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4400, USA
- Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, 22903-5083, USA
| | | | - Claude Pirmez
- Fundação Oswaldo Cruz - Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21040-900, Brazil
| | - Annabel Seyller
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada
| | | | - S. Nicole Spadotto
- Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
| | - Mike Thelwall
- University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK
| |
Collapse
|