1
|
Bullock GS, Ward P, Kluzek S, Hughes T, Shanley E, Arundale AJH, Ranson C, Nimphius S, Riley RD, Collins GS, Impellizzeri FM. Paving the way for greater open science in sports and exercise medicine: navigating the barriers to adopting open and accessible data practices. Br J Sports Med 2024; 58:293-295. [PMID: 38135463 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-107225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Garrett S Bullock
- Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
- Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Stefan Kluzek
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Tom Hughes
- Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
| | - Ellen Shanley
- Clinical Excellence, ATI Physical Therapy, Greer, South Carolina, USA
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina System, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
| | | | | | - Sophia Nimphius
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Franco M Impellizzeri
- School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen RS, Berthelsen AL, Lamartinière EB, Spangenberg MC, Schmoll T. Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science. Nat Ecol Evol 2023; 7:1597-1599. [PMID: 37524795 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-02152-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ane Liv Berthelsen
- Department of Animal Behaviour, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
| | | | | | - Tim Schmoll
- Evolutionary Biology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Berberi I, Roche DG. Reply to: Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science. Nat Ecol Evol 2023; 7:1595-1596. [PMID: 37524794 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-02142-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Ilias Berberi
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Dominique G Roche
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Institut de Biologie, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Keener SK, Kepes S, Torka AK. The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2023; 239:104005. [PMID: 37625919 DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2023] [Revised: 07/13/2023] [Accepted: 08/04/2023] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
The goal of industrial/organizational (IO) psychology, is to build and organize trustworthy knowledge about people-related phenomena in the workplace. Unfortunately, as with other scientific disciplines, our discipline may be experiencing a "crisis of confidence" stemming from the lack of reproducibility and replicability of many of our field's research findings, which would suggest that much of our research may be untrustworthy. If a scientific discipline's research is deemed untrustworthy, it can have dire consequences, including the withdraw of funding for future research. In this focal article, we review the current state of reproducibility and replicability in IO psychology and related fields. As part of this review, we discuss factors that make it less likely that research findings will be trustworthy, including the prevalence of scientific misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs), and errors. We then identify some root causes of these issues and provide several potential remedies. In particular, we highlight the need for improved research methods and statistics training as well as a re-alignment of the incentive structure in academia. To accomplish this, we advocate for changes in the reward structure, improvements to the peer review process, and the implementation of open science practices. Overall, addressing the current "crisis of confidence" in IO psychology requires individual researchers, academic institutions, and publishers to embrace system-wide change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheila K Keener
- Department of Management, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, United States of America.
| | - Sven Kepes
- Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America.
| | - Ann-Kathrin Torka
- Department of Social, Work, and Organizational Psychology, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zarghani M, Nemati-Anaraki L, Sedghi S, Chakoli AN, Rowhani-Farid A. Iranian researchers' perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23:437. [PMID: 37143102 PMCID: PMC10159672 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09420-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers. METHODS From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified. RESULTS Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers' understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research. CONCLUSION The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maryam Zarghani
- Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical information science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rashid Yasmin Street, Upper than Mirdamad St, Tehran, Iran
| | - Leila Nemati-Anaraki
- Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical information science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rashid Yasmin Street, Upper than Mirdamad St, Tehran, Iran.
- Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| | - Shahram Sedghi
- Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical information science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rashid Yasmin Street, Upper than Mirdamad St, Tehran, Iran
- Health management and Economics Research Center, Health management research institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | | - Anisa Rowhani-Farid
- Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Silber H, Gerdon F, Bach R, Kern C, Keusch F, Kreuter F. A preregistered vignette experiment on determinants of health data sharing behavior Willingness to donate sensor data, medical records, and biomarkers. Politics Life Sci 2023; 41:161-81. [PMID: 36880543 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2022.15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the importance of high-quality data for empirical health research and evidence-based political decision-making. To leverage the full potential of these data, a better understanding of the determinants and conditions under which people are willing to share their health data is critical. Building on the privacy theory of contextual integrity, the privacy calculus, and previous findings regarding different data types and recipients, we argue that established social norms shape the acceptance of novel practices of data collection and use. To investigate the willingness to share health data, we conducted a preregistered vignette experiment. The scenarios experimentally varied the vignette dimensions by data type, recipient, and research purpose. While some findings contradict our hypotheses, the results indicate that all three dimensions affected respondents' data sharing decisions. Additional analyses suggest that institutional and social trust, privacy concerns, technical affinity, altruism, age, and device ownership influence the willingness to share health data.
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
In two studies, we examined whether open science practices, such as making materials, data, and code of a study openly accessible, positively affect public trust in science. Furthermore, we investigated whether the potential trust-damaging effects of research being funded privately (e.g. by a commercial enterprise) may be buffered by such practices. After preregistering six hypotheses, we conducted a survey study (Study 1; N = 504) and an experimental study (Study 2; N = 588) in two German general population samples. In both studies, we found evidence for the positive effects of open science practices on trust, though it should be noted that in Study 2, results were more inconsistent. We did not however find evidence for the aforementioned buffering effect. We conclude that while open science practices may contribute to increasing trust in science, the importance of making use of open science practices visible should not be underestimated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Rosman
- Tom Rosman, Leibniz Institute for
Psychology (ZPID), Universitaetsring 15, 54296 Trier, Germany.
| | | | - Henning Silber
- GESIS – Leibniz-Institute for the Social
Sciences, Germany
| | | | - Tobias Heycke
- GESIS – Leibniz-Institute for the Social
Sciences, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Schneider J, Rosman T, Kelava A, Merk S. Do Open-Science Badges Increase Trust in Scientists Among Undergraduates, Scientists, and the Public? Psychol Sci 2022; 33:1588-1604. [PMID: 36001881 DOI: 10.1177/09567976221097499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
In three experimental studies, we investigated whether badges for open-science practices have the potential to affect trust in scientists and topic-specific epistemic beliefs by student teachers (n = 270), social scientists (n = 250), or the public (n = 257), all of whom were at least 16 years old. Furthermore, we analyzed the moderating role of epistemic beliefs for badges and trust. Each participant was randomly assigned to two of three conditions: badges awarded, badges not awarded, and no badges (control). In all samples, our Bayesian analyses indicated that badges influence trust as expected, with one exception in the public sample: An additional positive effect of awarded badges (compared with no badges) was not supported. For students and scientists, we found evidence for the relation of badges and epistemic beliefs as well as epistemic beliefs and trust. Further, we found evidence for the absence of moderation by epistemic beliefs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tom Rosman
- Department of Research Literacy and User Friendly Research Support, Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information
| | | | - Samuel Merk
- Institute for School and Instructional Development in Primary and Secondary Education, University of Education Karlsruhe
| |
Collapse
|