Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science

Design and validation of a conceptual model regarding impact of open science on healthcare research processes

INTRODUCTION

The development and use of digital tools in various stages of research highlight the importance of novel open science methods for an integrated and accessible research system. The objective of this study was to design and validate a conceptual model of open science on healthcare research processes.

METHODS

This research was conducted in three phases using a mixed-methods approach. The first phase employed a qualitative method, namely purposive sampling and semi-structured interview guides to collect data from healthcare researchers and managers. Influential factors of open science on research processes were extracted for refining the components and developing the proposed model; the second phase utilized a panel of experts and collective agreement through purposive sampling. The final phase involved purposive sampling and Delphi technique to validate the components of the proposed model according to researchers' perspectives.

FINDINGS

From the thematic analysis of 20 interview on the study topic, 385 codes, 38 sub-themes, and 14 main themes were extracted for the initial proposed model. These components were reviewed by expert panel members, resulting in 31 sub-themes, 13 main themes, and 4 approved themes. Ultimately, the agreed-upon model was assessed in four layers for validation by the expert panel, and all the components achieved a score of > 75% in two Delphi rounds. The validated model was presented based on the infrastructure and culture layers, as well as supervision, assessment, publication, and sharing.

CONCLUSION

To effectively implement these methods in the research process, it is essential to create cultural and infrastructural backgrounds and predefined requirements for preventing potential abuses and privacy concerns in the healthcare system. Applying these principles will lead to greater access to outputs, increasing the credibility of research results and the utilization of collective intelligence in solving healthcare system issues.

The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward

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.

Who's Remembering to Buy the Eggs? The Meaning, Measurement, and Implications of Invisible Family Load

Although much is known of the observable physical tasks associated with household management and child rearing, there is scant understanding of the less visible tasks that are just as critical. Grounding our research in the extant literature, the broader lay discussion, as well as our own qualitative research, we define, conceptualize, and operationalize this construct, which we label as "invisible family load." Using a mixed method, five-study approach, we offer a comprehensive, multidimensional definition and provide a nine-item, empirically validated scale to measure its component parts-managerial, cognitive, and emotional family load. In addition, we investigate gender differences and find, as expected, that women report higher levels of each dimension. We also examine the implications of invisible family load for employee health, well-being, and job attitudes, as well as family-to-work spillover. Although we substantiated some significant negative consequences, contrary to the popular view that consequences of invisible family load are uniformly negative, our results show some potential benefits. Even after accounting for conscientiousness and neuroticism, managerial family load related to greater family-work enrichment, and cognitive family load related to greater family satisfaction and job performance. Yet, emotional family load had uniformly negative potential consequences including greater family-to-work conflict, sleep problems, family and job exhaustion, and lower life and family satisfaction. Our research sets the stage for scholars to forge a path forward to enhance understanding of this phenomenon and its implications for individuals, their families, and the organizations for which they work.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10869-023-09887-7.

Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals

Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.

Open Science in Africa: What policymakers should consider

As Open Science (OS) is being promoted as the best avenue to share and drive scientific discoveries at much lower costs and in transparent and credible ways, it is imperative that African governments and institutions take advantage of the momentum and build research infrastructures that are responsive to this movement. This paper aims to provide useful insight into the importance and implementation of OS policy frameworks. The paper uses a systematic review approach to review existing literature and analyse global OS policy development documents. The approach includes a review of existing OS policy frameworks that can guide similar work by African governments and institutions. This critical review also makes recommendations on key issues that Africa should consider in the process of OS policy development. These approaches can be widely used as further foundations for future developments in OS practices on the continent.

Research Priorities of the Australian Chiropractic Profession: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Academics and Practitioners

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors and academics across a set of research domains to determine the agreement or disagreement based on these domains.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot-tested online survey focusing on the following 5 principal research domains: basic science, conditions (disorders chiropractors may encounter), patient subgroups, clinical interventions, and practice and public health/health services. Responses were sought regarding support for funding research scholarships, practice-based research networks, scientific conferences/symposia, journals, and existing research agendas. Data were collected (February 19 to May 24, 2019) from a sample of chiropractic academics (n₁ = 33) representing 4 Australian programs and practicing chiropractors (n₂ = 340). Collected data were ranked and analyzed to determine agreement across domains and items.

RESULTS

There was agreement between the 2 groups across the majority (>90%) of domain items. The closest agreement and highest rankings were achieved for the "clinical interventions and practice" and "conditions" domains. Disagreement was observed within specific domain items, such as patient subgroups (infants), and for 1 intervention (chiropractic-specific techniques). Disagreement also occurred outside of the main domains, including research agenda support and funding.

CONCLUSIONS

There was overall agreement between practicing chiropractors and academics across most research area domain items, which should help facilitate consensus-led development of any potential Australian Chiropractic research agenda. Disagreements across specific domain items, such as population subgroups, interventions, and funding require further investigation.

Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016–12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice’s prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.

What do we know about diversity, intersectionality and inclusion in organisationally-assigned expatriation? A review of relocation management company/consultancy practitioner research

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to report on trends in the deployment of minority expatriates, review organisational interventions to increase expatriate diversity and to consider the challenges facing employers in widening expatriate diversity through a review of practitioner publications published by relocation management companies/consultancies.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of 109 practitioner publications on organisational international assignment policy and practice was conducted to identify trends across three decades in minority expatriation and employer interventions to widen expatriate diversity.

Findings

Practitioner publications record percentage female expatriate participation and expatriate age profiles. While expatriate diversity challenges are reported, employer interventions focus on supporting women and LGBTQ+ assignees but with little detail on their outcomes. There is little emphasis on ethnicity/race, religion, disability, pregnancy/maternity, intersectionality of diversity characteristics and inclusion.

Research limitations/implications

Practitioner publications consulted were primarily Western-focused, with access to a “complete” publications record precluded. Academic research that compares employer policy on diversity interventions with how it is implemented is needed.

Practical implications

A stronger focus on supporting the full range of expatriate diversity attributes and intersectionality is required, explaining how challenges have been addressed and inclusion achieved.

Social implications

Analysis of employer interventions could assist organisations to widen expatriate diversity and inclusion, and minorities to access international careers.

Originality/value

This review of practitioner data reveals trends in the deployment of minority expatriates, interventions taken by employers and challenges they perceive in widening expatriate diversity, providing a unique perspective and enriching our understanding of academic expatriate diversity research. Path-dependent organisational action may hinder employers' future focus on diversity, inclusion and intersectionality.

It's the Theory, Stupid

To the complex question of “What is the number one issue on which we should focus as producers, evaluators, and consumers of research?” our simple and blunt answer is: It's the theory, stupid. Accordingly, we offer guidance on how to produce, test, and use theory by answering the following questions: (1) Why is theory so critical and for whom? (2) What does a good theory look like? (3) What does it mean to have too much or too many theories? (4) When don’t we need a theory? (5) How does falsification work with theory? and (6) Is good theory compatible with current publication pressures? Our answers are useful to current and future scholars and journal editors and reviewers, as well as consumers of research including other researchers, organization decision makers, and policy makers, and other stakeholders in the theory production and testing process including deans and other university administrators.

Practical considerations for testing the effects of cannabidiol on human anxiety

Empirical evidence continues to accumulate suggesting cannabidiol (CBD) may have potential as an anxiolytic. Yet, research in the area is insufficient to support strong inferences. Accordingly, there is a need for additional empirical investigation. Research on the effects of CBD and anxiety requires a working knowledge of both. Understanding of contemporary CBD and anxiety research methods is critical to safely and convincingly test predictions regarding potential anxiolytic effects of CBD. The current paper outlines major design, methods, and safety considerations pertinent both to CBD administration and measuring effects on anxiety outcomes in order to facilitate needed research in this domain.

Misinformation about COVID-19: evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science

Background

The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles.

Results

For the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4.

Conclusions

Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x.

Tutorial-Articles: The Importance of Data and Code Sharing

ABSTRACT Context: this document is designed to be along with those that are in the first edition of the new section of the Journal of Contemporary Administration (RAC): the tutorial-articles section. Objective: the purpose is to present the new section and discuss relevant topics of tutorial-articles. Method: I divide the document into three main parts. First, I provide a summary of the state of the art in open data and open code at the current date that, jointly, create the context for tutorial-articles. Second, I provide some guidance to the future of the section on tutorial-articles, providing a structure and some insights that can be developed in the future. Third, I offer a short R script to show examples of open data that, I believe, can be used in the future in tutorial-articles, but also in innovative empirical studies. Conclusion: finally, I provide a short description of the first tutorial-articles accepted for publication in this current RAC’s edition.