Integrating open education practices with data analysis of open science in an undergraduate course

The open science movement produces vast quantities of openly published data connected to journal articles, creating an enormous resource for educators to engage students in current topics and analyses. However, educators face challenges using these materials to meet course objectives. I present a case study using open science (published articles and corresponding datasets) and open educational practices in a capstone course. While engaging in current topics of conservation, students trace connections in the research process, learn statistical analyses, and recreate analyses using the programming language R. I assessed the presence of best practices in open articles and datasets, examined student selection in the open grading policy, surveyed students on their perceived learning gains, and conducted a thematic analysis on student reflections. First, articles and datasets met just over half of the assessed fairness practices, which increased with the publication date. There was a marginal difference in how assessment categories were weighted by students, with reflections highlighting appreciation for student agency. In course content, students reported the greatest learning gains in describing variables, while collaborative activities (e.g., interacting with peers and instructor) were the most effective support. The most effective tasks to facilitate these learning gains included coding exercises and team-led assignments. Autocoding of student reflections identified 16 themes, and positive sentiments were written nearly 4x more often than negative sentiments. Students positively reflected on their growth in statistical analyses, and negative sentiments focused on how limited prior experience with statistics and coding made them feel nervous. As a group, we encountered several challenges and opportunities in using open science materials. I present key recommendations, based on student experiences, for scientists to consider when publishing open data to provide additional educational benefits to the open science community.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

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.

Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes

The emergence of large-scale replication projects yielding successful rates substantially lower than expected caused the behavioural, cognitive, and social sciences to experience a so-called 'replication crisis'. In this Perspective, we reframe this 'crisis' through the lens of a credibility revolution, focusing on positive structural, procedural and community-driven changes. Second, we outline a path to expand ongoing advances and improvements. The credibility revolution has been an impetus to several substantive changes which will have a positive, long-term impact on our research environment.

Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution

Scientific awards can shape scientific careers, helping to secure jobs and grants, but can also contribute to the lack of diversity at senior levels and in the elite networks of scientists. To assess the status quo and historical trends, we evaluated 'best researcher' awards and 'best paper' early- and mid-career awards from broad-scope international journals and societies in ecology and evolution. Specifically, we collated information on eligibility rules, assessment criteria and potential gender bias. Our results reveal that, overall, few awards foster equitable access and assessment. Although many awards now explicitly allow extensions of the eligibility period for substantial career interruptions, there is a general lack of transparency in terms of assessment and consideration of other differences in access to opportunities and resources among junior researchers. Strikingly, open science practices were mentioned and valued in only one award. By highlighting instances of desirable award characteristics, we hope this work will nudge award committees to shift from simple but non-equitable award policies and practices towards strategies enhancing inclusivity and diversity. Such a shift would benefit not only those at the early- and mid-career stages but the whole research community. It is also an untapped opportunity to reward open science practices, promoting transparent and robust science.

Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers

Open Research aims to make research more accessible, transparent, reproducible, shared and collaborative. Doing so is meant to democratize and diversify access to knowledge and knowledge production, and ensure that research is useful outside of academic contexts. Increasing equity is therefore a key aim of the Open Research movement, yet mounting evidence demonstrates that the practices of Open Research are implemented in ways that undermine this. In response, we convened a diverse community of researchers, research managers and funders to co-create actionable recommendations for supporting the equitable implementation of Open Research. Using a co-creative modified Delphi method, we generated consensus-driven recommendations that address three key problem areas: the resource-intensive nature of Open Research, the high cost of article processing charges, and obstructive reward and recognition practices at funders and research institutions that undermine the implementation of Open Research. In this paper, we provide an overview of these issues, a detailed description of the co-creative process, and present the recommendations and the debates that surrounded them. We discuss these recommendations in relation to other recently published ones and conclude that implementing ours requires 'global thinking' to ensure that a systemic and inclusive approach to change is taken.

Research funders should be more transparent: a plea for open applications

Transparency is increasingly becoming the new norm and modus operandi of the global research enterprise. In this mini-review, we summarize ongoing initiatives to increase transparency in science and funding in particular. Based on this, we make a plea for the next step in funders' compliance with the principles of Open Science, suggesting the adoption of open applications. Our proposed model includes a plea for the publication of all submitted grant applications; open sharing of review reports, argumentations for funding decisions and project evaluation reports; and the disclosure of reviewers' and decision committee members' identities. In line with previous calls for transparency and the available evidence about these measures' effectiveness, we argue that open applications could lead to more diverse collaboration, recognition of research ideas, fairer procedures for grant allocation, more research on funding practices and increased trust in the funding allocation process.

Teaching Research in Principle and in Practice: What Do Psychology Instructors Think of Research Projects in Their Courses?

Psychology majors typically conduct at least one research project during their undergraduate studies, yet these projects rarely make a scientific contribution beyond the classroom. In this study, we explored one potential reason for this—that student projects may not be aligned with best practices in the field. In other words, we wondered if there was a mismatch between what instructors teach in principle and what student projects are in practice. To answer this, we asked psychology instructors ( n = 111) who regularly teach courses involving research projects questions about these projects. Instructors endorsed many of the commonly assumed pitfalls of student projects, such as not using rigorous methodology. Notably, the characteristics of these typical student projects did not align with the qualities instructors reported as being important in research practice. We highlight opportunities to align these qualities by employing resources such as crowdsourced projects specifically developed for student researchers.

Critical measurement issues in the assessment of social media influence on body image

Progress towards understanding how social media impacts body image hinges on the use of appropriate measurement tools and methodologies. This review provides an overview of common (qualitative, self-report survey, lab-based experiments) and emerging (momentary assessment, computational) methodological approaches to the exploration of the impact of social media on body image. The potential of these methodologies is detailed, with examples illustrating current use as well as opportunities for expansion. A key theme from our review is that each methodology has provided insights for the body image research field, yet is insufficient in isolation to fully capture the nuance and complexity of social media experiences. Thus, in consideration of gaps in methodology, we emphasise the need for big picture thinking that leverages and combines the strengths of each of these methodologies to yield a more comprehensive, nuanced, and robust picture of the positive and negative impacts of social media.

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide reuse or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science's agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of 'cumulative advantage'. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: 'What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?' Aiming to synthesize findings, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open and FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as 'reproducibility' becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

Developing an open science 'mindset'

BACKGROUND

Identification of widespread biases present in reported research findings in many scientific disciplines, including psychology, such as failures to replicate and the likely extensive application of questionable research practices, has raised serious concerns over the reliability and trustworthiness of scientific research. This has led to the development of, and advocacy for, 'open science' practices, including data, materials, analysis, and output sharing, pre-registration of study predictions and analysis plans, and increased access to published research findings. Implementation of such practices has been enthusiastic in some quarters, but literacy in, and adoption of, these practices has lagged behind among many researchers in the scientific community.

ADVANCES

In the current article I propose that researchers adopt an open science 'mindset', a comprehensive approach to open science predicated on researchers' operating under the basic assumption that, wherever possible, open science practices will be a central component of all steps of their research projects. The primary, defining feature of the mindset is a commitment to open science principles in all research projects from inception to dissemination. Other features of the mindset include the assumption that all components of research projects (e.g. pre-registered hypotheses, protocols, materials, analysis plans, data, and output) will be accessible broadly; pro-active selection of open fora to disseminate research components and findings; open and transparent dissemination of reports of the research findings in advance of, and after, formal publication; and active promotion of open science practices through education, modeling, and advocacy.

CONCLUSION

The open science mindset is a 'farm to fork' approach to open science aimed at promoting comprehensive quality in application of open science, and widening participation in open science practices so that they become the norm in research in health psychology and behavioral medicine going forward.

Open Science and Feminist Ethics: Promises and Challenges of Open Access

Open science advocates argue that making data sets, studies, methodologies, and other aspects of research free from publication fees and available to scholars will increase collaborations, access, and dissemination of knowledge. In this article, I argue that open access policies and practices raise both feminist and ethical issues. I reflect on the five themes of feminist ethics identified 20 years ago by a task force of the Society for the Psychology of Women. I update the themes with recent scholarship of feminist philosophers and ethicists, and I use the themes to raise questions about the promises and challenges of open access. Throughout, I offer suggestions for all who seek to make knowledge of human psychology more complete and more accessible to more people. I conclude by offering recommendations informed by feminist ethics to those building the policies and practices of open access. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843211030926

Online Quizzes with Closed Questions in Formal Assessment: How Elaborate Feedback can Promote Learning

Online-quizzes are an economic and objective method for formative assessment in universities. However, closed questions have been criticized for promoting shallow learning and resulting often in poor learning outcomes. These disadvantages can be overcome by embedding closed questions in effective instructional designs involving feedback. In the present field study, a final sample of N = 496 students completed the same online quiz, consisting of 60 true–false statements on the biological bases of psychology in two sessions. In order to enhance the benefit of formative testing on students’ test achievement in Session 2, students received elaborate feedback (i.e., by providing explanations for the in-/correctness) for half of their answers in Session 1, and corrective feedback (i.e., just indicating the in-/correctness) for the other half. The results showed that students scored higher in Session 2 if elaborate feedback had been provided in Session 1, compared with when corrective feedback was provided. More specifically, students profited more from elaborate feedback on incorrect answers in Session 1 than from feedback on correct answers. As a practical recommendation, self-administered formative tests with closed-question format should at least provide explanations why students’ answers are incorrect.