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
|
3
|
Blatch-Jones AJ, Recio Saucedo A, Giddins B. The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0291627. [PMID: 37713422 PMCID: PMC10503772 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. METHODS A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). RESULTS 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). CONCLUSIONS Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| | - Alejandra Recio Saucedo
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| | - Beth Giddins
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pownall M, Azevedo F, König LM, Slack HR, Evans TR, Flack Z, Grinschgl S, Elsherif MM, Gilligan-Lee KA, de Oliveira CMF, Gjoneska B, Kalandadze T, Button K, Ashcroft-Jones S, Terry J, Albayrak-Aydemir N, Děchtěrenko F, Alzahawi S, Baker BJ, Pittelkow MM, Riedl L, Schmidt K, Pennington CR, Shaw JJ, Lüke T, Makel MC, Hartmann H, Zaneva M, Walker D, Verheyen S, Cox D, Mattschey J, Gallagher-Mitchell T, Branney P, Weisberg Y, Izydorczak K, Al-Hoorie AH, Creaven AM, Stewart SLK, Krautter K, Matvienko-Sikar K, Westwood SJ, Arriaga P, Liu M, Baum MA, Wingen T, Ross RM, O'Mahony A, Bochynska A, Jamieson M, Tromp MV, Yeung SK, Vasilev MR, Gourdon-Kanhukamwe A, Micheli L, Konkol M, Moreau D, Bartlett JE, Clark K, Brekelmans G, Gkinopoulos T, Tyler SL, Röer JP, Ilchovska ZG, Madan CR, Robertson O, Iley BJ, Guay S, Sladekova M, Sadhwani S. Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes. ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE 2023; 10:221255. [PMID: 37206965 PMCID: PMC10189598 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2022] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students' understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Flávio Azevedo
- Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK
| | - Laura M. König
- Faculty of Life Sciences: Food, Nutrition and Health, University of Bayreuth, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany
| | - Hannah R. Slack
- School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Thomas Rhys Evans
- School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK
- Centre for Workforce Development, Institute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK
| | - Zoe Flack
- School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Brighton, BN2 0JY, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Biljana Gjoneska
- Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, North Macedonia, XCWR+GJM, 1000
| | - Tamara Kalandadze
- Faculty of Teacher Education and Languages, Department of Education, ICT and Learning, Ostfold University College, 1757 Halden, Norway
| | | | - Sarah Ashcroft-Jones
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 4BH18, UK
| | - Jenny Terry
- School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK
| | - Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir
- School of Psychology and Counselling, the Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
- Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
| | - Filip Děchtěrenko
- Department of Mathematics, College of Polytechnics Jihlava, 1556/16, 586 01, Czech Republic
| | | | - Bradley J. Baker
- Department of Sport and Recreation Management, Temple University, PA 19122, USA
| | - Merle-Marie Pittelkow
- Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, 9712 CP, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Lydia Riedl
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University Marburg, D-35039 Marburg, Germany
| | | | | | - John J. Shaw
- Division of Psychology, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
| | - Timo Lüke
- Institute for Educational Research and Teacher Education, University of Graz, Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
| | | | - Helena Hartmann
- Department for Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna 1010, Austria
| | - Mirela Zaneva
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 4BH18, UK
| | - Daniel Walker
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Management, Law and Social Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK
| | - Steven Verheyen
- Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam 3000, The Netherlands
| | - Daniel Cox
- Division of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Jennifer Mattschey
- School of Psychology and Counselling, the Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
| | | | - Peter Branney
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Management, Law and Social Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK
| | - Yanna Weisberg
- Department of Psychology, Linfield University, Linfield, 503-883-2200, USA
| | - Kamil Izydorczak
- Faculty of Psychology in Wrocław, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wrocław 03-81536, Al Jubail 35819, Poland
| | - Ali H. Al-Hoorie
- Jubail English Language and Preparatory Year Institute, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia
| | | | | | - Kai Krautter
- Department of Psychology, Saarland University, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
| | | | - Samuel J. Westwood
- Department of Psychology, School of Social Science, University of Westminster, London W1B 2HW, UK
| | - Patrícia Arriaga
- Iscte-Universty Institute of Lisbon, CIS-IUL, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Meng Liu
- Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
| | - Myriam A. Baum
- Department of Psychology, Saarland University, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
| | - Tobias Wingen
- Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, University of Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Robert M. Ross
- Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
| | - Aoife O'Mahony
- School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK
| | | | - Michelle Jamieson
- School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
| | - Myrthe Vel Tromp
- Department of Psychology, Leiden University, 2311 EZ Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Siu Kit Yeung
- Department of Psychology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR 100871, People's Republic of China
| | - Martin R. Vasilev
- Department of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK
| | | | - Leticia Micheli
- Department of Psychology III, University of Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany
| | - Markus Konkol
- Faculty for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, 7522 NB, The Netherlands
| | - David Moreau
- School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
| | - James E. Bartlett
- School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
| | - Kait Clark
- Department of Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
| | - Gwen Brekelmans
- Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, Queen Mary University of London, E1 4NS, UK
| | | | - Samantha L. Tyler
- Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, University of Leicester, UK
| | | | | | | | - Olly Robertson
- Departments of Psychiatry and Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK
- School of Psychology, Keele University, Newcastle ST5 5BG, UK
| | - Bethan J. Iley
- School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
| | - Samuel Guay
- Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Canada
| | - Martina Sladekova
- School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Brighton, BN2 0JY, UK
- School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK
| | - Shanu Sadhwani
- School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Brighton, BN2 0JY, UK
| | - FORRT
- Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Jin H, Wang Q, Yang YF, Zhang H, Gao M(M, Jin S, Chen Y(S, Xu T, Zheng YR, Chen J, Xiao Q, Yang J, Wang X, Geng H, Ge J, Wang WW, Chen X, Zhang L, Zuo XN, Chuang-Peng H. The Chinese Open Science Network (COSN): Building an Open Science Community From Scratch. ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 2023. [DOI: 10.1177/25152459221144986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
Open Science is becoming a mainstream scientific ideology in psychology and related fields. However, researchers, especially early-career researchers (ECRs) in developing countries, are facing significant hurdles in engaging in Open Science and moving it forward. In China, various societal and cultural factors discourage ECRs from participating in Open Science, such as the lack of dedicated communication channels and the norm of modesty. To make the voice of Open Science heard by Chinese-speaking ECRs and scholars at large, the Chinese Open Science Network (COSN) was initiated in 2016. With its core values being grassroots-oriented, diversity, and inclusivity, COSN has grown from a small Open Science interest group to a recognized network both in the Chinese-speaking research community and the international Open Science community. So far, COSN has organized three in-person workshops, 12 tutorials, 48 talks, and 55 journal club sessions and translated 15 Open Science-related articles and blogs from English to Chinese. Currently, the main social media account of COSN (i.e., the WeChat Official Account) has more than 23,000 subscribers, and more than 1,000 researchers/students actively participate in the discussions on Open Science. In this article, we share our experience in building such a network to encourage ECRs in developing countries to start their own Open Science initiatives and engage in the global Open Science movement. We foresee great collaborative efforts of COSN together with all other local and international networks to further accelerate the Open Science movement.
Collapse
|