Ten simple rules for cultivating open science and collaborative R&D

Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey

OBJECTIVE

Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science.

METHODS

We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

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

A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine

Publishing articles in international scientific journals is the primary method for the communication of validated research findings and ideas. Journal articles are commonly used as a major input for evaluations of researchers and institutions. Few articles have been published previously about the different aspects needed for writing high-quality articles. In this manuscript, we provide an updated and brief guide for the multiple dimensions needed for writing manuscripts in the health and biological sciences, from current, international and interdisciplinary perspectives and from our expertise as authors, peer reviewers and editors. We provide key suggestions for writing major sections of the manuscript (e.g. title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion), for submitting the manuscript and bring an overview of the peer review process and  of the post-publication impact of the articles.

Recommendations for working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic (and beyond)

BACKGROUND

There is a growing trend around the globe for having more people working from home, particularly in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Although it is widely implemented in a number of countries and types of companies, it has shown to have multiple challenges.

METHODS

In this article, we provide several recommendations on how to work from home, incorporating information from several publications.

RESULTS

The suggestions are: create routines, be organized, have an adequate home office, enhance your productivity, be responsible, avoid extreme multitasking, facilitate communication and networking, be balanced, use available computer programs and platforms, be creative with remote teaching, explore options for remote research and learn from the challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations would help students, professors and researchers around the globe during the current COVID-19 pandemic, and beyond.

Available Software for Meta-analyses of Genome-wide Expression Studies

Advances in transcriptomic methods have led to a large number of published Genome-Wide Expression Studies (GWES), in humans and model organisms. For several years, GWES involved the use of microarray platforms to compare genome-expression data for two or more groups of samples of interest. Meta-analysis of GWES is a powerful approach for the identification of differentially expressed genes in biological topics or diseases of interest, combining information from multiple primary studies. In this article, the main features of available software for carrying out meta-analysis of GWES have been reviewed and seven packages from the Bioconductor platform and five packages from the CRAN platform have been described. In addition, nine previously described programs and four online programs are reviewed. Finally, advantages and disadvantages of these available programs and proposed key points for future developments have been discussed.

Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists

The fundamental goal of the growing open science movement is to increase the efficiency of the global scientific community and accelerate progress and discoveries for the common good. Central to this principle is the rapid disclosure of research outputs in open-access peer-reviewed journals and on pre-print servers. The next bold step in this direction is open laboratory notebooks, where research scientists share their research - including detailed protocols, negative and positive results - online and in near-real-time to synergize with their peers. Here, we highlight the benefits of open lab notebooks to science, society and scientists, and discuss the challenges that this nascent movement is facing. We also present the implementation and progress of our own initiative at openlabnotebooks.org, with more than 20 active contributors after one year of operation.

Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists

The fundamental goal of the growing open science movement is to increase the efficiency of the global scientific community and accelerate progress and discoveries for the common good. Central to this principle is the rapid disclosure of research outputs in open-access peer-reviewed journals and on pre-print servers. The next bold step in this direction is open laboratory notebooks, where research scientists share their research — including detailed protocols, negative and positive results — online and in near-real-time to synergize with their peers. Here, we highlight the benefits of open lab notebooks to science, society and scientists, and discuss the challenges that this nascent movement is facing. We also present the implementation and progress of our own initiative at openlabnotebooks.org, with more than 20 active contributors after one year of operation.

Understanding Fear of Opportunism in Global Prize-Based Science Contests: Evidence for Gender and Age Differences

Global prize-based science contests have great potential for tapping into diverse knowledge on a global scale and overcoming important scientific challenges. A necessary step for knowledge to be utilized in these contests is for that knowledge to be disclosed. Knowledge disclosure, however, is paradoxical in nature: in order for the value of knowledge to be assessed, inventors must disclose their knowledge, but then the person who receives that knowledge does so at no cost and may use it opportunistically. This risk of potential opportunistic behavior in turn makes the inventor fearful of disclosing knowledge, and this is a major psychological barrier to knowledge disclosure. In this project, we investigated this fear of opportunism in global prize-based science contests by surveying 630 contest participants in the InnoCentive online platform for science contests. We found that participants in these science contests experience fear of opportunism to varying degrees, and that women and older participants have significantly less fear of disclosing their scientific knowledge. Our findings highlight the importance of taking differences in such fears into account when designing global prize-based contests so that the potential of the contests for reaching solutions to important and challenging problems can be used more effectively.

What drives academic data sharing?

Despite widespread support from policy makers, funding agencies, and scientific journals, academic researchers rarely make their research data available to others. At the same time, data sharing in research is attributed a vast potential for scientific progress. It allows the reproducibility of study results and the reuse of old data for new research questions. Based on a systematic review of 98 scholarly papers and an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users, we develop a conceptual framework that explains the process of data sharing from the primary researcher’s point of view. We show that this process can be divided into six descriptive categories: Data donor, research organization, research community, norms, data infrastructure, and data recipients. Drawing from our findings, we discuss theoretical implications regarding knowledge creation and dissemination as well as research policy measures to foster academic collaboration. We conclude that research data cannot be regarded as knowledge commons, but research policies that better incentivise data sharing are needed to improve the quality of research results and foster scientific progress.

Achievements and challenges in structural bioinformatics and computational biophysics

Motivation: The field of structural bioinformatics and computational biophysics has undergone a revolution in the last 10 years. Developments that are captured annually through the 3DSIG meeting, upon which this article reflects.

Results: An increase in the accessible data, computational resources and methodology has resulted in an increase in the size and resolution of studied systems and the complexity of the questions amenable to research. Concomitantly, the parameterization and efficiency of the methods have markedly improved along with their cross-validation with other computational and experimental results.

Conclusion: The field exhibits an ever-increasing integration with biochemistry, biophysics and other disciplines. In this article, we discuss recent achievements along with current challenges within the field.

Contact:Rafael.Najmanovich@USherbrooke.ca

Grant application review: the case of transparency

Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency Public funding agencies should be more transparent in awarding research grants to allow researchers and the public better insight into decision making.

Putting together a scientific team: collaborative science

One of the most enjoyable parts of a science career is collaborative team experiences and developing life-long social networks. When the hypothesis being tested requires innovative efforts greater than any single laboratory, collaboration becomes an essential component for success - everyone is a stakeholder and trust is the driving force.