ArticlePLoS biology2017
Imagining the "open" university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education.
Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Learning to Improve Safe and Effective Prescribing: A Systematic Review.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Pooled it
- Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Do German university medical centres promote robust and transparent research? A cross-sectional study of institutional policies.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Scientific Discovery Games for Biomedical Research.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2019Article
- Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- The case for openness in engineering research.F1000Research · 2018Article
- The principles of tomorrow's university.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university missions of knowledge dissemination and societal impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.