ArticleeLife2017
Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives.
Article in eLife, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reimagining research equity and beneficial community impact: reflections from the GSK Africa Open Lab inaugural cohort.Global health action · 2026Article
- Open Science Practices in Systematic Reviews From 2014 to 2024: A Cohort Study of 300 Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Genetic Data Market: Institutional Governance of Academic/Industry Research Partnerships for the Public Good.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Exploring regulatory flexibility to create novel incentives to optimize drug discovery.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Ten simple rules for starting FAIR discussions in your community.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023Review
- Article
- What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Open Science in Africa: What policymakers should consider.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Review
- The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Article
- Open Science in Kenya: Where Are We?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Data sharing platforms and the academic evaluation system.EMBO reports · 2020Article
- Article
- An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact.Gates open research · 2019Article
- Identifying the challenges in implementing open science [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].MNI open research · 2018Article
- Differences Between Government, Consortium, and Private Database Stewards Impacting the Genomic Data Market: A Survey of U.S. Academic Genetic Researchers.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Support for open science is growing, but motivating researchers to participate in open science can be challenging. This in-depth qualitative study draws on interviews with researchers and staff at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital during the development of its open science policy. Using thematic content analysis, we explore attitudes toward open science, the motivations and disincentives to participate, the role of patients, and attitudes to the eschewal of intellectual property rights. To be successful, an open science policy must clearly lay out expectations, boundaries and mechanisms by which researchers can engage, and must be shaped to explicitly support their values and those of key partners, including patients, research participants and industry collaborators.
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.