Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33937623›Full record

ArticleMNI open research2018

Identifying the challenges in implementing open science [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Sarah E Ali-Khan, Antoine Jean, E Richard Gold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MNI open research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Open Science in Africa: What policymakers should consider.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022
    Review
  6. Institutionalizing Open Science in Africa: Limitations and Prospects.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah E Ali-KhanFaculty of Law, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1W9, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9453-5086
Antoine JeanFaculty of Law, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1W9, Canada.
E Richard GoldFaculty of Law, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1W9, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-9238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Areas of open science (OS) policy and practice are already relatively well-advanced in several countries and sectors through the initiatives of some governments, funders, philanthropy, researchers and the community. Nevertheless, the current research and innovation system, including in the focus of this report, the life sciences, remains weighted against OS. In October 2017, thought-leaders from across the world gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful OS looks like. We focused on OS partnerships as this is an emerging model that aims to accelerate science and innovation. These outcomes are captured in a first meeting report: Defining Success in Open Science. On several occasions, these conversations turned to the challenges that must be addressed and new policies required to effectively and sustainably advance OS practice. Thereupon, in this report, we describe the concerns raised and what is needed to address them supplemented by our review of the literature, and suggest the stakeholder groups that may be best placed to begin to take action. It emerges that to be successful, OS will require the active engagement of all stakeholders: while the research community must develop research questions, identify partners and networks, policy communities need to create an environment that is supportive of experimentation by removing barriers. This report aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about OS and its implementation. It is also part of a step-wise process to develop and mobilize a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assist global stakeholders in implementing high value OS collaborations. Currently in co-development through an open and international process, this set of measures will allow the generation of needed evidence on the influence of OS partnerships on research, innovation, and critical social and economic goals.

Indexed as

collaborationcommercializationinnovationintellectual propertyopen accessOpen sciencepolicyresearch process

Identifiers

PMID33937623
PMCPMC7845503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.