ArticleMNI open research2018
Identifying the challenges in implementing open science [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].
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.
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.
- Breaking barriers: broadening neuroscience education via cloud platforms and course-based undergraduate research.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Embedding a commitment to equitable global access into basic and early-phase translational research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform-An open science framework for the neuroscience community.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Open Science in Africa: What policymakers should consider.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Review
- Institutionalizing Open Science in Africa: Limitations and Prospects.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Review
- The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science.Research policy · 2021Article
- EEG-IP: an international infant EEG data integration platform for the study of risk and resilience in autism and related conditions.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2020Article
- Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2020Article
- An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact.Gates open research · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.