Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36542605›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Close to open-Factors that hinder and promote open science in ecology research and education.

Christian B Strømme, A Kelly Lane, Aud H Halbritter, Elizabeth Law, Chloe R Nater, Erlend B Nilsen, Grace D Boutouli, Dagmar D Egelkraut, Richard J Telford, Vigdis Vandvik and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian B StrømmeDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5869-8689
A Kelly LaneDepartment of Biology Teaching and Learning, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Aud H HalbritterDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Elizabeth LawNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway.
Chloe R NaterNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway.
Erlend B NilsenNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway.
Grace D BoutouliDepartment of Biology Teaching and Learning, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Dagmar D EgelkrautDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Richard J TelfordDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Vigdis VandvikDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Sehoya H CotnerDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
University of Bergen · NONorwegian Institute for Nature Research · NOUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Open Science (OS) movement is rapidly gaining traction among policy-makers, research funders, scientific journals and individual scientists. Despite these tendencies, the pace of implementing OS throughout the scientific process and across the scientific community remains slow. Thus, a better understanding of the conditions that affect OS engagement, and in particular, of how practitioners learn, use, conduct and share research openly can guide those seeking to implement OS more broadly. We surveyed participants at an OS workshop hosted by the Living Norway Ecological Data Network in 2020 to learn how they perceived OS and its importance in their research, supervision and teaching. Further, we wanted to know what OS practices they had encountered in their education and what they saw as hindering or helping their engagement with OS. The survey contained scaled-response and open-ended questions, allowing for a mixed-methods approach. We obtained survey responses from 60 out of 128 workshop participants (47%). Responses indicated that usage and sharing of open data and code, as well as open access publication, were the most frequent OS practices. Only a minority of respondents reported having encountered OS in their formal education. A majority also viewed OS as less important in their teaching than in their research and supervisory roles. The respondents' suggestions for what would facilitate greater OS engagement in the future included knowledge, guidelines, and resources, but also social and structural support. These are aspects that could be strengthened by promoting explicit implementation of OS practices in higher education and by nurturing a more inclusive and equitable OS culture. We argue that incorporating OS in teaching and learning of science can yield substantial benefits to the research community, student learning, and ultimately, to the wider societal objectives of science and higher education.

Indexed as

LearningHumansNorwaySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36542605
PMCPMC9770360
OpenAlexW4312060078

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.