Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38854438›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Monitoring Open Science as transformative change: Towards a systemic framework.

Ismael Rafols, Ingeborg Meijer, Jordi Molas-Gallart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2024. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Ismael RafolsCentre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6527-7778
Ingeborg MeijerCentre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jordi Molas-GallartINGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8320-2681

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following a flurry of policies for Open Science (OS), there is now a wave of initiatives to monitor its adoption. However, the great diversity of understandings and activities related to Open Science makes monitoring very challenging. There is a danger that by focusing on what can be readily observed (e.g. publications) many other OS activities are overlooked (e.g. participation), with a potential narrowing of OS scope, streetlight effects, and deviation from the values of OS. Since Open Science can be understood as a systemic transformation of the research system, we have borrowed concepts from Transformative Innovation Policies frameworks which aim at evaluating socio-technical transitions. In accordance with this view of OS as a systemic transformation, we propose that the new monitoring efforts should shift towards: (i)

Indexed as

EvaluationMonitoringOpen AccessOpen DataOpen Science

Identifiers

PMID38854438
PMCPMC11157193

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.