Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39680530›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey.

Florencia Grattarola, Hanna Shmagun, Christopher Erdmann, Anne Cambon-Thomsen, Mogens Thomsen, Jaesoo Kim, Laurence Mabile

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Florencia GrattarolaFaculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-8282-5732
Hanna ShmagunKorea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6271-2976
Christopher ErdmannSciLifeLab, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2554-180X
Anne Cambon-ThomsenCERPOP, INSERM and Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Mogens ThomsenCERPOP, INSERM and Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Jaesoo KimHongik University, Seoul, South Korea.
Laurence MabileCERPOP, INSERM and Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7724-1721

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.

Indexed as

InternationalityHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39680530
PMCPMC11649118

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.