ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
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
Open science advocates argue that publicly and freely available scientific manuscripts, data and code will have wide-reaching collective benefits. However, the adoption of open science practices may depend on the fit between researchers' perceptions of open science and the social dynamics of their field. For example, if researchers understand open science as primarily a means of cooperating with other researchers, its adoption may be faster and more effective among researchers who see their field as less competitive and less hierarchical. The present studies operationalize open science attitudes as plans to publicly share manuscripts/preprints, code, stimuli/instruments and data, as well as participants' perceptions of the importance of these practices. In Study 1, researchers perceived the social dynamics of their field (competition and hierarchy) as distinct from the traits of individuals in their field (warmth and competence). In Study 2, neither researchers' perceptions of social dynamics, nor their view of open science as motivated by cooperation, predicted their attitudes to open science practices. However, attitudes about open science were generally very positive among researchers who opt-in to a study about open science, limiting the variance to be explained. Moreover, people's self-reported motivations for sharing manuscripts and materials differed from their perceptions of why others share manuscripts and materials. Study 3 tested the same questions in an independent and more representative sample. Results of Study 3 agreed with results of Study 2: neither researchers' perceptions of social dynamics, nor their view of open science as motivated by cooperation, predicted their open science practices. Again, attitudes about open science were generally very positive among researchers even in this representative sample and people's self-reported motivations for sharing manuscripts and materials differed from their perceptions of why others share manuscripts and materials.
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.