ArticleF1000Research2025
Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University. Methods: Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants' perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers' evaluation system. Results: Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants' perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course. Conclusions: The number of participants' OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants' perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future.
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.