Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40703968›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2025

Using Open Science Tools to Teach Environmental Sciences.

Mario Zuliani, C J Lortie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. 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. 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

2 authors.

Mario ZulianiDepartment of Biological Science York University Toronto Ontario Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8114-3609
C J LortieDepartment of Biological Science York University Toronto Ontario Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4291-7023

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open science, work and knowledge that are developed in full, offers critical resources that provide students with insights into the process of research in many fields. There are extensive opportunities within environmental sciences to incorporate open science into undergraduate level courses. There are seven major open science concepts that could be used to teach undergraduate environmental science courses that align with professional research activities, including open-access papers, pre-prints, open data, open-source software, published code, collaborative tools for version control, and open notebooks. Here, we assessed the use of these open science concepts in connection to the European Union pillars of open science, outlining key benefits, challenges, and how these tools can be used in undergraduate environmental science courses. Specifically, these tools support a framework for open science structured around eight pillars, providing incentives to collaborate, enhancing transparency and openness, and promoting diversity and inclusivity. Collectively, these tools support teaching environmental science content as many of the skills gained directly relate to analyzing environmental topics and data while supporting transparency to collaborators and stakeholders. This provides learning opportunities including finding and reusing data, team collaboration, and reading and working with code. Further endorsing the use of open science in environmental science courses can enhance these courses as these tools align with professional research activities that are currently being used, including publishing data collected in labs, pre-print publishing capstone papers or lab reports, openly publishing code used for analysis, and publishing field notes.

Indexed as

collaborative learningeducationhigher educationopen dataopen sciencescience educationteaching

Identifiers

PMID40703968
PMCPMC12283245

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.