ArticlePloS one2025
Open Science practices in a Portuguese nursing higher education institution: An exploratory, descriptive study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open Science has emerged as an epistemological paradigm that promotes open and dynamic access to knowledge, fostering the sharing of scientific findings, collaboration between academia and society, and enhancing innovation and transparency. However, comprehensive studies on the adoption of Open Science practices remain limited, particularly in the nursing academic context. This study aimed to identify the current Open Science practices within a Portuguese higher nursing education institution community. An exploratory, descriptive study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a questionnaire was adapted and piloted through a focus group. In the second phase, the final version of the questionnaire, with 34 questions, was distributed digitally to 747 teachers, researchers and students. The study included 35 respondents, predominantly faculty members. While 77.8% reported engaging with Open Science publications, fewer respondents demonstrated familiarity with practices such as study preregistration and open-source coding. The principles of Open Science were widely accepted, particularly those emphasizing ethics, the democratization of knowledge, and scientific collaboration. Participants frequently used tools like EBSCOhost, Medline, and Scopus, whereas platforms such as Zenodo and OpenUP Hub remained underutilized. Participants highlighted training priorities, especially in open access publishing, data management, and the implementation of Open Science recommendations. The low response rate may indicate limited awareness of Open Science among professionals and an institutional culture in which such practices have not been fully embedded within academic routines. Although all participants agreed with the principles of Open Science, most reported not knowing its policies and not all were familiar with the various formats. These findings underscore the importance of investing in skills training and raising awareness of Open Science practices, particularly within the nursing school context. Furthermore, they underscore the need for in-depth investigation into the motivations, barriers, and enabling conditions that influence adherence to Open Science in higher education.
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.