ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026
Do institutions value peer-reviewed open educational resources? Insights from biology lesson authors.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open educational resources (OERs) are freely accessible and adaptable teaching materials. In biology, OERs in the form of published lesson plans have steadily increased over the past 20 years. These lesson plans cover core concepts in biology and act as guides to incorporate evidence-based teaching practices into courses. The development and publication of these resources also provide an opportunity for the recognition of teaching-focused scholarship. Journals that publish peer-reviewed OERs provide credit through citable references, allowing authors to be recognized for tenure, promotion, and advancement decisions. Yet, despite this potential for recognition, little is known about how authors perceive the value of these publications or how well they align with institutional reward systems. Here, we surveyed first authors of published peer-reviewed OERs and found that authors across institutional contexts personally valued their publications. However, there are significant differences in how authors at Non-Doctoral and Doctoral-granting institutions perceive how their institutions value OER publications. These results provide a foundation by which biology departments and institutions can strengthen support and recognition for OER authorship. Moreover, having guidance for how peer-reviewed OER publications count for decisions around professional advancement and recognition may be beneficial, especially for faculty in teaching-focused positions.
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.