101,702 research outputs found
Establishing Open Science Research Priorities in Health Psychology: A research prioritisation Delphi exercise
No full textPlease note that this article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.Public data: available at https://osf.io/ju52z/.Pre-registration available: at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PHKSQ.Created: April 06, 2022 | Last edited: April 13, 2022.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Objective: Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology.
Methods and measures: An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a ‘long-list’ of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3).
Results: The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. “To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?”, 2. “How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?”, 3. “How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?”, 4. “What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?” and 5. “How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?”.
Conclusion: Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here.Two European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) Special Interest Group funding grants to the EHPS Open Science Special Interest Group
Proceedings of the Paris Open Science European Conference
No full textFor more than twenty years, the international research community has affirmed its support for open and collaborative practices that improve the quality, transparency, reproducibility and inclusiveness of science. In France, this orientation has been reflected in the adoption of two National Plans for Open Science, in 2018 and 2021. In this context and on the occasion of the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, France organised the Open Science European Conference (OSEC) on 4 and 5 February 2022. This conference on the transformation of the research and innovation ecosystem in Europe was an opportunity to address in particular transparency in health research, the future of scientific publishing and the opening of codes and software produced in a scientific context, but also the necessary transformations of research assessment, summarised in the Paris Call presented during the event and calling for the creation of a coalition of actors committed to reforming the current system. This international event was organised was organised by the French Académie des sciences, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), the High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcéres), the National Research Agency (ANR), the University of Lorraine and the University of Nantes.For more than twenty years, the international research community has affirmed its support for open and collaborative practices that improve the quality, transparency, reproducibility and inclusiveness of science. In France, this orientation has been reflected in the adoption of two National Plans for Open Science, in 2018 and 2021. In this context and on the occasion of the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, France organised the Open Science European Conference (OSEC) on 4 and 5 February 2022. This conference on the transformation of the research and innovation ecosystem in Europe was an opportunity to address in particular transparency in health research, the future of scientific publishing and the opening of codes and software produced in a scientific context, but also the necessary transformations of research assessment, summarised in the Paris Call presented during the event and calling for the creation of a coalition of actors committed to reforming the current system. This international event was organised was organised by the French Académie des sciences, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), the High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcéres), the National Research Agency (ANR), the University of Lorraine and the University of Nantes
LawArXiv : An open access community for legal scholarship
No full textThe LawArXiv repository was developed jointly by the Legal Information Preservation Alliance, the Mid-American Law Library Consortium, NELLCO, and the Cornell Law Library, with the Center for Open Science (COS) providing the technological infrastructure via its Open Source Framework. The COS platform also serves as a preprint service, allowing organizations to control their branding, licensing requirements and taxonomy. LawArXiv will accept preprints and post prints where the author has the copyright on their work
Recommended from our members
LawArXiv : An open access community for legal scholarship
No full textThe LawArXiv repository was developed jointly by the Legal Information Preservation Alliance, the Mid-American Law Library Consortium, NELLCO, and the Cornell Law Library, with the Center for Open Science (COS) providing the technological infrastructure via its Open Source Framework. The COS platform also serves as a preprint service, allowing organizations to control their branding, licensing requirements and taxonomy. LawArXiv will accept preprints and post prints where the author has the copyright on their work
Center for Open Science; Reproducible Research Lecture/Workshop
No full textCourtney Soderberg, from the Center for Open Science, gives a lecture/workshop reproducible research
Open access self-archiving: An author study
No full textThis, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words,
researchers publish to have an impact on their field. The vast majority of authors (81%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate
Methods for Open and Reproducible Materials Science
No full textData stewardship in experimental materials science is increasingly complex and important. Progress in data science and inverse-design of materials give reason for optimism that advances can be made if appropriate data resources are made available. Data stewardship also plays a critical role in maintaining broad support for research in the face of well-publicized replication failures (in different fields) and frequently changing attitudes, norms, and sponsor requirements for open science. The present-day data management practices and attitudes in materials science are not well understood. In this article, we collect information on the practices of a selection of materials scientists at two leading universities, using a semi-structured interview instrument. An analysis of these interviews reveals that although data management is universally seen as important, data management practices vary widely. Based on this analysis, we conjecture that broad adoption of basic file-level data sharing at the time of manuscript submission would benefit the field without imposing substantial burdens on researchers. More comprehensive solutions for lifecycle open research in materials science will have to overcome substantial differences in attitudes and practices
UU Open Science Monitor 2020
No full textYODA storage “research-osonderzoek”
February 7, 2022 – Dominique Rijshouwer ([email protected]; [email protected])
About the project:
This data package contains all information relevant to the Project "UU Open Science Monitor 2020".
Authors (alphabetical order):
Loek Brinkman
Judith de Haan
Daniël van Hemert
Joost de Laat
Dominique Rijshouwer
Sander Thomaes
Ruth van Veelen
Start date project: March 23, 2020
Publication date package: February 7, 2022
This project was started by the Open Science Programme of Utrecht University. With this project the university aims to gain insight into what can be done to facilitate and support Open Science among academics at Utrecht University and University Medical Center Utrecht.
The survey that was constructed to inform the programme contained questions about awareness, attitudes and behaviors regarding several Open Science practices, as well as questions about the opportunities and barriers in carrying out those practices. The survey also contained questions about the MERIT model of the recognition and rewards track, behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, and questions about department culture and professional identity but these last four themes are not part of the Open Science Monitor 2020 report.
In October 2021 the Open Science Monitor 2020 report (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5725178), based on the OS Monitor 2020 questionnaire, was published. It can be found on the Zenodo community of the Open Science Programme, together with the pre-registration of the project (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5727107) and the questionnaire itself (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5727058).
The data in this data package are not made publicly available due to privacy restrictions.
The data in this package cannot be published openly, as it is privacy sensitive. We are working on a solution to give the public access to the data without having access to the sensitive information within the data. For now, anyone who is interested in a certain research question or analysis, can simply email their code (preferably SPSS syntax or R code) to the Open Science programme ([email protected]), and they will get back to you as soon as possible. If there are any other questions or suggestions related to this package or project, feel free to contact them for that as well.
This project will be part of a larger long-term project with biennial Open Science Monitors. The Open Science Monitor 2022 Questionnaire is scheduled to go out in the spring of 2022.
For more information about Open Science at Utrecht University, visit: www.uu.nl/en/research/open-scienc
Center for Open Science: Strategic Plan
No full textThe Center for Open Science (COS) has a mission to increase the openness, integrity, and trustworthiness of research. During the next three years, we will demonstrate, improve, and promote pathways for doing and consuming lifecycle open science. This represents a convergence of our infrastructure, research, policy, and capacity building activities over the last decade to a singular true north objective. Our strategic objective is supported by a systems-level theory of change and an engagement strategy that meets communities at their readiness to consider, test, adapt, and adopt new practices and norms. By assessing current practices, reimagining research, offering open science infrastructure and solutions, and building community capacity, we partner with a global community of change agents to shift culture and practice to increase research trustworthiness and accelerate progress
Objective and subjective emotional face classification in non-clinical depression
No full textBackground: Many previous studies highlighting a relationship between depression and emotional face recognition have relied on measures of classification accuracy to determine recognition deficits. However, the perception of emotions is also related arousal levels and valence, and more research is needed to determine how depression impacts these dimensions. Aims: To compare performance on both an objective forced choice emotional recognition task and subjective emotional face valence rating task in participants with self-reported high depression. Methods: Based on screening using the depression sub-scale of the DASS-42, 46 participants (23 males, 23 female) were in the high depression group (mean DASS-42 34±5) and 50 participants in the control groups (25 males, 25 females) with DASS-42 scores of either 0 or 1. All participants completed both a performance-based task (objective) as well as a rating task (subjective) of emotional facial expressions. Results: The data indicate that difference in performance exist in classification accuracy between the groups, with depressed participants demonstrating reduced accuracy for anger, sadness and neutral facial expressions. Additionally differences in subjective ratings exist in the depressed group, but with the important caveat that these only relate to faces display positive emotional expressions. Discussion: The limitations of relying solely on objective tasks where recognition accuracy is the main outcome measure are discussed as well as the data quantitatively demonstrating a reduced response in the depression group to positive stimuli. This study justifies the need for future studies using both objective and subjective measures to assess emotion classification deficits in depression.This work was internally funded by Brunel University London via funds awarded by the Centre for Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience
- …
