Survey of Wellcome researchers and their attitudes to open research

Eynden, Veerle Van den; Knight, Gareth; Vlad, Anca; Radler, Barry; Tenopir, Carol; León, David J.; Manista, Frank; Whitworth, James; Corti, Louise

doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.4055448.v1

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The benefits of open research practices have been widely discussed , and generally speaking researchers have positive attitudes towards adopting open research practices, finding them worthwhile (Eynden et al, 2016;Lowndes et al, 2017), and recommending their use to others . However, high time cost is repeatedly identified as one of the main barriers to the adoption of open practices (Eynden et al, 2016;Gownaris et al, 2022;Tenopir et al, 2011) and time is the main thing that researchers lack, with workloads at capacity across the sector, having already reached "untenable" levels (Long et al, 2020;Papadopoulos, 2017). Historically, institutions have responded to increases in workload and administration by implementing managerial practices such as workload models that aim to increase efficiency by raising expectations of what researchers should achieve in their existing available time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of the Science Reform Movement

2024

JOTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field, van Dongen, & Tiokhin 4 Field, S. M. (2022). Charting the constellation of science reform. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen]. Pure. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss .229114775 (see p. 1). Field, S. M. (2023). Risk reform, or remain within the academic monolith? The Psychologist, 36, 45-47. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/risk-reform -or-remain-within-academic-monolith (see p. 1).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of the Science Reform Movement

2024

JOTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The benefits of open research practices have been widely discussed (Munafò et al, 2017), and generally speaking researchers have positive attitudes towards adopting open research practices, finding them worthwhile (Eynden et al, 2016;Lowndes et al, 2017), and recommending their use to others (Sarafoglou et al, 2022). However, high time cost is repeatedly identified as one of the main barriers to the adoption of open practices (Eynden et al, 2016;Gownaris et al, 2022;Tenopir et al, 2011) and time is the main thing that researchers lack, with workloads at capacity across the sector, having already reached "untenable" levels (Long et al, 2020;Papadopoulos, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Invisible Workload of Open Research

Hostler

2023

JOTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is acknowledged that conducting open research requires additional time and effort compared to conducting ‘closed’ research. However, this additional work is often discussed only in abstract terms, a discourse which ignores the practicalities of how researchers are expected to find the time to engage with these practices in the context of their broader role as multifaceted academics. In the context of a sector that is blighted by stress, burnout, untenable workloads, and hyper-competitive pressures to produce, there is a clear danger that additional expectations to engage in open practices add to the workload burden and increase pressure on academics even further. In this article, the theories of academic capitalism and workload creep are used to explore how workload models currently exploit researchers by mismeasuring academic labour. The specific increase in workload resulting from open practices and associated administration is then outlined, including via the cumulative effects of administrative burden. It is argued that there is a high chance that without intervention, increased expectations to engage in open research practices may lead to unacceptable increases in demands on academics. Finally, the individual and systematic responsibilities to mitigate this are discussed.

show abstract

“…. ]" (Van den Eynden 2016). Another study on articles published in Science between 2011 and 2012 found out that 11% of the authors refuse to share data if the requester does not provide information on how the material will be further used (Stodden, Seiler, and Ma 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart Contracts for Research Data Rights Management over the Ethereum Blockchain Network

Pănescu

Manta

2018

Science & Technology Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new method for managing digital reuse rights of research data which leverages technologies such as the blockchain and smart contracts. This allows, on one hand, the creation of a permanent record on the agreements between the authors of the data and the reusers, with the possibility of verifying compliance at any time, and, on the other hand, a higher level of granularity on defining the conditions of reuse. A practical implementation of such an workflow using the Solidity smart contract language is included, along with a brief analysis over the Ethereum blockchain network.

show abstract

Survey of Wellcome researchers and their attitudes to open research

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Consequences of the Science Reform Movement

Consequences of the Science Reform Movement

The Invisible Workload of Open Research

Smart Contracts for Research Data Rights Management over the Ethereum Blockchain Network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About