In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social, cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. By becoming increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices, e.g. open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in randomly sampled 600 journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found a moderate amount of articles published open access, but overall low rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols, no preregistrations, very few replications and low rates of conflict of interest reports. These low rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. As linguistics has not yet firmly established transparency and reproducibility as guiding principles in research, we provide recommendations and solutions for facilitating the adoption of these practices.

Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social, cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. By becoming increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices, e.g. open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in randomly sampled 600 journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found a moderate amount of articles published open access, but overall low rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols, no preregistrations, very few replications and low rates of conflict of interest reports. These low rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. As linguistics has not yet firmly established transparency and reproducibility as guiding principles in research, we provide recommendations and solutions for facilitating the adoption of these practices.

“Competency framework for research data services in Norwegian academic libraries” was a one-year project run by the Norwegian Node in the Research Data Alliance with funding from the Norwegian National Library. We present the results from this project. A competency framework defines a set of knowledge and skills needed to develop professionally within a given domain (Rivera-Ibarra et al., 2010). By defining the knowledge needs related to data management in libraries, the project helps to make it easier for institutions to identify the need for skills development. Furthermore, a competence framework can function as a basis for designing educational programmes. Extensive work has been done internationally to define and describe the skills needed to deliver good services in research data management. This competence framework was not intended to duplicate previous work, but rather to describe and refer to good international documents and reports in the field. In addition, we have conducted a full-day workshop with 40 participants from relevant institutions in the sector. Input from the workshop has helped to describe the Norwegian context and factors that apply in this country, which are not highlighted in the international work. We envision the library's role in the work with data management as a hub or filter for the requirements and needs of funders, publishers, and researchers, respectively, which are resolved by further connection to other resources, persons and infrastructure while simultaneously recognizing that the library is a driving force for development work in the field. This approach is deliberately library-centric, in that the library and the coordinating role that the academic libraries usually have is put in the centre. At some institutions, this work may be organized differently, but both in Norway and internationally, the most common model for research data management is for the library to be fully or partially responsible for the field (LIBER, 2020; Swiatek et al., 2020). Some of the key challenges we have identified are that in order to provide support one must have a very wide range of skills while recognizing that it is impossible for one person to know everything. We also see that a majority of those who work with research data management in Norwegian academic libraries have data management as one of several responsibilities. This makes it even more relevant to facilitate collaboration and draw on expertise from others in order to provide good services to the researchers at the institution. When we describe the various types of competence needed to work with data management, it is not with the expectation that a single person will know all this. By making visible the wide range of knowledge needed, we want to make it easier to put into words what competence one has, what competence one wants to acquire in one’s own organization, and what needs to be brought in externally. Here there will be differences in the way in which universities and colleges prioritize.

Young children tend to prioritize objects over layouts in their drawings, often juxtaposing “floating” objects in the picture plane instead of grounding those objects in drawn representations of the extended layout. In the present study, we explore whether implicitly directing children’s attention to elements of the extended layout through a drawing’s communicative goal—to indicate the location of a hidden target to someone else—might lead children to draw more layout information. By comparing children’s drawings to a different group of children’s verbal descriptions, moreover, we explore how communicative medium affects children’s inclusion of layout and object information. If attention modulates children’s symbolic communication about layouts and objects, then children should both draw and talk about layouts and objects when they are relevant to the communicative task. If there are challenges or advantages specific to either medium, then children might treat layouts and objects differently when drawing versus describing them. We find evidence for both of these possibilities: Attention affects what children include in symbolic communication, like drawings and language, but children are more concise in their inclusion of relevant layout or object information in language versus drawings.