Abstract. Central values of science are, among others, transparency, verifiability, replicability, and openness. The currently very prominent Open Science (OS) movement supports these values. Among its most important principles are open methodology (comprehensive and useful documentation of methods and materials used), open access to published research output, and open data (making collected data available for re-analyses). We here present a survey conducted among members of the German Psychological Society ( N = 337), in which we applied a mixed-methods approach (quantitative and qualitative data) to assess attitudes toward OS in general and toward data sharing more specifically. Attitudes toward OS were distinguished into positive expectations (“hopes”) and negative expectations (“fears”). These were un-correlated. There were generally more hopes associated with OS and data sharing than fears. Both hopes and fears were highest among early career researchers and lowest among professors. The analysis of the open answers revealed that generally positive attitudes toward data sharing (especially sharing of data related to a published article) are somewhat diminished by cost/benefit considerations. The results are discussed with respect to individual researchers’ behavior and with respect to structural changes in the research system.
Central values of science are, among others, transparency, verifiability, replicability and openness. The currently very prominent Open Science (OS) movement supports these values. Among its most important principles are open methodology (comprehensive and useful documentation of methods and materials used), open access to published research output, and open data (making collected data available for re-analyses). We here present a survey conducted among members of the German Psychological Society (N = 337), in which we applied a mixed-methods approach (quantitative and qualitative data) to assess attitudes towards OS in general and towards data sharing more specifically. Attitudes towards OS were distinguished into positive expectations ("hopes") and negative expectations ("fears"). These were un-correlated. There were generally more hopes associated with OS and data sharing than fears. Both hopes and fears were highest among early career researchers and lowest among professors. The analysis of the open answers revealed that generally positive attitudes towards data sharing (especially sharing of data related to a published article) are somewhat diminished by cost/benefit considerations. The results are discussed with respect to individual researchers' behavior and with respect to structural changes in the research system. Abstract: 187 words Key words: open science, public data sharing, attitudes towards open science: data sharing hopes and data sharing fears Word count (excluding tables, figures and references): 3.847
. Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs) schließt sich den Zielen der DFG und der Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen an und präzisiert hier die Erwartungen der DFG für das Fach Psychologie.Hierbei ist ein sorgfältiges Abwägen von Rechten, Kosten und Nutzen aus der Perspektive (1) der an den Studien beteiligten Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, (2) der Forscherinnen und Forscher, die die Originaldaten erhoben haben, (3) der Öffentlichkeit (einschließlich potenzieller Inhaberinnen und Inhaber relevanter Urheberrechte) und (4) der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft (einschließ-lich potenzieller Nachnutzerinnen und Nachnutzer erhobener Daten) erforderlich. Das Interesse der scientific community an möglichst umfassender Datennutzung muss mit dem Interesse der individuellen Forscherinnen und Forscher an der Verwertung der von ihnen erhobenen Daten sowie mit dem Interesse der Studienteilnehmerinnen und -teilnehmer an einem ethisch verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit ihren Daten in Beziehung gesetzt werden.In diesem Zusammenhang kann nicht genügend betont werden, dass dem Erheben von Originaldaten in der Psychologie nach wie vor eine zentrale Bedeutung zukommt. Daten sind eine conditio sine qua non für jede Wir danken Malte Elson, Johannes Breuer und Zoe Magraw-Mickelson für die englische Übersetzung des Dokuments. Viele Aspekte dieser Empfehlungen sind durch zahlreiche konstruktive Beiträge während eines ausgiebigen Diskussionsprozesses mit der Mitgliederschaft der DGPs entstanden. Es würde zu weit führen, alle Beteiligten einzeln hier aufzuführen; wir möchten jedoch allen ausdrücklich für ihr Engagement danken.
Zusammenfassung. Die Entwicklung einer Wissenschaft ist abhängig von den Personen, die sie tragen. Der Auswahl geeigneter Personen in Berufungsverfahren auf Professuren kommt deshalb eine besondere Bedeutung zu. Die vorliegende Studie beschäftigt sich erstmals damit, wie Kolleginnen und Kollegen der Psychologie Berufungsverfahren beurteilen; wie wichtig sie verschiedene Indikatoren für die Eignung auf eine Professur einschätzen; wie hoch die Diskrepanz zwischen gewünschter und tatsächlicher Relevanz dieser Indikatoren ist; sowie wie sie zu verschiedenen Ausgestaltungsmöglichkeiten von Berufungsverfahren stehen. Es wurden 3.784 Mitglieder der DGPs angeschrieben, um an einer online Befragung teilzunehmen. N = 1.453 Personen beantworteten zumindest einen Teil der Fragen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Diskrepanzen zwischen Ist und Soll bei überfachlichen Kompetenzen (Kommunikation, Kooperation, strategisches Denken) besonders groß sind und dass die Befragten den Stellenwert quantitativer Forschungsleistungsindikatoren als zu hoch ansehen. Die Befragten befürworten den Einsatz strukturierter Interviews zur Erfassung überfachlicher Kompetenzen, eine multi-methodale Messung der Forschungs- und Lehrleistung durch qualitative und quantitative Indikatoren sowie stärker strukturierte Probelehrvorträge. Mögliche fachpolitische Konsequenzen dieser Befunde werden diskutiert.
Providing access to research data collected as part of scientific publications and publicly funded research projects is now regarded as a central aspect of an open and transparent scientific practice and is increasingly being called for by funding institutions and scientific journals. To this end, researchers should strive to comply with the so-called FAIR principles (of scientific data management), that is, research data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Systematic data management supports these goals and, at the same time, makes it possible to achieve them efficiently. With these revised recommendations on data management and data sharing, which also draw on feedback from a 2018 survey of its members, the German Psychological Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie; DGPs) specifies important basic principles of data management in psychology. Initially, based on discipline-specific definitions of raw data, primary data, secondary data, and metadata, we provide recommendations on the degree of data processing necessary when publishing data. We then discuss data protection as well as aspects of copyright and data usage before defining the qualitative requirements for trustworthy research data repositories. This is followed by a detailed discussion of pragmatic aspects of data sharing, such as the differences between Type 1 and Type 2 data publications, restrictions on use (embargo period), the definition of "scientific use" by secondary users of shared data, and recommendations on how to resolve potential disputes. Particularly noteworthy is the new recommendation of distinct "access categories" for data, each with different requirements in terms of data protection or research ethics. These range from completely open data without usage restrictions ("access category 0") to data shared under a set of standardized conditions (e.g., reuse restricted to scientific purposes; "access category 1"), individualized usage agreements ("access category 2"), and secure data access under strictly controlled conditions (e.g., in a research data center; “access category 3"). The practical implementation of this important innovation, however, will require data repositories to provide the necessary technical functionalities. In summary, the revised recommendations aim to present pragmatic guidelines for researchers to handle psychological research data in an open and transparent manner, while addressing structural challenges to data sharing solutions that are beneficial for all involved parties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.