Abstract:Objectives: A need for Open Research practices exists, yet there remains a lack of validated questionnaires to assess Open Research practices. The study aimed to develop a brief (<5 minutes), standardised questionnaire to measure Open Research awareness and engagement across UK institutions.Methods: The Brief Open Research Survey (BORS) was developed in six steps: 1) a scoping exercise collated previous questionnaires on Open Research, 2) a brief questionnaire was developed, 3) peer-reviewed, 4) piloted… Show more
“…Although we organized our narrative around the three components of the COM-B model, we did not assess their reliability, so we focused our interpretation on the individual items. Future iterations of this questionnaire could be compared with our results and with other studies that assessed determinants of open research practices [ 70 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Researchers can then use the BCW to link these enablers of and barriers to specific behaviour change techniques [ 69 ]. The TDF and BCW have been applied to a diverse range of behaviours, including researcher use of open science practices [ 70 , 71 ]; however, research has not yet used this approach to promote journal implementation of open science policies. Figure 1 Behaviour Change Wheel.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…open science practices [70,71]; however, research has not yet used this approach to promote journal implementation of open science policies.…”
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.
“…Although we organized our narrative around the three components of the COM-B model, we did not assess their reliability, so we focused our interpretation on the individual items. Future iterations of this questionnaire could be compared with our results and with other studies that assessed determinants of open research practices [ 70 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Researchers can then use the BCW to link these enablers of and barriers to specific behaviour change techniques [ 69 ]. The TDF and BCW have been applied to a diverse range of behaviours, including researcher use of open science practices [ 70 , 71 ]; however, research has not yet used this approach to promote journal implementation of open science policies. Figure 1 Behaviour Change Wheel.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…open science practices [70,71]; however, research has not yet used this approach to promote journal implementation of open science policies.…”
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.
Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self‐reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM‐B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM‐B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement.
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.
