Funders need to credit open science

Jonge, Hans de; Cruz, María; Holst, Stephanie

doi:10.1038/d41586-021-03418-1

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Incentives for open science require careful consideration. Many have been proposed, including changing hiring practices to support open data, open materials and preregistration [79][80][81], open science leaderboards [82], journal scores based on transparency [83], badges acknowledging open science on published papers [84], and assessment of open science practices by funders [85]. These incentives must allow limited disclosure when it is justified on the basis of safety or security concerns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science practices and risks arising from misuse of biological research

Smith¹,

Sandbrink²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of open science may inadvertently increase the chance of deliberate or accidental misuse of research. Here, we examine the interaction between open science practices and biosecurity and biosafety to identify risks and opportunities for risk mitigation. We argue that open data, code, and materials may increase risks from research with misuse potential, despite their general importance. For instance, increased access to protocols, datasets, and computational methods for viral engineering may increase the risk of release of enhanced pathogens. For this dangerous subset of research, both open science and biosecurity goals may be achieved by using access-controlled repositories or application programming interfaces. The increased use of preprints could challenge any strategy for risk mitigation that relies on assessment at the publication stage, emphasising the need for earlier oversight in the research lifecycle. Preregistration of research, a practice promoted by the open science community, provides an opportunity for achieving biosecurity risk assessment at the conception of research. Open science and biosecurity experts have an important role to play in enabling responsible research with maximal societal benefit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science practices and risks arising from misuse of biological research

Smith¹,

Sandbrink²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Incentives for open science require careful consideration. Many have been proposed, including changing hiring practices to support open data, open materials and preregistration [ 83 – 85 ], open science leaderboards [ 86 ], journal scores based on transparency [ 87 ], badges acknowledging open science on published papers [ 88 ], and assessment of open science practices by funders [ 89 ]. These incentives must allow limited disclosure when it is justified on the basis of safety or security concerns.…”

Section: The Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosecurity in an age of open science

Smith

Sandbrink

2022

PLoS Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk of accidental or deliberate misuse of biological research is increasing as biotechnology advances. As open science becomes widespread, we must consider its impact on those risks and develop solutions that ensure security while facilitating scientific progress. Here, we examine the interaction between open science practices and biosecurity and biosafety to identify risks and opportunities for risk mitigation. Increasing the availability of computational tools, datasets, and protocols could increase risks from research with misuse potential. For instance, in the context of viral engineering, open code, data, and materials may increase the risk of release of enhanced pathogens. For this dangerous subset of research, both open science and biosecurity goals may be achieved by using access-controlled repositories or application programming interfaces. While preprints accelerate dissemination of findings, their increased use could challenge strategies for risk mitigation at the publication stage. This highlights the importance of oversight earlier in the research lifecycle. Preregistration of research, a practice promoted by the open science community, provides an opportunity for achieving biosecurity risk assessment at the conception of research. Open science and biosecurity experts have an important role to play in enabling responsible research with maximal societal benefit.

show abstract

“…Similarly, efforts to crowdsource replication studies should be given the same weight in such assessments as novel research studies (see Koole & Lakens, 2012). It is hoped that open science reform will shift incentives so that what is good for the scientist is also good for science (Frith, 2020) and there is growing pressure from the academic community for institutions, government, publishers, and funders to recognize the value of big team science to produce impactful, reproducible, and reliable research (de Jonge et al, 2021; Stewart et al, 2021).…”

Section: Challenges and Remediesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond online participant crowdsourcing: The benefits and opportunities of big team addiction science.

Pennington¹,

Jones²,

Tzavella³

et al. 2022

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participant crowdsourcing platforms (e.g., MTurk, Prolific) offer numerous advantages to addiction science, permitting access to hard-to-reach populations and enhancing the feasibility of complex experimental, longitudinal, and intervention studies. Yet these are met with equal concerns about participant nonnaivety, motivation, and careless responding, which if not considered can greatly compromise data quality. In this article, we discuss an alternative crowdsourcing avenue that overcomes these issues whilst presenting its own unique advantages-crowdsourcing researchers through big team science. First, we review several contemporary efforts within psychology (e.g., ManyLabs, Psychological Science Accelerator) and the benefits these would yield if they were more widely implemented in addiction science. We then outline our own consortium-based approach to empirical dissertations: a grassroots initiative that trains students in reproducible big team addiction science. In doing so, we discuss potential challenges and their remedies, as well as providing resources to help addiction researchers develop these initiatives. Through researcher crowdsourcing, together we can answer fundamental scientific questions about substance use and addiction, build a literature that is representative of a diverse population of researchers and participants, and ultimately achieve our goal of promoting better global health. Public Health SignificanceThis special issue on "crowdsourcing methods in addiction science" focuses on best practices and emerging research that uses online participant recruitment platforms. An alternative method is that of crowdsourcing researchers through big team science. In this article, we: (a) review contemporary researcher crowdsourcing efforts and the benefits these would bring to addiction science; (b) outline our approach to teaching students in reproducible big team addiction science; and (c) evaluate challenges and their remedies, as well as providing resources, to help others develop these initiatives.

show abstract

Funders need to credit open science

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Open science practices and risks arising from misuse of biological research

Open science practices and risks arising from misuse of biological research

Biosecurity in an age of open science

Beyond online participant crowdsourcing: The benefits and opportunities of big team addiction science.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About