Open Science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Abstract

The movement towards open science is an unavoidable consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to afflict those who carry out the research, usually Early Career Researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits including reputational gains, increased chances of publication and a broader increase in the reliability of research. These are balanced by challenges that we have encountered, and which involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality and plausibility of research. We review three benefits, three challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices.

Convergence science in the Anthropocene: Navigating the known and unknown

“…Concomitantly, the competition for prestige and the financial survival of journals makes it still more attractive to publish positive findings (Joober, Schmitz, Annable, & Boksa, ). These factors are especially important for early career scientists who need to ‘play the game’ for developing their careers (Allen & Mehler, ). Convergence science needs to play a major role to address these issues and further develop initiatives that transform the current dissemination culture in academia.…”

Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019

“…Akin to the approach taken for clinical trials, protocol registration has emerged as a mechanism that is likely to improve the transparency of animal research [215,220,221]. Registering a protocol before the start of the experiment enables researchers to demonstrate that the hypothesis, approach and analysis were planned in advance and not shaped by data as they emerged; it enhances scientific rigour and protects the researcher against concerns about selective reporting of results [222,223]. A protocol should consist of a) the question being addressed and the key features of the research that is proposed, such as the hypothesis being tested and the primary outcome measure (if applicable), the statistical analysis plan; and b) the laboratory procedures to be used to perform the planned experiment.…”

Ramsey_open_science

“…However, I acknowledge that such a rosy view of reform may not be shared by all (Houtkoop et al, 2018), and especially not early career researchers (ECRs). With such mammoth reform looming large and community expectations for eye-catching findings and publication numbers being slow to update, the threat of a career ending before it begins is ever more tangible (Allen & Mehler, 2019). So, what are ECRs, especially, to do?…”

“…In my view, ECRs must take ownership and make open science best-practice a clear commitment that is front and centre in their research programme and clearly document this in their CVs (Dougherty, Slevc, & Grand, 2019). By explicitly articulating that not all scientific outputs are created equal, ECRs can maximise the career benefits of open science (McKiernan et al, 2016), whilst making it easier for hiring committees to see just how much added value has been produced and who may be in in a position to drive substantial change in future research (Allen & Mehler, 2019).…”