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

Abstract

The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect 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. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that 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 of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

Making conservation science more reliable with preregistration and registered reports

“…A major benefit of a registered report is that the decision to accept or reject, and possibly more important, the decision to submit or not, is independent of the outcome of the study. In fact, registered reports include nonsignificant findings at a dramatically higher rate than typical papers (Allen & Mehler ), which is excellent evidence that they reduce bias. The spread of this results‐blind publication is thus already increasing reliability of the literature.…”

Forensic Science needs Registered Reports

“…One recent analysis found that studies conducted as RRs support the main hypothesis just 45% of the time (see Figure 2) [26]. This contrasts with the traditional scientific literature, which contains an overwhelming and unlikely percentage of positive findings (80-95%) [26]. Anecdotally, one editor has reported that early stage peer review has also been a useful part of the process: "One of the most striking characteristics of RRs is that they can help authors to improve the protocol or rationale while it is still possible to make changes.…”

“…Early returns on RRs are encouraging. One recent analysis found that studies conducted as RRs support the main hypothesis just 45% of the time (see Figure 2) [26]. This contrasts with the traditional scientific literature, which contains an overwhelming and unlikely percentage of positive findings (80-95%) [26].…”

Does the scholarly communication system satisfy the beliefs and aspirations of new researchers? Summarizing the Harbingers research

“…As subtle and scattered as the discernible changes in their attitudes and practices may be, there are still indications that, in some areas, today's ECRs are prepared to stray from the well‐trodden scholarly path, especially when these are in line with their millennial beliefs and/or are promising in terms of career advancement and reputational gains. Open access publishing, as part of the wider ideology of Open Science, is certainly a case in point, said to have a host of societal and individual‐level benefits (Allen & Mehler, ; Enago Academy, ; McKiernan et al ., ). Indeed, junior researchers have been found to manifest much more positive views of open access than their senior counterparts (Nicholas et al ., ; Ruiz‐Pérez & Delgado‐López‐Cózar, ; Tenopir et al ., ), to the extent that they are even more interested than their older colleagues in replacing the traditional subscription‐based system with an open access one (Blankstein & Wolff‐Eisenberg, ; Wolff, Rod, & Schonfeld, ).…”