The Invisible Workload of Open Research

Abstract

It is acknowledged that conducting open research requires additional time and effort compared to conducting ‘closed’ research. However, this additional work is often discussed only in abstract terms, a discourse which ignores the practicalities of how researchers are expected to find the time to engage with these practices in the context of their broader role as multifaceted academics. In the context of a sector that is blighted by stress, burnout, untenable workloads, and hyper-competitive pressures to produce, there is a clear danger that additional expectations to engage in open practices add to the workload burden and increase pressure on academics even further. In this article, the theories of academic capitalism and workload creep are used to explore how workload models currently exploit researchers by mismeasuring academic labour. The specific increase in workload resulting from open practices and associated administration is then outlined, including via the cumulative effects of administrative burden. It is argued that there is a high chance that without intervention, increased expectations to engage in open research practices may lead to unacceptable increases in demands on academics. Finally, the individual and systematic responsibilities to mitigate this are discussed.

Welcoming More Participation in Open Data Science for the Oceans

“…This shift deserves a celebration of the long-term work of the global open science movement, such that the motivation and benefits of open science are understood by researchers. Now, what is missing is how researchers can learn the skills to reap those benefits while continuing their disciplinary work and achieving a work-life balance (Hostler 2023). Even if open science practices will eventually make researchers more efficient, the learning curve may require an unacceptably high investment of time and effort that is unfeasible without paid time across career stages.…”

Reputation Without Practice? A Dynamic Computational Model of the Unintended Consequences of Open Scientist Reputations

“…The practice of OS requires more work and time compared to closed science (Hostler, 2023). New skills and knowledge need to be acquired and the research process involves additional steps, such as pre-registration, data and code cleaning, and additional administration (e.g., drafting openness agreements Hostler, 2023).…”

Valuing a broad range of research contributions through Team Infrastructure Roles: Why CRediT is not enough

“…Nevertheless, there are currently no formalised processes to acknowledge and credit these non-article research objects (Himanen et al, 2023;Vasilevsky et al, 2021). A new focus on these research outputs also risks increasing the number of dimensions on which individuals contributing to research are assessed (Himanen et al, 2023;Hostler, 2023). Furthermore, as long as the focus of research evaluation remains on outputs, research assessment will continue to fail to capture essential contributions to the research process that are less tangible, such as interpersonal skills involved in mentoring and community/project management.…”

“…On the other hand, other roles may not want this formal recognition because they lack the control over the article after their work is complete (see Matarese & Shashok, 2019 that describe the concerns that editors and translators may have about the quality of their contributions when changes occur during the writing process without their explicit approval). This more tailored assessment of individuals contributing to research may also dispel the idea that each individual has to excel in all research contributions (Himanen et al, 2023;Hostler, 2023), and would allow specialisation and development of expertise that would benefit research teams in tackling more complex research challenges.…”