Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey.

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0315632
Florencia Grattarola, Hanna Shmagun, Christopher Erdmann, Anne Cambon-Thomsen, Mogens Thomsen, Jaesoo Kim, Laurence Mabile
{"title":"Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey.","authors":"Florencia Grattarola, Hanna Shmagun, Christopher Erdmann, Anne Cambon-Thomsen, Mogens Thomsen, Jaesoo Kim, Laurence Mabile","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0315632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0315632"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11649118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315632","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

开放科学活动与实际识别系统之间的差距:来自一项国际调查的见解。
全球正在掀起一场旨在推动改革传统科研评估和奖励制度的运动。然而,对各机构将开放科学纳入这些框架的现有最佳实践和努力的全面了解仍然不足,也不完全清楚。本研究的目的是确定全球各研究团体对开放科学活动如何(或应该如何)得到正式认可和奖励的看法和期望。为此,我们在研究数据联盟的框架内开展了一项全球调查,招募了来自五大洲 37 个国家的 230 名参与者。尽管大多数参与者表示,他们所在的组织有这样或那样的正式开放科学政策,但大多数人表示,他们所在的组织缺乏为开放科学活动提供具体积分或奖励的举措或工具。不过,来自法国、美国、荷兰和芬兰的研究人员肯定了他们已经建立了这样的机制。研究发现,在各种开放科学活动中,开放或 FAIR 数据管理和共享尤其值得明确认可和奖励。研究评估和/或职业发展过程中的开放科学指标成为最受欢迎的奖励类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信