Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2025-05-21 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.230061
Ashley Thomas, Chris Bourg, Rebecca Saxe
{"title":"Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.","authors":"Ashley Thomas, Chris Bourg, Rebecca Saxe","doi":"10.1098/rsos.230061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Open science advocates argue that publicly and freely available scientific manuscripts, data and code will have wide-reaching collective benefits. However, the adoption of open science practices may depend on the fit between researchers' perceptions of open science and the social dynamics of their field. For example, if researchers understand open science as primarily a means of cooperating with other researchers, its adoption may be faster and more effective among researchers who see their field as less competitive and less hierarchical. The present studies operationalize open science attitudes as plans to publicly share manuscripts/preprints, code, stimuli/instruments and data, as well as participants' perceptions of the importance of these practices. In Study 1, researchers perceived the social dynamics of their field (competition and hierarchy) as distinct from the traits of individuals in their field (warmth and competence). In Study 2, neither researchers' perceptions of social dynamics, nor their view of open science as motivated by cooperation, predicted their attitudes to open science practices. However, attitudes about open science were generally very positive among researchers who opt-in to a study about open science, limiting the variance to be explained. Moreover, people's self-reported motivations for sharing manuscripts and materials differed from their perceptions of why others share manuscripts and materials. Study 3 tested the same questions in an independent and more representative sample. Results of Study 3 agreed with results of Study 2: neither researchers' perceptions of social dynamics, nor their view of open science as motivated by cooperation, predicted their open science practices. Again, attitudes about open science were generally very positive among researchers even in this representative sample and people's self-reported motivations for sharing manuscripts and materials differed from their perceptions of why others share manuscripts and materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":"12 5","pages":"230061"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230061","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Open science advocates argue that publicly and freely available scientific manuscripts, data and code will have wide-reaching collective benefits. However, the adoption of open science practices may depend on the fit between researchers' perceptions of open science and the social dynamics of their field. For example, if researchers understand open science as primarily a means of cooperating with other researchers, its adoption may be faster and more effective among researchers who see their field as less competitive and less hierarchical. The present studies operationalize open science attitudes as plans to publicly share manuscripts/preprints, code, stimuli/instruments and data, as well as participants' perceptions of the importance of these practices. In Study 1, researchers perceived the social dynamics of their field (competition and hierarchy) as distinct from the traits of individuals in their field (warmth and competence). In Study 2, neither researchers' perceptions of social dynamics, nor their view of open science as motivated by cooperation, predicted their attitudes to open science practices. However, attitudes about open science were generally very positive among researchers who opt-in to a study about open science, limiting the variance to be explained. Moreover, people's self-reported motivations for sharing manuscripts and materials differed from their perceptions of why others share manuscripts and materials. Study 3 tested the same questions in an independent and more representative sample. Results of Study 3 agreed with results of Study 2: neither researchers' perceptions of social dynamics, nor their view of open science as motivated by cooperation, predicted their open science practices. Again, attitudes about open science were generally very positive among researchers even in this representative sample and people's self-reported motivations for sharing manuscripts and materials differed from their perceptions of why others share manuscripts and materials.

关于社会动态和开放科学的信念。
开放科学的倡导者认为,公开和免费提供的科学手稿、数据和代码将带来广泛的集体利益。然而,开放科学实践的采用可能取决于研究人员对开放科学的看法与他们所在领域的社会动态之间的契合度。例如,如果研究人员理解开放科学主要是一种与其他研究人员合作的手段,那么在那些认为自己的领域竞争不那么激烈、等级不那么高的研究人员中,开放科学的采用可能会更快、更有效。目前的研究将开放科学态度作为公开分享手稿/预印本、代码、刺激/工具和数据的计划,以及参与者对这些做法重要性的看法付诸实施。在研究1中,研究人员认为他们所在领域的社会动态(竞争和等级)与他们所在领域的个人特征(热情和能力)截然不同。在研究2中,无论是研究人员对社会动态的看法,还是他们认为开放科学是由合作驱动的观点,都不能预测他们对开放科学实践的态度。然而,在选择参与开放科学研究的研究人员中,对开放科学的态度通常是非常积极的,这限制了方差的解释。此外,人们自我报告的分享手稿和材料的动机与他们对他人分享手稿和材料的原因的看法不同。研究3在一个独立且更具代表性的样本中测试了同样的问题。研究3的结果与研究2的结果一致:无论是研究人员对社会动态的看法,还是他们认为开放科学是由合作驱动的观点,都不能预测他们的开放科学实践。同样,即使在这个代表性样本中,研究人员对开放科学的态度总体上也是非常积极的,人们自我报告的分享手稿和材料的动机与他们对他人分享手稿和材料的原因的看法不同。
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
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信