Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study.

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics

F1000Research Pub Date : 2025-03-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.155832.1

Jaisson Cenci, Marcos Britto Correa, Lex Bouter, David Moher, Ewald Bronkhorst, Marina Christ Franco, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Marie Charlotte Huysmans, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci

{"title":"Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study.","authors":"Jaisson Cenci, Marcos Britto Correa, Lex Bouter, David Moher, Ewald Bronkhorst, Marina Christ Franco, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Marie Charlotte Huysmans, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.155832.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University.Methods: Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants' perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers' evaluation system.Results: Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants' perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course.Conclusions: The number of participants' OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants' perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future.","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"14 ","pages":"318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12120411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University.

Methods: Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants' perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers' evaluation system.

Results: Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants' perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course.

Conclusions: The number of participants' OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants' perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future.

查看原文本刊更多论文

促进开放科学和负责任的研究实践：一项前后研究。

背景：教育举措可以促进开放科学（OS）和负责任的研究实践（rrp）的采用。本单组研究评估了教育干预对提高巴西一所大学研究生对采用OS实践和rrp的依从性、知识和认知的影响。方法：邀请巴西南部一所大学的研究生参加一门关于OS和rrp的课程。干预是一个关于OS和rrp的在线互动课程。在干预前后收集每位参与者的OS输出数量，包括开放科学框架（OSF）账户、研究注册、协议、分析计划、数据集、预印本和发表的项目数量。此外，在干预前后分别使用一份自我管理的在线问卷来评估参与者对rrp、OS实践和当前研究人员评估系统的看法。结果：84名学生完成了课程，80名学生同意参加研究。课程结束后，OSF账户数量从7个增加到78个，项目数量从7个增加到10个。6个月和12个月后分别没有发现登记、方案、分析计划、数据集或预印本。参与者对当前研究评估体系的看法以及对OS实践和rrp的看法随着干预而积极改变。此外，课程结束后，采用注册、协议和预印本出版物等做法的意愿明显增加。结论：干预后，参与者的OSF输出数量几乎没有改善。最重要的影响差异可以从参与者的看法和未来坚持这种做法的意图来确定。

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

F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

1646

审稿时长

1 weeks

期刊介绍： F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.