Thibault, R. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2024

Investing in Open Science: Key Considerations for Funders

The open science movement aims to transform the research landscape by promoting research transparency in order to enable reproducibility and replicability, lower the barriers for collaboration, and reduce unnecessary duplication. Recently, in recognition of the value of open science, funding agencies have begun to mandate open science policies as a condition in grantee awards. However, operationalization and implementation of an open science policy can have unanticipated costs and logistical barriers, which can impact both the funder, as well as the grantee. These factors should be considered when implementing an open science policy. The Aligning Science Across Parkinsons (ASAP) initiative utilizes a comprehensive open science policy, which, in addition to requiring immediate free online access to all publications, also requires all newly-generated datasets, protocols, code, and key lab materials be shared by the time of publication. Moreover, preprints must be posted to a preprint repository by the time of manuscript submission to a journal for review. Here, we outline the potential costs associated with implementing and enforcing this open science policy. We recommend that funders take these considerations into account when investing in open science policies within the biomedical research ecosystem.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey

We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility, and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and e-mails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting replication studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was significant. The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a pressure to publish with 62% of participants indicating it always or very often contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researchers study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research; and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.

scientific communication and education↗