From Policy to Practice: Tracking an Open Science Funding Initiative

Ratan, K.; McIntosh, S.; Shah, H. V.; Lewis, M.; Dumanis, S. B.; Vines, T. H.; Schekman, R.; Riley, E. A. U.

doi:10.1101/2023.02.27.530238

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2023.02.27.530238

From Policy to Practice: Tracking an Open Science Funding Initiative

Ratan, K.·McIntosh, S.·Shah, H. V.·Lewis, M.·Dumanis, S. B.·Vines, T. H.·Schekman, R.·Riley, E. A. U.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This is a critical moment in the open science landscape. Over the past few years there has been growing momentum to improve open research policies and require grantees to share all research outputs, from datasets to code to protocols, in FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable [FAIR]) repositories with persistent identifiers attached. The Aligning Science Across Parkinsons (ASAP) initiative has made substantial investments in improving open science compliance monitoring for its grantees, requiring grantees to update their manuscripts if not all research outputs have been linked in the initial manuscript version. Here, we evaluate ASAPs effectiveness in improving research output sharing for all articles processed through the ASAP compliance workflow between March 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. Our ultimate goal in sharing our findings is to assist other funders and institutions as they consider open science implementation. By normalizing the open science and compliance process across funding bodies, we hope to simplify and streamline researcher, institutional, and funder workflows, allowing researchers to focus on science by easily leveraging resources and building upon the work of others.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ratan, K., McIntosh, S., Shah, H. V., Lewis, M., Dumanis, S. B., Vines, T. H., Schekman, R., Riley, E. A. U.. 2023-02-28. From Policy to Practice: Tracking an Open Science Funding Initiative. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.27.530238

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

The influence of visual attention on letter recognition and reading acquisition in Arabic

The present study sets out to explore the cognitive underpinnings of reading acquisition in Arabic. Previous studies have identified phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming as early predictors. However, the graphic complexity of Arabic letters imposes particular constraints on the visual system, which should mobilize visual attention. To test this hypothesis, 101 Arabic-speaking children who just began their formal reading instruction in Arabic were administered tests of syllable and word reading. Their nonverbal reasoning, vocabulary, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming and letter knowledge were measured. Their visual attention was estimated through tasks of visual attention span. We found that phonological awareness, visual attention span and letter knowledge were associated with reading outcomes. However, regression analyses showed that the relationship between visual attention span and reading disappeared when letter knowledge was taken-into-account. We used structural equation modeling to examine the direct and indirect effects of visual attention span to reading. Results showed that phonological awareness and letter knowledge were significant and independent predictors of reading while visual attention span contributed only indirectly through its influence on letter knowledge. Our findings suggest that beginning readers rely on visual attention to identify and discriminate visually-complex Arabic letters. In turn, more efficient letter identification in children with higher visual attention facilitates reading acquisition. These findings support the cognitive models of word recognition that include visual attention as a component of the reading system. They open new perspectives for cross-language studies, suggesting that visual attention might contribute differently to reading depending on the orthographic system. They also provide a foundation for innovative teaching methodologies in Arabic language education.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists, we describe journalists awareness of these controversies and the ways in which that awareness, in turn, shapes the practices they use to select, verify, and communicate research. Our findings suggest that journalists perceptions of debates in scholarly communication vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. We discuss the benefits and risks of these varied perceptions and practices, highlighting the implications for the nature of the research media coverage that reaches the public.

scientific communication and education↗