Open Science/Week 11: Incentives for Open Science

Learning Outcomes

 * Describe barriers that discourage researchers from adopting open science practices.
 * List examples of how open science practices benefit researchers.
 * Compare incentives to other approaches used to encourage open science, such as mandates and requirements.

Readings
“Point of View: Motivating Participation in Open Science by Examining Researcher Incentives” by Ali-Khan, S. E., Harris, L. W., & Gold, E. R. in eLife, 6.e29319, 2016, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 12 pages.

“Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed” by McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., et al. in eLife, 5, e16800, 2016, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 19 pages.

“Sticks and Carrots: Encouraging Open Science at its Source” by Leonelli, S., Spichtinger, D.; & Prainsack, B in Geo: Geography and Environment, 2(1), 2015, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 5 pages.

Discussion Question
What role should incentives play in encouraging researchers to adopt open science practices? Are they necessary? Why or why not?

Conclude your post with a question for others to answer.

Self-check Questions


{What is the purpose of open science, according to the article “Motivating Participation in Open Science by Examining Researcher Incentives” by Ali-Khan, Harris, and Gold? +To accelerate scientific discovery and application -To support access to science as a human right -To advance the careers of individual researchers -None of the above
 * type=""}
 * Correct! This assumption about the purpose of open science is well-explained in paragraph 1 of the introduction.
 * Try again. The article does not mention the human right to science. Rights are mainly discussed in the context of privacy and informed consent.
 * Try again. The article primarily discusses open science as a barrier to individual researchers, one that should be countered with appropriate incentives.
 * Try again. See especially paragraph 1 of the introduction.

{Which of the following features of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) case study make it an especially challenging setting for open science? See “Motivating Participation in Open Science by Examining Researcher Incentives” by Ali-Khan, Harris, and Gold. Choose the best answer. -It involves research on human subjects. -The scientific culture of biomedicine is highly competitive. -Commercial returns to innovations in this field can be very high. +All of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Try again. This answer is correct, but it is not the only answer, or the best answer. See the Discussion section of the paper.
 * Try again. This answer is correct, but it is not the only answer, or the best answer. See the Discussion section of the paper.
 * Try again. This answer is correct, but it is not the only answer, or the best answer. See the Discussion section of the paper.
 * Correct! The MNI case study is set in an especially challenging environment for open science because of the privacy concerns related to research on human subjects, the potentially high commercial returns to innovation, and the resulting competitive culture.

{In “How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed,” McKiernan and colleagues look at the costs and benefits of open science from the perspective of which party? Choose the best answer. -society as a whole +individual researchers -institutions -all of the above
 * type=""}
 * Try again. See the Introduction.
 * Correct! In the introduction, the authors describe their approach as “researcher-centric.”
 * Try again. See the Introduction.
 * Try again. See the Introduction

{The approach taken by McKiernan and colleagues in “How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed” is best described by which term? -ethical. -moral -utilitarian +pragmatic
 * type=""}
 * Try again. The authors acknowledge that ethical, moral, and utilitarian approaches are often used to advocate for open science, but place their approach in contrast to these perspectives.
 * Try again. The authors acknowledge that ethical, moral, and utilitarian approaches are often used to advocate for open science, but place their approach in contrast to these perspectives.
 * Try again. The authors acknowledge that ethical, moral, and utilitarian approaches are often used to advocate for open science, but place their approach in contrast to these perspectives.
 * Correct! The authors describe their approach, a focus on the costs and benefits to individual researchers, as “practical,” a synonym for pragmatic.

{In “Sticks and Carrots: Encouraging Open Science at its Source” which organization do the authors (Leonelli, Spichtinger, and Prainsack) say is in the best position to train researchers on data sharing practices? +learned societies -universities -funders -software vendors
 * type=""}
 * Correct! The authors believe learned societies, also known as professional or disciplinary associations, are best positioned to train on data sharing because they will be familiar with how data is used in specific fields.
 * Try again. The authors mention universities, but describe another type of organization as better suited to provide training on data sharing.
 * Try again. The authors mention funders, but describe another type of organization as better suited to provide training on data sharing.
 * Try again. The authors mention universities and funders, but describe another type of organization as better suited to provide training on data sharing.

{Bonus/ Alternative question}

{Which research method is used by McKiernan and colleagues in “How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed”? +literature review -randomized controlled trial -quantitative analysis of bibliometric data -qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews
 * type=""}
 * Correct!
 * Try again.
 * Try again.
 * Try again.