Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

What’s Next for Open Science — Making the Case for Open Methods – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | February 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on March 7, 2021
Keywords: Collaborative research, Journal, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On February 25, 2021

The word "ACCESS" and a padlock on a keyboard key

Author’s Note: This post is based on a talk I gave this week at NISO Plus 2021.

25 years or so after journals first went online, we’re just on the cusp of realizing what that really means in terms of reporting research results. Our first efforts, really our first decades, were spent recreating the analog print experience for journal readers – monthly issues filled with PDFs of laid out, space-limited articles. But there’s a lot that happens over the course of a research project, and while the resulting paper provides a really useful summary of that project, a lot gets left behind and never sees the light of day.

A very interesting Scholarly Kitchen piece about the road to open science, through open data, open methods/protocols and making a research project transparent and more reproducible.

What we’re realizing as a community, is that we’re leaving an enormous amount of value on the table, and that if we can do a better job of capturing, preserving, and making available more of the research workflow, we’ll drive better transparency and reliability of the research conclusions, and improve efficiency and the return on the investment we make in research funding.

On the surface, this seems like an obvious idea, creating a detailed public record of everything that happens every day throughout a research project. In the real world though, this runs into practical limitations. Storage space, discovery, and infrastructure issues aside, this is a huge ask and a huge timesink. In nearly every talk I’ve given over the last 15 years or so, I’ve used some variant of the phrase, “time is a researcher’s most precious commodity”, and this continues to ring true.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Related Reading

Open Access, Conspiracy Theories and the Democratization of Knowledge – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | February 2021)

Against Research Waste – How the Evidence-Based Research paradigm promotes more ethical and innovative research – London School of Economics (Caroline Blaine, et al | February 2021)

‘Conference organizers have ignored this:’ How common is plagiarism and duplication in abstracts? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | February 2021)

(Russia) Unethical Practices in Research and Publishing: Evidence from Russia – Scholarly Kitchen (Anna Abalkina | February 2021)

Citing Software in Scholarly Publishing to Improve Reproducibility, Reuse, and Credit – Scholarly Kitchen ( Daniel S. Katz & Hollydawn Murray | January 2021)

Redesign open science for Asia, Africa and Latin America – Nature (Sandersan Onie | November 2020)

Changes in the Scientific Information Environment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Importance of Scientific Situational Awareness in Responding to the Infodemic – Mary Ann Liebert, Inc (John K. Iskander | December 2020)

(US) Harvard Data Science Review explores reproducibility and replicability in science – EurekAlert (Amy Harris | December 2020)

(China) China’s ‘paper mills’ are grinding out fake scientific research at an alarming rate – coda (Isobel Cockerell | November 2020)

(EU) Largest ever research integrity survey flounders as universities refuse to cooperate – Science (Jop de Vrieze | November 2020)

Data Sets Are Foundational to Research. Why Don’t We Cite Them? – EOS (Suresh Vannan | November 2020)

(Australia) Michael Briggs 1935-1986. Faked data on the safety of oral contraceptive preparations taken by millions of women – Dr Geoff (December 2017)

(Germany) Institutions can retool to make research more rigorous – Nature (Ulrich Dirnagl | October 2020)

‘Each scientist must stand up, at all costs, for the truth’ – Times Higher Education (David A. Sanders | July 2020)

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk – Nature (Niels Mejlgaard, et al | October 2020)

Dozens of scientific journals have vanished from the internet, and no one preserved them – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | September 2020)

Open-access Plan S to allow publishing in any journal – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | July 2020)

How to be an ethical scientist – Science (William A. Cunningham | August 2020)

(EU) French hydroxychloroquine study has “major methodological shortcomings” and is “fully irresponsible,” says review, but is not being retracted – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | July 2019)

(UK) Data From A Top Geneticist’s Lab Was Flagged To A Major UK University. It Didn’t Launch A Formal Investigation Until A Decade Later – Buzzfeed (Peter Aldhous | January 2020)

(China) How to tackle academic misconduct among China’s top scientists – Times Higher Education (Futao Huang | January 2020)

Publishers roll out alternative routes to open access – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2020)

Ambitious open-access Plan S delayed to let research community adapt – Nature (Holly Else | May 2019)

How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry – Issues in Science and Technology (Mark Neff | January 2020)

(China) China bans cash rewards for publishing papers – Nature (Smriti Mallapaty | February 2020)

(Europe) Science shouldn’t be for sale – we need reform to industry-funded studies to keep people safe – The Guardian (Carey Gillam

Oops!… I Did It Again. When to correct or retract? – Science Integrity Digest (Elisabeth Bik | January 2020)

Honesty in authorship. Who’s on first? – Hindawi (Eva Amsen | January 2020)

(Russia) Putin wanted Russian science to top the world. Then a huge academic scandal blew up – The Washington Post (Robyn Dixon | January 2020)

Working with research integrity – guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement (Resource | February 2018)

Eleven tips for working with large data sets – Nature (Anna Nowogrodzki | January 2020)

(US) FDA and NIH let clinical trial sponsors keep results secret and break the law – Science (Charles Piller | January 2020)

(US) Politics and Open Access – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | December 2019)

Citizen scientists ‘deserve more credit’ – Cosmos (Nick Carne | December 2019)

‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

Contract cheating will erode trust in science – Nature (Tracey Bretag | October 2019)

(US) Columbia historian stepping down after plagiarism finding – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2019)

Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career – Nature (Gabriel Popkin | May 2019)

The gold rush: Why open access will boost publisher profits – LSE Impact Blog (Shaun Khoo | June 2019)

(Australia) Materials scientist up to five retractions as publishers investigate dozens of his papers – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | August 2019)

(Australia) ‘Bad science’: Australian studies found to be unreliable, compromised – Sydney Morning Herald (Liam Mannix | July 2019)

Not Reporting Results of a Clinical Trial Is Academic Misconduct – ACP (Editorial | Joshua D. Wallach, MS, PhD; Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM | May 2019)

Misreporting the science of lab-made organs is unethical, even dangerous – The Conversation (Cathal D. O’Connell | May 2019)

Research integrity is much more than misconduct – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus | June 2019)

(Includes an update 07/06/2019) A report about Plan S’s potential effects on journals marks a busy week for the open-access movement – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2019)

Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility – Nature ( Dorothy Bishop | April 2019)

Open Access, Academic Freedom, and the Spectrum of Coercive Power – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | November 2018)

Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers? – Science (Tania Rabesandratana | January 2019)

(US) Overdue: a US advisory board for research integrity – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus, et al | February 2019)

(UK) Crackdown on unreported trials is good news for researchers – *Research (Till Bruckner | November 2018)

Funder open access platforms – a welcome innovation? – LSE Impact Blog (Tony Ross-Hellauer, et al | July 2018)

Reboot undergraduate courses for reproducibility – Nature (Katherine Button | September 2018)

The main obstacles to better research data management and sharing are cultural. But change is in our hands – LSE Blog (Marta Teperek and Alastair Dunning | November 2018)

Recognizing Contributions and Giving Credit – EOS Editors’ Vox (Brooks Hanson and Susan Webb | August 2018)

(Australia) Outrage over minister cancelling research grants – University World News (Geoff Maslen | October 2018)

Opening up peer review – Science (Editorial – August 2018)

(China) New policy aims to free scientists to focus on research, avoid jumping through hoops – ECNS.CN (Li Yan | July 2018)

What factors do scientists perceive as promoting or hindering scientific data reuse? – LSE Impact Blog (Renata Gonçalves Curty, et al | March 2018)

“A concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety:” Nursing reviews cite retracted trials – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | January 2018)

Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with Credible Practices – Extramural Nexus (Mike Lauer | November 2017)

Battling bad science – TED Talks (Ben Goldacre | 2011)

A bold open-access push in Germany could change the future of academic publishing – Science (Gretchen Vogel and Kai Kupferschmidt | August 2017)

Clickbait and impact: how academia has been hacked – LSE Impact Blog (Portia Roelofs & Max Gallien | September 2017)

(China) “The data have spoken:” Controversial NgAgo gene editing study retracted – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | August 2017)

Sharing Data and Materials in Psychological Science – Sage Journals (D. Stephen Lindsay | April 2017)

“Failure is an essential part of science:” A Q&A with the author of a new book on reproducibility – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2017)

What Is Big Data? A Super-Easy Intro For Everyone – LinkedIn (Bernard Marr | March 2017)

Publishing and sharing data papers can increase impact and benefits researchers, publishers, funders and libraries – LSE Impact Blog (Fiona Murphy | October 2016)

Why is the scientific replication crisis centered on psychology? – Statistical Modelling, Causal Inference, and Social Science (Andrew: September 2016)

The long march to open science – Horizons (Sven Titz September 2016)

More Time on Transparency: Political scientists debate standards adopted by leading publications – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty 2015)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in