bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.10.12.464125

Applying And Promoting Open Science In Ecology - Surveyed Drivers And Challenges

Stromme, C. B.·Lane, A. K.·Halbritter, A. H.·Law, E.·Nater, C. R.·Nilsen, E. B.·Boutouli, G. D.·Egelkraut, D. D.·Telford, R. J.·Vandvik, V.·Cotner, S. H.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Open Science (OS) comprises a variety of practices and principles that are broadly intended to improve the quality and transparency of research, and the concept is gaining traction. Since OS has multiple facets and still lacks a unifying definition, it may be interpreted quite differently among practitioners. Moreover, successfully implementing OS broadly throughout science requires a better understanding of the conditions that facilitate or hinder OS engagement, and in particular, how practitioners learn OS in the first place. We addressed these issues by surveying OS practitioners that attended a workshop hosted by the Living Norway Ecological Data Network in 2020. The survey contained scaled-response and open-ended questions, allowing for a mixed-methods approach. Out of 128 registered participants we obtained survey responses from 60 individuals. Responses indicated usage and sharing of data and code, as well as open access publications, as the OS aspects most frequently engaged with. Men and those affiliated with academic institutions reported more frequent engagement with OS than women and those with other affiliations. When it came to learning OS practices, only a minority of respondents reported having encountered OS in their own formal education. Consistent with this, a majority of respondents viewed OS as less important in their teaching than in their research and supervision. Even so, many of the respondents suggestions for what would help or hinder individual OS engagement included more knowledge, guidelines, resource availability and social and structural support; indicating that formal instruction can facilitate individual OS engagement. We suggest that the time is ripe to incorporate OS in teaching and learning, as this can yield substantial benefits to OS practitioners, student learning, and ultimately, the objectives advanced by the OS movement.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stromme, C. B., Lane, A. K., Halbritter, A. H., Law, E., Nater, C. R., Nilsen, E. B., Boutouli, G. D., Egelkraut, D. D., Telford, R. J., Vandvik, V., Cotner, S. H.. 2021-10-12. Applying And Promoting Open Science In Ecology - Surveyed Drivers And Challenges. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.12.464125

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↗
bioRxiv2023

Insights from a survey of mentorship experiences by graduate and postdoctoral researchers

Mentorship is vital for early career researchers in training positions, allowing them to navigate the challenges of work and life in research environments. However, the quality of mentorship received by trainees can vary by investigator and by institution. One challenge faced by those hoping to improve trainee mentorship is that the extent to which mentorship is offered to and experienced by research trainees is not well characterized. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a survey to examine the quality of mentorship received by trainees in research environments, to identify characteristics of positive and negative mentorship, and to highlight best practices to improve trainee mentorship. We received 2,114 responses from researchers at graduate and postdoctoral career stages worldwide. Quantitative analysis showed that at least [~]25-45% of respondents were dissatisfied with some aspects of their mentorship. Qualitative responses revealed that common issues in mentorship include unclear expectations in research and mentoring interactions, lack of guidance, and inadequate support of trainee independence and career goals. Our findings also identified key mentorship elements desired by trainee mentees. Based on trainee suggestions, we describe strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions to improve the training experience for graduate and postdoctoral researchers.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

Supporting diamond open access journals. Interest and feasibility of direct funding mechanisms

More and more academics and governements consider that the open access model based on Article Processing Charges (APC) is problematic, not only due to the inequalities it generates and reinforces, but also because it has become unsustainable and even opposed to open access values. They consider that scientific publishing based on a model where both authors and readers do not pay - the so-called Diamond, or non-APC model - should be developed and supported. However, beyond the display of such a support on an international scale, the landscape of Diamond journals is rather in the form of loosely connected archipelagos, and not systematically funded. This article explores the practical conditions to implement a direct funding mechanism to such journals, that is reccurent money provided by a funder to support the publication process. Following several recommendations from institutional actors in the open access world, we consider the hypothesis that such a funding would be fostered by research funding organizations (RFOs), which have been essential to the expansion of the APC model, and now show interest in supporting other models. Based on a questionnaire survey sent to more thant 1000 Diamond Open Access journals, this article analyzes their financial needs, as well as their capacity to interact with funders. It is structured around four issues regarding the implementation of a direct funding model : Do Diamond journals really make use of money, and to what end ? Do they need additional money? Are they able to engage monetary transactions? Are they able to meet RFOs visibility requirements? We show that a majority of OA Diamond journals could make use of a direct funding mechanism with certain adjustments. We conclude on the challenges that such a financial stream would spur.

scientific communication and education↗