Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

Kelly D Cobey; Stefanie Haustein; Jamie Brehaut; Ulrich Dirnagl; Delwen L Franzen; Lars G Hemkens; Justin Presseau; Nico Riedel; Daniel Strech; Juan Pablo Alperin; Rodrigo Costas; Emily S Sena; Thed van Leeuwen; Clare L Ardern; Isabel O L Bacellar; Nancy Camack; Marcos Britto Correa; Roberto Buccione; Maximiliano Sergio Cenci; Dean A Fergusson; Cassandra Gould van Praag; Michael M Hoffman; Renata Moraes Bielemann; Ugo Moschini; Mauro Paschetta; Valentina Pasquale; Valeria E Rac; Dylan Roskams-Edris; Hermann M Schatzl; Jo Anne Stratton; David Moher

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

Kelly D Cobey, Stefanie Haustein, Jamie Brehaut, Ulrich Dirnagl, Delwen L Franzen, Lars G Hemkens, Justin Presseau, Nico Riedel, Daniel Strech, Juan Pablo Alperin, Rodrigo Costas, Emily S Sena, Thed van Leeuwen, Clare L Ardern, Isabel O L Bacellar, Nancy Camack, Marcos Britto Correa, Roberto Buccione, Maximiliano Sergio Cenci, Dean A FergussonCassandra Gould van Praag, Michael M Hoffman, Renata Moraes Bielemann, Ugo Moschini, Mauro Paschetta, Valentina Pasquale, Valeria E Rac, Dylan Roskams-Edris, Hermann M Schatzl, Jo Anne Stratton, David Moher

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	e3001949
Journal	PLoS Biology
Volume	21
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949
Publication status	Published - 24 Jan 2023

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Humans
Consensus
Delphi Technique
Surveys and Questionnaires
Biomedical Research
Research Design

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949

journal.pbio.3001949Final published version, 414 KBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Cite this

Cobey, K. D., Haustein, S., Brehaut, J., Dirnagl, U., Franzen, D. L., Hemkens, L. G., Presseau, J., Riedel, N., Strech, D., Alperin, J. P., Costas, R., Sena, E. S., van Leeuwen, T., Ardern, C. L., Bacellar, I. O. L., Camack, N., Britto Correa, M., Buccione, R., Cenci, M. S., ... Moher, D. (2023). Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine. PLoS Biology, 21(1), e3001949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949

@article{a29198dcb1b14b66896e2d3156848a8d,

title = "Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine",

abstract = "The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.",

keywords = "Humans, Consensus, Delphi Technique, Surveys and Questionnaires, Biomedical Research, Research Design",

author = "Cobey, \{Kelly D\} and Stefanie Haustein and Jamie Brehaut and Ulrich Dirnagl and Franzen, \{Delwen L\} and Hemkens, \{Lars G\} and Justin Presseau and Nico Riedel and Daniel Strech and Alperin, \{Juan Pablo\} and Rodrigo Costas and Sena, \{Emily S\} and \{van Leeuwen\}, Thed and Ardern, \{Clare L\} and Bacellar, \{Isabel O L\} and Nancy Camack and \{Britto Correa\}, Marcos and Roberto Buccione and Cenci, \{Maximiliano Sergio\} and Fergusson, \{Dean A\} and \{Gould van Praag\}, Cassandra and Hoffman, \{Michael M\} and \{Moraes Bielemann\}, Renata and Ugo Moschini and Mauro Paschetta and Valentina Pasquale and Rac, \{Valeria E\} and Dylan Roskams-Edris and Schatzl, \{Hermann M\} and Stratton, \{Jo Anne\} and David Moher",

note = "Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Cobey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.",

year = "2023",

month = jan,

day = "24",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "e3001949",

journal = "PLoS Biology",

issn = "1545-7885",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "1",

}

Cobey, KD, Haustein, S, Brehaut, J, Dirnagl, U, Franzen, DL, Hemkens, LG, Presseau, J, Riedel, N, Strech, D, Alperin, JP, Costas, R, Sena, ES, van Leeuwen, T, Ardern, CL, Bacellar, IOL, Camack, N, Britto Correa, M, Buccione, R, Cenci, MS, Fergusson, DA, Gould van Praag, C, Hoffman, MM, Moraes Bielemann, R, Moschini, U, Paschetta, M, Pasquale, V, Rac, VE, Roskams-Edris, D, Schatzl, HM, Stratton, JA & Moher, D 2023, 'Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine', PLoS Biology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. e3001949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

AU - Cobey, Kelly D

AU - Haustein, Stefanie

AU - Brehaut, Jamie

AU - Dirnagl, Ulrich

AU - Franzen, Delwen L

AU - Hemkens, Lars G

AU - Presseau, Justin

AU - Riedel, Nico

AU - Strech, Daniel

AU - Alperin, Juan Pablo

AU - Costas, Rodrigo

AU - Sena, Emily S

AU - van Leeuwen, Thed

AU - Ardern, Clare L

AU - Bacellar, Isabel O L

AU - Camack, Nancy

AU - Britto Correa, Marcos

AU - Buccione, Roberto

AU - Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio

AU - Fergusson, Dean A

AU - Gould van Praag, Cassandra

AU - Hoffman, Michael M

AU - Moraes Bielemann, Renata

AU - Moschini, Ugo

AU - Paschetta, Mauro

AU - Pasquale, Valentina

AU - Rac, Valeria E

AU - Roskams-Edris, Dylan

AU - Schatzl, Hermann M

AU - Stratton, Jo Anne

AU - Moher, David

N1 - Copyright: © 2023 Cobey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PY - 2023/1/24

Y1 - 2023/1/24

N2 - The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

AB - The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

KW - Humans

KW - Consensus

KW - Delphi Technique

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Biomedical Research

KW - Research Design

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949

DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949

M3 - Article

C2 - 36693044

SN - 1545-7885

VL - 21

SP - e3001949

JO - PLoS Biology

JF - PLoS Biology

IS - 1

ER -

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

Abstract

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this