-
Something wrong with this record ?
Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey
F. Grattarola, H. Shmagun, C. Erdmann, A. Cambon-Thomsen, M. Thomsen, J. Kim, L. Mabile
Language English Country United States
Document type Journal Article
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2006
Free Medical Journals
from 2006
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
from 2006
PubMed Central
from 2006
Europe PubMed Central
from 2006
ProQuest Central
from 2006-12-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2006-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2006-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2006-10-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2008-01-01
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2006-12-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2006-12-01
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2006-12-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2006
- MeSH
- Internationality * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
- Research Personnel psychology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.
CERPOP INSERM and Université de Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier Toulouse France
Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Prague Czech Republic
Hongik University Seoul South Korea
Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information Seoul South Korea
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25003022
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250206104018.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250121s2024 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1371/journal.pone.0315632 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39680530
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Grattarola, Florencia $u Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000182825732
- 245 10
- $a Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey / $c F. Grattarola, H. Shmagun, C. Erdmann, A. Cambon-Thomsen, M. Thomsen, J. Kim, L. Mabile
- 520 9_
- $a There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
- 650 12
- $a internacionalita $7 D038622
- 650 _2
- $a výzkumní pracovníci $x psychologie $7 D012108
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Shmagun, Hanna $u Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Seoul, South Korea $1 https://orcid.org/0000000162712976
- 700 1_
- $a Erdmann, Christopher $u SciLifeLab, Uppsala, Sweden $1 https://orcid.org/000000032554180X
- 700 1_
- $a Cambon-Thomsen, Anne $u CERPOP, INSERM and Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France $u CNRS, Toulouse, France
- 700 1_
- $a Thomsen, Mogens $u CERPOP, INSERM and Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
- 700 1_
- $a Kim, Jaesoo $u Hongik University, Seoul, South Korea
- 700 1_
- $a Mabile, Laurence $u CERPOP, INSERM and Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France $1 https://orcid.org/0000000277241721
- 773 0_
- $w MED00180950 $t PloS one $x 1932-6203 $g Roč. 19, č. 12 (2024), s. e0315632
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39680530 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250121 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250206104014 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2263047 $s 1239029
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 19 $c 12 $d e0315632 $e 20241216 $i 1932-6203 $m PloS one $n PLoS One $x MED00180950
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250121