Open Science and Academic Workload

New article by Thomas Hostler in the Journal of Trial and Error:

“There is a high chance that without intervention, increased expectations to engage in open research practices may lead to unacceptable increases in demands on academics.”

Open access: https://doi.org/10.36850/mr5

#Science
#OpenScience
#MetaScience
#MetaResearch
#SociologyofScience
#ScienceofScience
#STS
@stsing
@academicchatter
#AcademicWorkload

@MarkRubin I wonder why the idea of support infrastructures does not come up more in this article. In addition to "team research", libraries should be and are striving to build up services that could lighten the researchers' work load around #OpenScience / #OpenResearch
@c_riesen @MarkRubin I am afraid we are all united in vocational awe as long as there is no fundamental turn around in the evaluation criteria for science and the infrastructures that support it.
@MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter this is an interesting discussion @johnntowse and @tombeesley

@MarkRubin @academicchatter @tombeesley @robayedavies @stsing
Indeed. And exactly why we concluded in 2021: “Open data is a manageable albeit time consuming target, especially where thoughtful and careful curation takes place and issues of anonymity must be managed. The field should recognize the value, and the temporal and cognitive costs. whilst promoting the potential reward and benefits…”

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01486-1

Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside Psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change - Behavior Research Methods

Open data-sharing is a valuable practice that ought to enhance the impact, reach, and transparency of a research project. While widely advocated by many researchers and mandated by some journals and funding agencies, little is known about detailed practices across psychological science. In a pre-registered study, we show that overall, few research papers directly link to available data in many, though not all, journals. Most importantly, even where open data can be identified, the majority of these lacked completeness and reusability—conclusions that closely mirror those reported outside of Psychology. Exploring the reasons behind these findings, we offer seven specific recommendations for engineering and incentivizing improved practices, so that the potential of open data can be better realized across psychology and social science more generally.

SpringerLink
@robayedavies @stsing @tombeesley @academicchatter @MarkRubin
Plus, I think this perspective makes it all the more important that we embed open research into the degree curriculum so that we can broaden awareness and surface the consequences. Especially important perhaps for those beyond the immediate research questions but who can operate the levers of influence & support, those who issue mandates etc
@MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter the thing is, "open research practices" just means doing it right. If that entails MORE effort, then the researchers were cutting corners.
@mike @MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter
Part of the article discusses the work involved in preparing additional components for publication (i.e., formatting, exporting information from a software, considering how to best organize materials for an audience). It's more effort.

@writingmonicker @MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter Sure. It's always effort to do a job properly.

As a scientist, I want to get beyond "How little can I get away with doing, and still earn my shiny badge".

@mike @MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter Sure, that makes sense. We need to have standards.

I suppose my concern is less with "shiny badges" than "how am I going to manage the seemingly ever-increasing workload required of faculty?" (Not to say cutting corners is the answer.) It's why I'm glad to see concrete suggestions like hiring specialists to cover this additional labor.

@writingmonicker @MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter I am afraid you and I may still be on different pages here. To me, open-science practices like depositing datasets, maintaining code in public repos and and publishing OA *are* the job of scientific research. I no more want a specialist to do this for me than I want one to look at fossils for me, or write my papers for me.
@mike @MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter Well, nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I enjoy conducting interviews, analyzing data, and writing up my results more than anything else. Other tasks might be important but I'd be happy to have help with them. Working with a research communications or OA specialist to me doesn't sound all that different than working with a research team.
@writingmonicker @MarkRubin @stsing @academicchatter Fair enough. This one of those times where "agree to disagree" doesn't feel like just giving up :-)