⚠️ Preprint alert! ⚠️
Over the summer we preprinted our scoping review of the academic impact of open science. This is joint work from the PathOS project with @tklebel, Ioanna Grypari, Lennart Stoy and @tonyRH.
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ptjub.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from vtraag@social.cwts.nl
We review 489 studies, most of which study Open Access, followed by Citizen Science and Open/FAIR Data, while Open Evaluation, Open Methods and Open Code is relatively little studied. Most publications study citation impact, but quality and efficiency & productivity is also studied. Reproducibility is relatively little studied, as is collaboration, novelty and trust.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from vtraag@social.cwts.nl
We find that most studies report positive, or at least mixed, impacts, notwithstanding some notable negative impacts, especially regarding equity, diversity and inclusion (e.g. effects of APCs). Main barriers to academic impact of OS are lack of skills, resources and infrastructures.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from vtraag@social.cwts.nl
We find the literature is often based on case studies of OS projects, and we believe it would be better to have independent analyses of the impact of OS practices. Moreover, the focus is often on the uptake of OS practices, but we should also study the impact of OS. Finally, studying the impact of OS is complicated by questions of causality, which require more attention.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from vtraag@social.cwts.nl
If you have any feedback or comments, please do reach out.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from vtraag@social.cwts.nl
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).