Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 22;15(1):116.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-05999-0.

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Affiliations

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Olivia S Kowalczyk et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that-like all researchers-senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

Keywords: Authorship; Funding; Publishing; Reform; Replication; Reproducibility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.
    Blatch-Jones AJ, Recio Saucedo A, Giddins B. Blatch-Jones AJ, et al. PLoS One. 2023 Sep 15;18(9):e0291627. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291627. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 37713422 Free PMC article.
  • A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.
    Blatch-Jones AJ, Lakin K, Thomas S. Blatch-Jones AJ, et al. F1000Res. 2024 Oct 14;13:324. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.147599.3. eCollection 2024. F1000Res. 2024. PMID: 38826614 Free PMC article.
  • Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Besançon L, Peiffer-Smadja N, Segalas C, Jiang H, Masuzzo P, Smout C, Billy E, Deforet M, Leyrat C. Besançon L, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jun 5;21(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021. PMID: 34090351 Free PMC article.
  • Open Developmental Science: An Overview and Annotated Reading List.
    Kalandadze T, Hart SA. Kalandadze T, et al. Infant Child Dev. 2024 Jan-Feb;33(1):e2334. doi: 10.1002/icd.2334. Epub 2022 May 18. Infant Child Dev. 2024. PMID: 39308897 Free PMC article.
  • Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes.
    Pownall M, Azevedo F, König LM, Slack HR, Evans TR, Flack Z, Grinschgl S, Elsherif MM, Gilligan-Lee KA, de Oliveira CMF, Gjoneska B, Kalandadze T, Button K, Ashcroft-Jones S, Terry J, Albayrak-Aydemir N, Děchtěrenko F, Alzahawi S, Baker BJ, Pittelkow MM, Riedl L, Schmidt K, Pennington CR, Shaw JJ, Lüke T, Makel MC, Hartmann H, Zaneva M, Walker D, Verheyen S, Cox D, Mattschey J, Gallagher-Mitchell T, Branney P, Weisberg Y, Izydorczak K, Al-Hoorie AH, Creaven AM, Stewart SLK, Krautter K, Matvienko-Sikar K, Westwood SJ, Arriaga P, Liu M, Baum MA, Wingen T, Ross RM, O'Mahony A, Bochynska A, Jamieson M, Tromp MV, Yeung SK, Vasilev MR, Gourdon-Kanhukamwe A, Micheli L, Konkol M, Moreau D, Bartlett JE, Clark K, Brekelmans G, Gkinopoulos T, Tyler SL, Röer JP, Ilchovska ZG, Madan CR, Robertson O, Iley BJ, Guay S, Sladekova M, Sadhwani S; FORRT. Pownall M, et al. R Soc Open Sci. 2023 May 17;10(5):221255. doi: 10.1098/rsos.221255. eCollection 2023 May. R Soc Open Sci. 2023. PMID: 37206965 Free PMC article. Review.

References

    1. Munafò M, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers C, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(1):1–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker M, Dolgin E. Cancer reproducibility project releases first results. Nat News. 2017;541(7637):269. - PubMed
    1. Borregaard MK, Hart EM. Towards a more reproducible ecology. Ecography. 2016;39(4):349–353.
    1. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science [Internet]. 2015 Aug 28 [cited 2020 Jul 14];349(6251). Available from: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716. - PubMed
    1. Drucker DJ. Never waste a good crisis: confronting reproducibility in translational research. Cell Metab. 2016;24(3):348–360. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources