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
. 2025 Oct 20:14:318.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.155832.2. eCollection 2025.

Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study

Jaisson Cenci  1   2 , Marcos Britto Correa  2 , Lex Bouter  3 , David Moher  4 , Ewald Bronkhorst  1 , Marina Christ Franco  2 , Fausto Medeiros Mendes  5 , Tatiana Pereira-Cenci  1 , Marie Charlotte Huysmans  1 , Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci  1
Affiliations

Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study

Jaisson Cenci et al. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Background: Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University.

Methods: Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants' perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers' evaluation system.

Results: Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants' perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course.

Conclusions: The number of participants' OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants' perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future.

Keywords: educational intervention; open science; research integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Participant timeline with the study steps described.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. The steps and details of the OS life cycle (Adapted from https://www.cos.io/).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. The number of OSF outputs before, just after, and six months after intervention.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Participants answer to the question 1, Part 2 of the questionnaire.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.. Participants answer to the question 2, Part 2 of the questionnaire.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.. Participants answer to the question 3, Part 2 of the questionnaire.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.. Participants’ intention to adhere to the open science practices in the future.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Haven T, Gopalakrishna G, Tijdink J, et al. : Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC. Res. Notes. 2022;15(1):302. 10.1186/s13104-022-06169-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bouter L: What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2020;26(4):2363–2369. 10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Labib K, Roje R, Bouter L, et al. : Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2021;27(4):47. 10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aubert Bonn N, Bouter L: Research Assessments Should Recognize Responsible Research Practices. Narrative Review of a Lively Debate and Promising Developments. Valdés E, Lecaros JA, editors. Handbook of Bioethical Decisions Volume II: Scientific Integrity and Institutional Ethics. Cham: Springer International Publishing;2023; pp.441–472.
    1. Olivier Boehme NF, Hiney M, Peatfield T, et al. : Research Integrity Practices in Science Europe Member Organisations. Science Europe. 2016;1–52. Reference Source

LinkOut - more resources