References
- 1Abri, MA and Dabbagh, N. 2018. Open educational resources: A literature review. Journal of Mason Graduate Research, 6(1): 83–104. DOI: 10.13021/G8jmgr.v6i1.2386
- 2Allen, C and Mehler, DMA. 2019. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology, 17(5):
e3000246 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246 - 3Bezuidenhout, L and Chakauya, E. 2018. Hidden concerns of sharing research data by low/middle-income country scientists. Global Bioethics, 29(1): 39–54. DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2018.1441780
- 4Bonvoisin, J, Thomas, L, Mies, R, Gros, C, Stark, R, Samuel, K, Jochem, R and Boujut, JF. 2017. Current state of practices in open source product development. In: DS 87-2 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation and Management, Vancouver, Canada in
August 2017 , pp. 111–120. - 5Bradley, J. 2006. Open Notebook Science. Available at
http://drexel-coas-elearning.blogspot.com/2006/09/open-notebook-science.htm . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 6Burgess, HK, DeBey, LB, Froehlich, HE, Schmidt, N, Theobald, EJ, Ettinger, AK, HilleRisLambers, J, Tewksbury, J and Parrish, JK. 2017. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biological Conservation, 208: 113–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014
- 7Carroll, AE. 2018. Peer review: the worst way to judge research, except for all the others. The New York Times. Available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 8Carroll, HA, Toumpakari, Z, Johnson, L and Betts, JA. 2017. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PloS one, 12(10):
e0186472 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 - 9cOAlition, S. 2020.
Input for the development of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science . Hosted by European Science Foundation, 1, Quai Lezay-Marnésia, 67080 Strasbourg, France, 8 pages. - 10Fane, B, Ayris, P, Hahnel, M, Hrynaszkiewicz, I, Baynes, G and Farrell, E. 2019. The State of Open Data Report 2019. Digital Science. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.9980783.v2
- 11Fecher, B and Friesike, S. 2014.
Open science: One term, five schools of thought . In: Bartling, S and Friesike, S (eds.) openingscience: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration, and Scholarly Publishing, 17–47. Germany: SpringerOpen. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8 - 12Ford, E. 2013. Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4): 311–326. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
- 13Friesike, S, Dobusch, L and Heimstädt, M. 2021. Striving for societal impact as an early-career researcher: Reflections on five common concerns. SocArXiv. May 3. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/kjehy
- 14Gagliardi, D, Cox, D and Li, Y. 2015.
Institutional Inertia and Barriers to the Adoption of Open Science . In: The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries. The Netherlands: Brill. pp. 107–133. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6300-178-6_6 - 15Gonzales, JE and Cunningham, CA. 2015. The promise of pre-registration in psychological research, Psychological Science Agenda. Available at:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/08/pre-Registration . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 16GOSH (Gathering for Open Science Hardware). 2018. Global open science hardware roadmap: making open science hardware ubiquitous by 2025. Available at:
https://openhardware.science/global-open-science-hardware-roadmap/ . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 17Greenbaum, D, Sboner, A, Mu, XJ and Gerstein, M. 2011. Genomics and privacy: implications of the new reality of closed data for the field. PLoS Comput Biol, 7(12):
e1002278 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278 - 18Grubb, AM and Easterbrook, SM. 2011. On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study. PloS one, 6(8):
e23420 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023420 - 19Hansen, A and Howard, TJ. 2013.
The current state of open source hardware: The need for an open source development platform . In: Chakrabarti, A and Prakash, R (eds), ICoRD’13. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 977–988. India: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-1050-4_77 - 20Hassall, C and Lewis, DI. 2017. Institutional and technological barriers to the use of open educational resources (OERs) in physiology and medical education. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(1): 77–81. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00171.2016
- 21Houtkoop, BL, Chambers, C, Macleod, M, Bishop, DV, Nichols, TE and Wagenmakers, EJ. 2018. Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in methods and practices in psychological science, 1(1): 70–85. DOI: 10.1177/2515245917751886
- 22Hrynaszkiewicz, I, Simons, N, Hussain, A, Grant, R and Goudie, S. 2020. Developing a research data policy framework for all journals and publishers. Data Science Journal, 19(1): 5. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2020-017
- 23Hundey, EJ, Olker, JH, Carreira, C, Daigle, RM, Elgin, AK, Finiguerra, M, Gownaris, NJ, Hayes, N, Heffner, L, Razavi, NR and Shirey, PD. 2016. A shifting tide: recommendations for incorporating science communication into graduate training. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 25(4): 109–116. DOI: 10.1002/lob.10151
- 24Koseoglu, S and Bozkurt, A. 2018. An exploratory literature review on open educational practices. Distance Education, 39(4): 441–461. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2018.1520042
- 25Kukutai, T and Taylor, J. 2016.
Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda . Research monograph Australian National University, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research: no. 38. Australia: Anu Press. DOI: 10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016 - 26Kupferschmidt, K. 2018. ‘More and more scientists are preregistering their studies. Should you?’. Science. Available at
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/more-and-more-scientists-are-preregistering-their-studies-should-you . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav4786 - 27Lepenies, R and Zakari, IS. 2021. Citizen Science for Transformative Air Quality Policy in Germany and Niger. Sustainability, 13(7): 3973. DOI: 10.3390/su13073973
- 28Luo, T, Hostetler, K, Freeman, C and Stefaniak, J. 2020. The power of open: Benefits, barriers, and strategies for integration of open educational resources. Open Learning, 35(2): 140–158. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2019.1677222
- 29Maher, ML, Paulini, M and Murty, P. 2011.
Scaling up: From individual design to collaborative design to collective design . In: Design Computing and Cognition’10. Dordrecht: Springer pp. 581–599. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0510-4_31 - 30McGowan, V. 2020. Institution initiatives and support related to faculty development of open educational resources and alternative textbooks. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(1): 24–45. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1562328
- 31Mlinarić, A, Horvat, M and Šupak Smolčić, V. 2017. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia medica, 27(3): 447–452. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030201
- 32Mwelwa, J, Boulton, G, Wafula, JM and Loucoubar, C. 2020. Developing open science in Africa: barriers, solutions and opportunities. Data Science Journal, 19(31): 1–17. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2020-031
- 33NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2018.
Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/25116 - 34NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2020. NIH Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guide. Available at
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm [Last accessed 19 December 2021]. - 35Nosek, BA, Ebersole, CR, DeHaven, AC and Mellor, DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11): 2600–2606. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114
- 36OSHWA (Open Source Hardware Association). 2016. Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles 1.0. Available at
https://www.oshwa.org/definition/ . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 37Pearce, JM. 2020. A review of open source ventilators for COVID-19 and future pandemics. F1000Research, 9. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.22942.2
- 38Penders, B and Janssens, ACJ. 2018. Finding Wealth in Waste: Irreplicability ReExamined. BioEssays, 40(12):
1800173 . DOI: 10.1002/bies.201800173 - 39Piwowar, H, Priem, J, Larivière, V, Alperin, JP, Matthias, L, Norlander, B, Farley, A, West, J and Haustein, S. 2018. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6:
e4375 . DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4375 - 40Pocock, MJ, Tweddle, JC, Savage, J, Robinson, LD and Roy, HE. 2017. The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS One, 12(4):
e0172579 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172579 - 41POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology). 2008. International migration of scientists and engineers. Available at
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn309.pdf . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 42Powell, K. 2016. The waiting game. Does it take too long to publish research. Nature. Available at
https://www.nature.com/news/does-it-take-too-long-to-publish-research-1.19320 . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. DOI: 10.1038/530148a - 43Raasch, C, Herstatt, C and Balka, K. 2009. On the open design of tangible goods. R&D Management, 39(4): 382–393. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.x
- 44Robson, SG, Baum, MA, Beaudry, JL, Beitner, J, Brohmer, H, Chin, J, Jasko, K, Kouros, CD, Laukkonen, RE, Moreau, D, Seartson, RA, Slagter, HA, Steffens, NK, Tangen, JM and Thomas, A. 2021. Promoting Open Science: A holistic approach to changing behaviour. PsyArXiv. April 1. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/zn7vt
- 45Ross-Hellauer, T. 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
- 46Schapira, M, The Open Lab Notebook Consortium and Harding, RJ. 2019. Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists. F1000Research, 8: 87. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.17710.2
- 47Schiltz, M. 2018. Science Without Publication Paywalls a Preamble to: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access. Available at
https://www.coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/ . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00656 - 48Seaman, JE and Seaman, J. 2020. Digital Texts in the Time of COVID: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2020. Available at
https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/oer.html . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 49Serwadda, D, Ndebele, P, Grabowski, MK, Bajunirwe, F and Wanyenze, RK. 2018. Open data sharing and the Global South—Who benefits? Science, 359(6376): 642–643. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8395
- 50Sidler, M. 2014.
Open science and the three cultures: Expanding open science to all domains of knowledge creation . In: Bartling, S and Friesike, S (eds.), openingscience: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration, and Scholarly Publishing, 81–85. Germany: SpringerOpen. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8 - 51Sydow, J, Schreyögg, G and Koch, J. 2008. Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 689–709. DOI: 10.5465/amr.34.4.zok689
- 52Tedersoo, L, Küngas, R, Oras, E, Köster, K, Eenmaa, H, Leijen, Ä, Pedaste, M, Raju, M, Astapova, A, Lukner, H and Kogermann, K. 2021. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific data, 8(1): 1–11. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0
- 53Tennant, JP, Dugan, JM, Graziotin, D, Jacques, DC, Waldner, F, Mietchen, D, Elkhatib, Y, Collister, LB, Pikas, CK, Crick, T and Masuzzo, P. 2017. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
- 54Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques D C, Paola, M, Lauren, BC and Chris, HJH. 2016. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5: 632. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
- 55Toelch, U and Ostwald, D. 2018. Digital open science—Teaching digital tools for reproducible and transparent research. PLoS biology, 16(7):
e2006022 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006022 - 56Tulloch, AI, Auerbach, N, Avery-Gomm, S, Bayraktarov, E, Butt, N, Dickman, CR, Ehmke, G, Fisher, DO, Grantham, H, Holden, MH and Lavery, TH. 2018. A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data. Nature ecology & evolution, 2(8): 1209–1217. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1
- 57Turrini, T, Dörler, D, Richter, A, Heigl, F and Bonn, A. 2018. The threefold potential of environmental citizen science-Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biological Conservation, 225: 176–186. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.024
- 58UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2020. Report on UNESCO’s global online consultation on open science. Available at
https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/consultation . [Last accessed on 31 May 2021]. - 59UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2021. Draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. SS-PCB-SPP/2021/OS-IGM/WD3.
- 60van Rooyen, S, Godlee, F, Evans, S, Black, N and Smith, R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175): 23–27. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
- 61Vermeir, K, Leonelli, S, Shams Bin Tariq, A, Olatunbosun Sojinu, S, Ocloo, A, Ashraful Islam Khan, Md and Bezuidenhout, L. 2018. Global Access to Research Software:The Forgotten Pillar of Open Science Implementation. The Global Young Academy. Available at
https://globalyoungacademy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/18013_GYA_Report_GARS-Web.pdf . [Last accessed 31 May 2021]. - 62Vicente-Sáez, R and Martínez-Fuentes, C. 2018. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of business research, 88: 428–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
- 63Wallach, JD, Boyack, KW and Loannidis, JP. 2018. Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017. PLoS biology, 16(11):
e2006930 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930 - 64Wilkinson, MD, Dumontier, M, Aalbersberg, IJ, Appleton, G, Axton, M, Baak, A, Blomberg, N, Boiten, JW, da Silva Santos, LB, Bourne, PE and Bouwman, J. 2016. Comment: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3:
160018 . DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 - 65Williamson, AE, Ylioja, PM, Robertson, MN, Antonova-Koch, Y, Avery, V, Baell, JB, Batchu, H, Batra, S, Burrows, JN, Bhattacharyya, S, Calderon, F, Charman, SA, Clark, J, Crespo, B, Dean, M, Debbert, SL, Delves, M, Dennis, AS, Deroose, F, Duffy, S, Fletcher, S, Giaever, G, Hallyburton, I, Gamo, FJ, Gebbia, M, Guy, RK, Hungerford, Z, Kirk, K, Lafuente-Monasterio, MJ, Lee, A, Meister, S, Nislow, C, Overington, JP, Papadatos, G, Patiny, L, Pham, J, Ralph, SA, Ruecker, A, Ryan, E, Southan, C, Srivastava, K, Swain, C, Tarnowski, MJ, Thomson, P, Turner, P, Wallace, IM, Wells, TN, White, K, White, L, Willis, P, Winzeler, EA, Wittlin, S and Todd, MH. 2016. Open source drug discovery: Highly potent antimalarial compounds derived from the tres cantos arylpyrroles. ACS Central Science, 2(10): 687–701. DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.6b00086