Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond.

Christopher Allen,David M A Mehler

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

Christopher Allen, David M A Mehler

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

Copy DOI

Journal: PLoS biology	Publication Date: May 1, 2019
Citations: 314	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Cardiff University, University of Münster

Abstract

The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

Highlights

There are major challenges that are underrepresented and affect those who carry out the research, most commonly early career researchers (ECRs)
We review 3 areas of challenge posed by open science practices, which are balanced against 3 beneficial aspects, with a focus on ECRs working in quantitative life sciences
This format may present an entry to preregistration for ECRs that can help build expertise in open science methods

Summary

Introduction

A shift to open science methods (summarised in Table 1) has been suggested as a potential remedy to many of these concerns [2,4,17] These encompass a range of practices aimed at making science more reliable, including wider sharing and reanalysis of code, data, and research materials [2,18]; valuing replications and reanalyses [2,5,6,19,20]; changes in statistical approaches with regards to power [21,22] and how evidence is assessed [23]; interactive and more transparent ways of presenting data graphically [24,25]; potentially the use of double-blind peer review [26]; and the use of formats such as preprints [27] and open access publishing.

Methodology

Findings

Conclusion