dasaderi / whynotopenscience Goto Github PK

• Agree that the Open Science definition is now a bit short and I don't think it covers all aspects of open science enough to provide people new to the topic with basic understanding. Also, Open Research would be the more inclusive term

• Being open makes it so that publishing in scientific journals is too expensive for the researcher
  I have trouble with the phrasing. I understand that you technically are talking about APCs, but that's not the only way to have your papers open. There's preprints, green open access etc... I guess the disadvantage is that this might be too complex for the average researcher.

On page 5, the opion sections at the end might profit from a dropdown. At least in the case of the advantages, I could imagine that it might be one of the ones you already ask about.

The Open Data definition on page 7: Open Data is usually open government data. While these are important, I think memtioning open research data explicitly might be helpful.

Page 8: Using open source software and sharing code and scientific software ate 2 different things in my opinion. In general, the software area is very complicated, I'm not entirely sure covering it the same way as data is helpful.

Personally, I felt that the areas that prevent me from practising Open Science are fairly related to the benefits and disadvantages you asked about in the beginning. I was surprised to see these questions again, maybe closer together it would make more sense?

Hi! I am John and I'm an ecologist. I had thought about doing a survey like this one before and am glad to help and hope to learn more as well!

Create a github-based website for the project that pulls in all the relevant info from the repo

This was raised previously - what is the best way to incentivize people to actually fill in the survey (as opposed to the incentives of open science)? So far we don't have many ideas, so let's create a discussion!

@amiefairs Robin just recommended to look at this as a possible platform for our survey https://projectredcap.org/software/try/.

We will have a pilot survey ready for the #mozsprint (June 1-2, 2017). We would really appreciate it if you could take it and give us feedback on it. Thank you!

Have you contributed? If so you are going in our thank you file! We want to make sure we remember and acknowledge everyone who has helped with the project. Your name will be listed below, but if you don't see it, add it yourself and you'll be thanked forever in Github's memory :)

We need a logo for the project so we are a) identifiable, and b) can place it on the survey and any future documents/websites/materials.

Anything you find that you think can be useful material for this project, including blog posts and articles, please add them to our Links folder. Thank you!

The documentation will be pulled into the website, so it needs to make sense!

It should be:

• clear
• grammatically correct
• have no spelling errors

Below are checkpoints for each document so we know what's good and what we need to change!

README

• clear
• grammatically correct
• spelling-error free
• understandable

ROADMAP

• clear
• grammatically correct
• spelling-error free
• understandable

GOALS

• clear
• grammatically correct
• spelling-error free
• understandable

CONTRIBUTING

• clear
• grammatically correct
• spelling-error free
• understandable

CODE_OF_CONDUCT

• clear
• grammatically correct
• spelling-error free
• understandable

Thank you!

Taking the survey and going to leave comments here in the thread below.

Taken from roadmap.

1. What topics should the survey cover?
2. What kinds of questions would we ask to probe these topics?
3. Refine topics.

We need a proper informed consent form for this survey which would pass ethical applications. There is a link in the links section with a good example for an informed consent form but this needs to be adapted and built for us. This doesn't yet exist, but if anyone wants to create a version in a google doc and then make edits that would be wonderful! Paste the link and make it fully editable for anyone.

Hi,

Just took the pilot survey. For your context, I am a methodologist/statistician so I am also trained (somewhat) in survey methodology.

Page 1

• Is this an informed consent page? If so, there is no clear consent included.
• Do you want to share the anonymized data? If so, include that on the page so that you can freely do so.
• I wouldn't include the link to the github repo in the final survey, considering most scientists will not be familiar (keep the survey as simple as possible; don't know if that was the plan all along anyway :-))
• Maybe you could provide some details on how the anonymization will take place? I noticed on page 3 that institution was requested; is that also anonymized?

Page 2

• I guess this is just for testing purposes and not for final survey? :-)

Page 3

• PhD candidate and PhD student mean two different things in the US I think, so maybe just include that?
• How is this defined? "How many years have you been working in research?"
  • I can imagine you mean since getting PhD? That's what we usually ask
• Is "methodologies" a word? Maybe "methods"?

Page 4

• Maybe good to also have this definition at the top at the later pages about Open Science?
• Maybe include the duplicate text from the answers in the question itself? (Q below)

"Based on what you know about Open Science, what are some of the positive aspects that come from practicing Open Science? (check all that apply) *

• For same question, maybe include an option "I don't know about OS", given that it's forced response?
• Is it an idea to flip around the positive-negative questions? I got the idea from it that the survey wanted to skew answers. You might even consider randomizing the order these are presented in.

Page 5

• Maybe rephrase the options in the question to be more dense?

Please rate the importance of the following factors in choosing to publish your manuscripts as preprints *

• for example, "Having preprints read by more researchers in my field and receiving comments" (note the double-barrelled answer here) to "Preprints are read more"

• Two final questions are forced response but seem optional

Page 6

• The Likert scale is asymmetric, given that the left side has "not at all" and "slightly", while on the right side it says "very" and "extremely"
• The option "It allows pre- and post-prints" is double-barreled and is not a good response option because of it
• The response option "Having the Open Access fees paid by grant money or by my institution" is also double-barreled; might be an idea to just change it into "paid for" or something like that
• Negatively phrased questions often cause problems (i.e., with NOT in them). The answers also contain it, causing the double negative problems.
• Two final questions are forced response but seem optional
• I was able to fill in text for the question asking a forced numeric response

Page 7

• The response option "Open Access" in

What access level did you set for these data? (select all that apply)
is potentially confusing. Maybe rephrase to "freely accessible"

• Again the Likert scale
• Two final questions are forced response but seem optional

Page 8

• The definition of open source is quite short, which Richard Stallman will probably have problems with ;-)

Open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to anyone for use and reuse.
Do you mean open source or free and open source? Important to delineate because they mean different things (and you will have participants who know the difference, I guess).

• This question is not forced but would need to be, no?

Do you use open source software for data acquisition and/or data analysis?

• Again the Likert scale
• Two final questions are forced response but seem optional

Page 9

• Maybe remind the definition of Open Science at the top?
• This question is a bit unclear; does it mean the respondent would have to pay for it or that the institution dissuades the respondent from taking the course?

Would you take a program/course/workshop to learn more about open science, if you were to take it yourself and NOT have it supported by your institution?

• Maybe add an option that the respondent doesn't need a course?

Page 10

• no comments

Page 11

• no comments

Page 12

• no comments