What is an Open Science Buffet?

To the casual observer, open science may seem like an all-or-nothing endeavor, but in reality, it's more akin to a diverse buffet of options, including open data, open source, and more (Castille, et al. 2022). The extent to which these practices are applied varies based on factors such as the specific research context, constraints, and relevance.

Two approaches will be highlighted below as examples of building open science practices into research processes. With that said, there are several methods researchers can consider than the two examples provided here. 

 

Approach 1:

Think of the core values of science established by the NASEM as the nutritional benefits of the open science buffet. For instance, Open Access offers benefits like Fairness and Stewardship. Researchers can select buffet options based on the alignment of these values with their own priorities. For instance, if a researcher values fairness in scientific research, they can explore which open science practices resonate with this core value and consider integrating them into their research process.

 

Below, we highlight open science practices related to citing research products and their alignment with NASEM core values, particularly Fairness:

 

Choosing Citation Standards Aligns With: Fairness, Openness, Honesty, Stewardship

• Cite all data sets, program source code, and other research materials used in a publication and provide appropriate references for each.
• Include references for data sets and program code as persistent identifiers, such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs).

 

This approach emphasizes selecting open science practices that align with a researcher's values, but practical considerations also play a role. Researchers must factor in constraints like time, expertise, and funding when deciding which options from the buffet make the most sense for their lab. In some cases, funders and journal publishers may require the incorporation of specific practices into the research workflow.

An important consideration is that open science practices can be adopted incrementally, gradually enhancing research openness throughout the process. 

---

Approach 2: 

Alternatively, consider implementing open science practices incrementally. When it comes to data transparency, here are some gradual steps to consider:

Degree 1: State whether data are available and provide information on where to access them.

Degree 2: Post data online in a trusted repository, with exceptions noted for data containing confidential or personally identifiable information, as specified in the research publication.

Degree 3: Post data online in a trusted repository and report the analysis, enabling independent reproduction of insights before publication.

It's worth noting that you may already be incorporating some or all of these practices into your research. If not, remember that even small changes can have a significant impact on promoting open and transparent science.

 

---

 

 

Do you like the concepts and/or examples used? This approach and idea stemmed from, Castille et al (2022) The Open Science Challenge: Adopt One Practice that Enacts Widely Shared Values. You can find more examples in the article! It's an excellent read! 

Common Misconceptions

When a concept is not fully understood, misconceptions or misbeliefs can form around it. The principles of open science are no exception, and for some individuals, it is a familiar concept, and for others an entirely new one. Regardless of your level of familiarity with open science, it’s good practice to stay abreast of common misconceptions, especially as the adoption of open practices continues to increase more and more among organizations and funders. 

Below, you'll find several common misconceptions about openness and clarifications aimed at offering a fresh perspective and a deeper understanding of its broad benefits to all research. These examples also serve as a foundational guide for identifying other unlisted misconceptions.

Misconception 1: Open science and open access lead to lower-quality research results.

Clarification: Absolutely not! In reality, the adoption of open science principles fosters greater transparency and accessibility in research. Wider access to research methods and results leads to increased discovery, utilization, discussion, and enhancement of research, ultimately resulting in more robust and reproducible outcomes.

 

Misconception 2: Open Science is only for the sciences.

Clarification: This is not accurate. Open science transcends disciplinary boundaries, encompassing not only the sciences but also the arts and humanities, as well as fields like business and economics.

 

Misconception 3: Open access and open science are the same.

Clarification: Not quite! Open access is just one facet of the broader open science landscape. Open access focuses on making scholarly outputs freely accessible for maximal use and impact, while open science comprises a wide array of practices collectively designed to make research transparent, publicly available, and reproducible.

 

Misconception 4: I work with Human Subject data, so open science doesn’t apply to me.

Clarification: On the contrary, open science is relevant to your work as well. Safeguarding the privacy of human subjects' data and personally identifiable information (PII) is paramount. Nonetheless, there are open science practices available for adoption, such as sharing analytic methods, research materials, and design analysis, among others.

 

Misconception 5: I have to apply every open science practice in my research to be considered a steward or practitioner of open science.

Clarification: False! You are not required to implement every facet of open science to be considered a practitioner. Instead, identify a practice that aligns with your research values and methods, and then explore how you can apply it to your work. It's highly probable that you're already incorporating some open science practices; in that case, consider how you can further enhance these practices or incorporate additional ones to augment the openness of your research.