MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital

2023· preprint· en· W4387736754 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Kelly D. Cobey, Justin Presseau, Mohsen Alayche, Jessie V. Willis, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
KeywordsOpen scienceAuditOpen dataData sharingTransparency (behavior)MedicinePsychologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceAlternative medicineBusinessWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePhysicsAccountingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Background:</ns3:bold> Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. The adoption of open science has been recognized to support innovation, equity, and transparency. The <ns3:bold/> Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital (Neuro) has committed to becoming an ‘open science’ institute, the first of its kind in Canada. Here we report on an audit of open data practices in Neuro publications and on a survey of Neuro-based researchers’ barriers and facilitators to data sharing. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> In the first study, we retrieved 313 unique publications and collated all Neuro publications from 2019 and extracted information from each article pertaining to data sharing and other open science practices. We included all empirical papers and pre-prints that were reported in English. In the second study, one hundred twenty-four participants (out of 553) completed the survey, with a response rate of 22.42%. We surveyed all Neuro researchers. For the audit, we examined data sharing and open science practices. For the survey, we asked participants questions about their data sharing practices and perceptions. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Results:</ns3:bold> We found that 66.5% of these publications (n=208) included a data sharing statement. Overall, 74.5% (n=155) of articles had data that was publicly available. When examining broader open science practices, rates of compliance tended to be lower. For example, 94.9% (n=297) of publications failed to register a protocol. Among participants who had published a first or last authored paper in the past year, most participants, 53 of 74 (71.62%), reported that they had openly shared their research data. Less than half of the participants, 37.50% (n=45), reported having engaged in training related to data sharing within the last 12 months. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusion:</ns3:bold> We found that half of all publications included in the audit shared data. Participants indicated an appetite for resources for learning about data-sharing signaling a willingness to perform better. </ns3:p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0070.136
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.363
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.121 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207