There are still barriers and hesitations around open research practices. Erika Pastrana and Simon Adar suggest that publishers and technology platforms can better support authors and drive uptake.
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz discusses PLOS’s Open Science Indicators initiatives and shares initial results.
FORCE11 and COPE release recommendations on data publishing ethics for researchers, publishers, and editors.
In guest post, Simon Linacre of Digital Science discusses their latest state of open data survey against the backdrop of the recent OSTP memo on expanding public access to research results.
Mark Hahnel looks at the progress that’s been made toward open research data — what’s been achieved, what still needs work, and what happens next?
The FAIR principles answer the ‘How’ question for sharing research data, but we also need consensus on the ‘What’ question.
A recent opinion paper by Richard Poynder @rickypo offers analysis and prognostication with regard to the current state and future prospects of #openaccess and the open access movement.
Today’s guest post on the importance of ensuring widespread community commitment to data citation is by Brooks Hanson, Daniella Lowenberg, Patricia Cruse, and Helena Cousijn
Higher Impact Factor, faster publication, and weaker data availability policies may be drawing authors away from PLOS ONE.
A short film on the need for accurate statistical analysis and data availability.
The number of funding agencies asking researchers to make their data available is increasing and more than half of researchers globally are already doing so. With enforceable mandates finally starting to arrive, how long can we continue to think of the jury still being out on open data?
The idea of “reanalysis” needs to be rethought, if recent examples are any indication of what this trend could do to science.
All primary data should be made openly available, a UK government report recommends.
If openness is an ideological tenant of science, why are scientists so secretive?
Supplemental data undermine scientific integrity by undermining the peer review process.