Report of the 2021 ERIM Open Science Spring Survey
Dr. Lizette Guzman-Ramirez, Dr. Antonio Schettino
2021-09-24
Introduction
The Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) is committed to making Open Science practices the norm among its researchers.
Open Science increases transparency throughout the research cycle – from hypothesis, methodology, observation, data collection, to analysis and publication –, resulting in increased research efficiency and enhanced research quality, visibility, and engagement. Open Science also enables the creation of new research questions and promotes collaborations and community building.
For these reasons, ERIM wanted to have a baseline on what and how much open science practices its researchers are already engaging with and which ones they want to learn more about. These questions created the need to conduct a survey.
The ESE and RSM Open Science Spring Survey was open to all researchers from the 6th of April to the 6th of May 2021. Questions were adapted from the Swinburne Open Science Survey.
The survey explored how researchers perceive and use open science practices. Eight main topics were covered:
- Preregistration
- Open materials/code
- Open data
- Pre-publication archiving
- Open access
- General experience with open science practices
- Awareness of available tools
- Role of ERIM
This report displays the combined results (ESE and RSM) as well as separately for each school1.
This is a living document that will be updated with new information and insights. For any comments or questions, please contact Dr. Lizette Guzman-Ramirez (ERIM Research Data Steward) or Dr. Antonio Schettino (ERS Open Science Coordinator).
Respondents
A total of 130 respondents started the survey, and 113 completed it.
We asked participants their school, department, and research institute affiliation, together with their position.
59.29% of the respondents were from RSM, while 40.71% were affiliated to ESE. For the percentages regarding the affiliation of respondents per department, see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Affilliation per department.
Regarding institute affiliation, the majority of respondents (65.49%) were affiliated to ERIM, while 17.7% were affiliated to Tinbergen, 9.73% to neither institute, and 7.08% to both.
The total survey response rate was 20%. Table 1 presents the total response rate per research position and school.
| position | ESE | RSM | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| PhD student | 14% | 18% | 16% |
| Postdoc or researcher | 17% | 16% | 16% |
| Tenure track | 4% | 24% | 14% |
| Tenured faculty member | 34% | 26% | 30% |
| Total | 18% | 22% | 20% |
Preregistration
Total
The answers to the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that researchers preregister their studies? reveal that respondents consider preregistration Moderately important or Very important (57.52%), while 16.81% believe that preregistration is Not at all important.
From the question What is your experience with study preregistration?, we see that most respondents (53.98%) are aware of preregistration but have not used it in their own projects. 8.85% of the respondents regularly preregister their studies, while 7.96% had never heard of preregistration before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Preregistration: importance vs. experience.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about preregistering their studies, the top 3 were:
- I need to look at my data before I can decide how to best analyse it (25.66%)
- It might delay data collection (20.35%)
- Preregistration prevents exploratory research (19.47%)
Figure 3: Preregistration: concerns.
ESE
The answers to the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that researchers preregister their studies? reveal that respondents consider preregistration Moderately important or Very important (50%), while 21.74% believe that preregistration is Not at all important.
From the question What is your experience with study preregistration?, we see that most respondents (54.35%) are aware of preregistration but have not used it in their own projects. 4.35% of the respondents regularly preregister their studies, while 8.7% had never heard of preregistration before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Preregistration: importance vs. experience.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about preregistering their studies, the top 3 were:
- I need to look at my data before I can decide how to best analyse it (30.43%)
- I do not share any of these concerns (17.39%)
- Preregistration prevents exploratory research (17.39%)
Figure 5: Preregistration: concerns.
RSM
The answers to the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that researchers preregister their studies? reveal that respondents consider preregistration Moderately important or Very important (62.68%), while 13.43% believe that preregistration is Not at all important.
From the question What is your experience with study preregistration?, we see that most respondents (53.73%) are aware of preregistration but have not used it in their own projects. 11.94% of the respondents regularly preregister their studies, while 7.46% had never heard of preregistration before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Preregistration: importance vs. experience.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about preregistering their studies, the top 3 were:
- It might delay data collection (25.37%)
- I need to look at my data before I can decide how to best analyse it (22.39%)
- Preregistration prevents exploratory research (20.9%)
Figure 7: Preregistration: concerns.
Open materials/code
Total
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that materials and/or code are openly available?, we can see that 85% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Moderately important, Very important, or Extremely important, whereas 2.65% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 8.)
Figure 8: Open materials and/or code: importance.
The answers to the question What is your experience with using open materials and/or code? reveal that (40.71%) of respondents are aware of open materials but do not use them, and that (30.97%) have some experience using open materials and/or code. A considerable amount of researchers (21.24%) regularly use open materials and/or code, while only a small fraction of respondents (7.08%) had not heard of open materials and/or code before answering this survey.
From the question What is your experience with sharing open materials and/or code? we can see that 33.63% of respondents are aware of sharing materials and/or code, 31.86% have some experience, and 28.32% regularly share open materials and/or code.
Based on these results, we observe that researchers at ESE and RSM share their materials and/or code more than what they re-use. More details can be found in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Open materials and/or code: using vs. sharing.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their materials and/or code openly available, the top 3 were:
- Others might find it difficult to understand my materials and/or code (19.47%)
- I might lose control over how my materials and/or code are being used (15.04%)
- Other researchers might criticise my materials and/or code (8.85%)
27.43% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: Open materials and/or code: concerns.
ESE
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that materials and/or code are openly available?, we can see that 96% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Very important, Moderately important, or Extremely important. Nobody thinks that open materials and code are not important (see Figure 11).
Figure 11: Open materials and/or code: importance.
The answers to the question What is your experience with using open materials and/or code? reveal that 26.09% of respondents are aware of open materials but do not use them, and 41.3% have some experience using open materials and/or code. A considerable amount of researchers (28.26%) regularly use open materials and/or code, while only a small fraction of respondents (4.35%) had not heard of open materials and/or code before answering this survey.
From the question What is your experience with sharing open materials and/or code? we can see that 17.39% of respondents are aware of sharing materials and/or code, 41.3% have some experience, and 36.96% regularly share open materials and/or code. More details can be found in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Open materials and/or code: using vs. sharing.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their materials and/or code openly available, the top 3 were:
- Others might find it difficult to understand my materials and/or code (19.57%)
- I might lose control over how my materials and/or code are being used (15.22%)
- Sharing these materials and/or code could result in others asking me to provide assistance for their research (10.87%)
30.43% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 13).
Figure 13: Open materials and/or code: concerns.
RSM
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that materials and/or code are openly available?, we can see that 78% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Very important, Moderately important, or Extremely important, whereas 4.48% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 14.)
Figure 14: Open materials and/or code: importance.
The answers to the question What is your experience with using open materials and/or code? reveal that 50.75% of respondents are aware of open materials but do not use them, and that 23.88% have some experience using open materials and/or code. A considerable amount of researchers (16.42%) regularly use open materials and/or code, while only a small fraction of respondents (8.96%) had not heard of open materials and/or code before answering this survey.
From the question What is your experience with sharing open materials and/or code? we can see that 44.78% of respondents are aware of sharing materials and/or code, 25.37% have some experience, and 22.39% regularly share open materials and/or code. More details can be found in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Open materials and/or code: using vs. sharing.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their materials and/or code openly available, the top 3 were:
- Others might find it difficult to understand my materials and/or code (19.4%)
- I might lose control over how my materials and/or code are being used (14.93%)
- Other researchers might criticise my materials and/or code (10.45%)
25.37% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 16).
Figure 16: Open materials and/or code: concerns.
Open data
Total
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that data from published research are openly available?, 82% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Moderately important, Very important, or Extremely important, whereas 5.31% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 17).
Figure 17: Open data: importance.
The answers to the question What is your experience with using open data? reveal that (46.02%) of respondents are aware of open data but have nor used it, and (28.32%) have some experience using open data. 21.24% of researchers regularly use open data, while only a small fraction of respondents (2.65%) had not heard of open data before answering this survey.
From the question What is your experience with sharing open data? we can see that 49.56% of respondents are aware of sharing data, 27.43% have some experience, and 17.7% regularly share open data. More details can be found in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Open data: using vs. sharing.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their data openly available, the top 3 were:
- There could be issues related to intellectual property (30.09%)
- There could be issues related to privacy (14.16%)
- There could be issues related to ethics (11.5%)
17.7% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 19).
Figure 19: Open data: concerns.
ESE
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that data from published research are openly available?, 91% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Very important, Moderately important, or Extremely important, whereas 2.17% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 20).
Figure 20: Open data: importance.
The answers to the question What is your experience with using open data? reveal that 30.43% of respondents are aware of open data but have nor used it, and 32.61% have some experience using open data. 34.78% of researchers regularly use open data.
From the question What is your experience with sharing open data? we can see that 32.61% of respondents are aware of sharing data, 34.78% have some experience, and 28.26% regularly share open data. More details can be found in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Open data: using vs. sharing.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their data openly available, the top 3 were:
- There could be issues related to intellectual property (32.61%)
- There could be issues related to privacy (13.04%)
- I might not receive appropriate credit for my data collection (8.7%)
19.57% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 22).
Figure 22: Open data: concerns.
RSM
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that data from published research are openly available?, 76% of respondents think that using open materials and/or code is Moderately important, Very important, or Extremely important, whereas 7.46% think it is Not at all important (see Figure 23).
Figure 23: Open data: importance.
The answers to the question What is your experience with using open data? reveal that 56.72% of respondents are aware of open data but have nor used it, and 25.37% have some experience using open data. 11.94% of researchers regularly use open data, while only a small fraction of respondents (4.48%) had not heard of open data before answering this survey.
From the question What is your experience with sharing open data? we can see that 61.19% of respondents are aware of sharing data, 22.39% have some experience, and 10.45% regularly share open data. More details can be found in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Open data: using vs. sharing.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about making their data openly available, the top 3 were:
- There could be issues related to intellectual property (28.36%)
- There could be issues related to ethics (16.42%)
- There could be issues related to privacy (14.93%)
16.42% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 25).
Figure 25: Open data: concerns.
Pre-publication archiving
Total
The answers to the question In your opinion, how important is pre-publication archiving for your field? reveal that respondents consider pre-publication archiving Moderately important or Very important (45.13%), while 15.93% believe that pre-publication archiving is Not at all important.
From the question What is your experience with pre-publication archiving?, we see that most respondents (33.63%) are aware of pre-publication archiving but have not used it in their own projects. 22.12% of respondents have extensive experience with pre-publication archiving, while 18.58% had never heard of pre-publication archiving before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 26.
Figure 26: Pre-publication: importance vs. experience.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about uploading a manuscript to a pre-publication archive before submitting it for peer review, the top 3 were:
- Some journals might not publish findings that are uploaded to a pre-publication archive (38.05%)
- Other people might copy my research and publish it before I do (14.16%)
- Non-peer-reviewed findings might add noise to the literature (10.62%)
26.55% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 27).
Figure 27: Pre-publication: concerns.
ESE
The answers to the question In your opinion, how important is pre-publication archiving for your field? reveal that respondents consider pre-publication archiving Moderately important or Very important (63.05%), while 8.7% believe that pre-publication archiving is Not at all important.
From the question What is your experience with pre-publication archiving?, we see that 26.09% of respondents are aware of pre-publication archiving but have not used it in their own projects. 39.13% of respondents have extensive experience with pre-publication archiving, while 13.04% had never heard of pre-publication archiving before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 28.
Figure 28: Pre-publication: importance vs. experience.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about uploading a manuscript to a pre-publication archive before submitting it for peer review, the top 3 were:
- Non-peer-reviewed findings might add noise to the literature (17.39%)
- Some journals might not publish findings that are uploaded to a pre-publication archive (17.39%)
- Other people might copy my research and publish it before I do (10.87%)
43.48% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 29).
Figure 29: Pre-publication: concerns.
RSM
The answers to the question In your opinion, how important is pre-publication archiving for your field? reveal that respondents consider pre-publication archiving Slightly important or Not at all important (43.29%).
From the question What is your experience with pre-publication archiving?, we see that 38.81% of respondents are aware of pre-publication archiving but have not used it in their own projects. 10.45% of respondents have extensive experience with pre-publication archiving, while 22.39% had never heard of pre-publication archiving before answering this survey. More details can be found in Figure 30.
Figure 30: Pre-publication: importance vs. experience.
Among the possible concerns that researchers could have about uploading a manuscript to a pre-publication archive before submitting it for peer review, the top 3 were:
- Some journals might not publish findings that are uploaded to a pre-publication archive (52.24%)
- Other people might copy my research and publish it before I do (16.42%)
- Availability of the pre-publication manuscript might highlight differences (e.g., errors in analysis, revisions to hypotheses) between the original conception of the research and the ultimately published work (5.97%)
43.48% of respondents did not share any of the listed concerns (see Figure 31).
Figure 31: Pre-publication: concerns.
Open access
Total
When asked Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access?, 17.7% of respondents declared to have published all their papers open access, whereas 17.7% have none of their publications open access (see details in Table 2).
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 20.35% |
| Some | 19.47% |
| All | 17.7% |
| None | 17.7% |
| Most | 15.93% |
| Half | 8.85% |
When asked how they paid article processing charges (APCs) for open access publications, 36.28% of respondents declared that APCs were covered by the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers. More details can be found in Table 3.
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| It was paid under the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers | 36.28% |
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 31.86% |
| My open access publications did not involve fees | 12.39% |
| It was paid using the Erasmus Open Access Fund | 6.19% |
| Other | 4.42% |
| I submit my research to journals that do not provide open access options | 3.54% |
| I collaborated with others and other co-author paid the fees with their research funding | 2.65% |
| I paid the fees from my own research fund | 1.77% |
| I received a fee waiver from the journal | 0.88% |
ESE
When asked Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access?, 17.39% of respondents declared to have published all their papers open access, whereas 19.57% have none of their publications open access (see details in Table 4).
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| Most | 19.57% |
| None | 19.57% |
| All | 17.39% |
| Some | 17.39% |
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 15.22% |
| Half | 10.87% |
When asked how they paid article processing charges (APCs) for open access publications, 43.48% of respondents declared that APCs were covered by the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers. More details can be found in Table 5.
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| It was paid under the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers | 43.48% |
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 26.09% |
| My open access publications did not involve fees | 13.04% |
| I submit my research to journals that do not provide open access options | 4.35% |
| It was paid using the Erasmus Open Access Fund | 4.35% |
| Other | 4.35% |
| I paid the fees from my own research fund | 2.17% |
| I received a fee waiver from the journal | 2.17% |
RSM
When asked Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access?, 17.91% of respondents declared to have published all their papers open access, whereas 16.42% have none of their publications open access (see details in Table 6).
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 23.88% |
| Some | 20.9% |
| All | 17.91% |
| None | 16.42% |
| Most | 13.43% |
| Half | 7.46% |
When asked how they paid article processing charges (APCs) for open access publications, 31.34% of respondents declared that APCs were covered by the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers. More details can be found in Table 7.
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 35.82% |
| It was paid under the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers | 31.34% |
| My open access publications did not involve fees | 11.94% |
| It was paid using the Erasmus Open Access Fund | 7.46% |
| I collaborated with others and other co-author paid the fees with their research funding | 4.48% |
| Other | 4.48% |
| I submit my research to journals that do not provide open access options | 2.99% |
| I paid the fees from my own research fund | 1.49% |
General experiences with open science practices
Total
When asked What is your experience with open science practices?, 50.44% of respondents have some experience with open science practices, 11.5% have extensive experience, and 35.4% are aware but have not used any open science practices in their research (see Figure 32).
Figure 32: Open science practices: experience.
When asked Are you sharing your knowledge about open science practices with others?, 56.64% of respondents share their knowledge informally with colleagues, 2.65% give seminars and/or talks, and 0.88% discuss open science with students or fellow research students. The remaining respondents use other means of sharing knowledge (2.65%), do not share their knowledge (30.09%), or do not know/prefer not to answer (7.08%).
During March 2021 ERIM launched an ORCID campaign. When asked about participation and creation of an ORCID record, 64.6% of respondents declared not to have participated since they already had it, while 23.01% did participate and get an ORCID ID.
Among the perceived barriers to the uptake of open science practices, the top 3 were:
- Lack of funding for open access publishing (32.74%)
- Lack of recognition in my field about the value of open science practices (13.27%)
- Lack of credit in my institution for engaging in open science (11.5%)
For details, see Figure 33.
Figure 33: Open science: barriers.
ESE
When asked What is your experience with open science practices?, 63.04% of respondents have some experience with open science practices, 8.7% have extensive experience, and 21.74% are aware but have not used any open science practices in their research (see Figure 34).
Figure 34: Open science practices: experience.
When asked Are you sharing your knowledge about open science practices with others?, 50% of respondents share their knowledge informally with colleagues, 2.17% give seminars and/or talks, and discuss open science with students or fellow research students. The remaining respondents use other means of sharing knowledge (2.17%), do not share their knowledge (41.3%), or do not know/prefer not to answer (4.35%).
During March 2021 ERIM launched an ORCID campaign. When asked about participation and creation of an ORCID record, 67.39% of respondents declared not to have participated since they already had it, while 19.57% did participate and get an ORCID ID.
Among the perceived barriers to the uptake of open science practices, the top 3 were:
- Lack of funding for open access publishing (54.35%)
- Lack of credit in my institution for engaging in open science (6.52%)
- Lack of recognition in my field about the value of open science practices (6.52%)
For details, see Figure 35.
Figure 35: Open science: barriers.
RSM
When asked What is your experience with open science practices?, 41.79% of respondents have some experience with open science practices, 13.43% have extensive experience, and 44.78% are aware but have not used any open science practices in their research (see Figure 36).
Figure 36: Open science practices: experience.
When asked Are you sharing your knowledge about open science practices with others?, 61.19% of respondents share their knowledge informally with colleagues, 2.99% give seminars and/or talks, and 1.49% discuss open science with students or fellow research students. The remaining respondents use other means of sharing knowledge (2.99%), do not share their knowledge (22.39%), or do not know/prefer not to answer (8.96%).
During March 2021 ERIM launched an ORCID campaign. When asked about participation and creation of an ORCID record, 62.69% of respondents declared not to have participated since they already had it, while 25.37% did participate and get an ORCID ID.
Among the perceived barriers to the uptake of open science practices, the top 3 were:
- Lack of funding for open access publishing (17.91%)
- Lack of recognition in my field about the value of open science practices (17.91%)
- Lack of credit in my institution for engaging in open science (14.93%)
For details, see Figure 37.
Figure 37: Open science: barriers.
Awareness of available tools
Total
We asked researchers to indicate their awareness of some popular open science resources. Notably, services hosted or approved by EUR are frequently in use, for example Dropbox for Business (48.65%), SurfDrive (42.34%), and EUR RePub (33.64%). An overview of all responses can be found in Figure 38.
Figure 38: Open science tools: awareness.
ESE
We asked researchers to indicate their awareness of some popular open science resources. Notably, services hosted or approved by EUR are frequently in use, for example Dropbox for Business (43.48%), SurfDrive (43.48%), and EUR RePub (41.3%). An overview of all responses can be found in Figure 39.
Figure 39: Open science tools: awareness.
RSM
We asked researchers to indicate their awareness of some popular open science resources. Notably, services hosted or approved by EUR are frequently in use, for example Dropbox for Business (52.31%), SurfDrive (41.54%), and EUR RePub (28.12%). An overview of all responses can be found in Figure 40.
Figure 40: Open science tools: awareness.
Role of ERIM
Total
Finally, researchers were asked Do you expect that ERIM supports you in learning open science practices?. 67.26% of respondents said Yes whereas 15.93% said No.
When specifically asked Which of the following open science practices would you like ERIM to provide information or support for?, the top 3 were:
- Preregistration (50%)
- Open Materials and/or Code (18.42%)
- Open access publishing (14.47%)
For an overview, see Table 8.
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| Preregistration | 50% |
| Open Materials and/or Code | 18.42% |
| Open access publishing | 14.47% |
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 6.58% |
| Pre-publication archiving | 5.26% |
| Other | 2.63% |
| Open Data | 2.63% |
ESE
Finally, researchers were asked Do you expect that ERIM supports you in learning open science practices?. 58.7% of respondents said Yes whereas 23.91% said No.
When specifically asked Which of the following open science practices would you like ERIM to provide information or support for?, the top 3 were:
- Open Materials and/or Code (37.04%)
- Preregistration (37.04%)
- Open access publishing (11.11%)
For an overview, see Table 9.
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| Open Materials and/or Code | 37.04% |
| Preregistration | 37.04% |
| Open access publishing | 11.11% |
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 7.41% |
| Open Data | 3.7% |
| Pre-publication archiving | 3.7% |
RSM
Finally, researchers were asked Do you expect that ERIM supports you in learning open science practices?. 73.13% of respondents said Yes whereas 10.45% said No.
When specifically asked Which of the following open science practices would you like ERIM to provide information or support for?, the top 3 were:
- Preregistration (57.14%)
- Open access publishing (16.33%)
- Open Materials and/or Code (8.16%)
For an overview, see Table 10.
| response | percentage |
|---|---|
| Preregistration | 57.14% |
| Open access publishing | 16.33% |
| Open Materials and/or Code | 8.16% |
| I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 6.12% |
| Pre-publication archiving | 6.12% |
| Other | 4.08% |
| Open Data | 2.04% |
Strategy towards an open science culture at ERIM
Open Science increases transparency throughout the research cycle, resulting in increased research efficiency and enhanced research quality, visibility, and engagement. For these reasons, ERIM is committed to making Open Science practices the norm among its researchers.
Between 2021 and 2023, ERIM will execute a three-year Open Science initiative, geared towards making our scientific routines more open and engaged with our scholarly and societal stakeholders.
This initiative will focus on researcher behaviour and on stimulating the active use of open science tools and infrastructure.
In March 2021, ERIM kicked off this initiative with the ORCiD Madness Month, followed by the Open Science Spring Survey during the month of April. Later in the autumn, ERIM will continue with the October DataFest and develop an Open Science Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) for researchers and support staff (funded by Stepping Up Professional Services).
The ORCiD Madness Month brought to light the importance of having a unique identifier to your research profile and, as a result, we saw an increase of 72 new ORCiD accounts created between ESE and RSM researchers.
The Open Science Spring Survey was then conducted to gather a baseline on the Open Science practices our researchers are already engaging on, and to understand which practices they want to learn more about.
The lessons learned from the survey and how will the be tackled are the following:
Preregistration: researchers think is important but only a few are regularly preregistering their research, so we will have a module about it in the Open Science MOOC where we will have examples on how to preregister and we will also tackle researchers’ concerns.
Open materials and/or code and data: researchers find this very important, this is why we decided to use the whole month of October dedicated to open data. The ERIM October DataFest is intended to bring awareness on open data and promote the use of the Erasmus Data Repository (EDR). One of the events of the DataFest will tackle the top 5 concerns on open materials, code, and data that were reported in this survey.
Pre-publication: researchers think is very important to quickly disseminate their results, but only a small percentage of them are using pre-prints, and a large percentage of respondents were not aware of them. To tackle this, we will add a module on pre-publication archiving in the Open Science MOOC where we will explain its benefits, how to do it, and we will also tackle respondents’ concerns.
Open Access: a small percentage of respondents have all their publication open access. Fortunately for ERIM and the EUR, this percentage will change in the coming months/years, since EUR’s researchers have agreed to follow the Taverne amendment, ensuring that any publication that is not already open access will be made open (by law) after 6 months of its publication. We will provide more detail in a dedicated module on open access in our Open Science MOOC.
Open Science practices: the most relevant barrier to open science (excluding open access, because of the Taverne amendment) is the lack of recognition in the field and lack of credit by the institution. There is a lot of effort on this front: ERIM is redesigning its membership chart to include open science, funding agencies now require various forms of commitment to open science practices, and EUR has a whole task force that is also redesigning rewards and recognition for its researchers.
All in all, ERIM has started the year 2021 with a new strategy in place: to make open science the norm among its researchers.
The percentages presented in the survey responses reflect the survey respondents, not the total number of researchers at each school.↩︎