Advertisement

Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: a cross-sectional study

  • Hassan Khan
    Affiliations
    Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

    Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Elham Almoli
    Affiliations
    Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

    School of Interdisciplinary Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Marina Christ Franco
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Tel: +55 53997072679, Fax: +55 53 32224439
    Affiliations
    Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

    School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
    Search for articles by this author
  • David Moher
    Affiliations
    Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

    School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 08, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.003

      Abstract

      Background and Objective

      To evaluate the current hiring practices of academic institutions around the world, with regard to the mention of advertisements for Open Science (OS) in research based, faculty, and postdoctoral positions.

      Study Design

      Cross-sectional study, using 189 global institutions from the Center for Science and Technology Leiden ranking of world universities of 2017, including the U15 Group (Canadian Research-Intensive Universities), and five self-selected supplementary institutions.

      Methods

      The main outcome measure for our study is the level of OS in job advertisements, assessed using the Modified Open Science Modular Scheme.

      Results

      After assessing 305 job advertisements for academic positions in 91 institutions, only 2 (0.6%) had any explicit mention of OS in their job advertisements on the Modified Open Science Modular Scheme. The sample assessed the level of open science for 39.0% Associate and/or Assistant professor positions, 30.8% Researcher and/or Postdoctoral fellow positions, and 18.7% of Tenured positions. The remaining 11.5% were for positions such as lectureship, research associate, chair, dean, director and other.

      Conclusion

      This study emphasizes the need for increased recognition of OS as a characteristic in research-active job advertisements. As evident in the alarmingly low percentage of job advertisements that mentioned OS (0.6%), the movement towards enhanced OS profiles across academic institutions is highly encouraged. This can be achieved through increased recognition of OS in research job advertisements and demonstrating the means in which institutions promote OS such as, encouraging preprints, publishing in open access journals, and the importance of data sharing.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • van der Zee T.
        • Reich J.
        Open education science.
        AERA Open. 2018; 4: 1-15https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2332858418787466
        • Allen C.
        • Mehler
        • D. M. A
        Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond.
        PLoS Biology. 2019; 17e3000246https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
        • Vicente-Saez R.
        • Martinez-Fuentes C.
        Open Science now: a systematic literature review for an integrated definition.
        J Business Res. 2018; 88: 428-436https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
        • Niles M.T.
        • Schimanski L.A.
        • McKiernan E.C.
        • Alperin J.P.
        Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations.
        Plos one. 2020; 15e0228914https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914
        • Rice D.B.
        • Raffoul H.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A
        • Moher D.
        Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities.
        BMJ. 2020; 369: m2081https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2081
        • Wright C.B.
        • Vanderford N.L.
        What faculty hiring committees want.
        Nature Biotechnol. 2017; 35: 885-887https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3962
        • Nelson L.D.
        • Simmons J.P.
        • Simonsohn U.
        Let's publish fewer papers.
        Psychol Inquiry. 2012; 23: 291-293https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.705245
        • Moher D.
        • et al.
        Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.
        PLoS Biology. 2018; 16e2004089https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089
        • Chambers C.
        The registered reports revolution: Lessons in cultural reform.
        Significance. 2019; 16: 23-27https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01299.x
        • Pronk T.E.
        The time efficiency gain in sharing and reuse of research data.
        Data Science J. 2019; 18: 10
        • Anvari F.
        • Lakens D.
        The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science.
        Comprehensive Results in Social Psychol. 2018; 3: 266-286https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
        • Strech D.
        • Weissgerber T.
        • Dirnagl U.
        • QUEST Group
        Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative.
        PLoS Biology. 2020; 18e3000576https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000576
        • Waters A.M.
        • LeBeau R.T.
        • Young K.S.
        • Dowell T.L.
        • Ryan K.M.
        Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science.
        Behaviour res and therapy. 2020; 124103499https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103499
        • Besançon L.
        • et al.
        Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
        BMC Medical Research Methodol. 2021; 21: 1-18https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
        • Begley C.G.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research.
        Circulation Res. 2015; 116: 116-126https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819
        • Wallach J.D.
        • Boyack K.W.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A
        Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017.
        PLoS Biology. 2018; 16e2006930https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930
        • Begley C.G.
        • Buchan A.
        • Dirnagl U.
        Robust research: institutions must do their part for reproducibility.
        Nature. 2015; 525: 25-27https://doi.org/10.1038/525025a
        • Rice D.B.
        • Raffoul H.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • Moher D.
        Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in faculties of medicine: a cross-sectional study of the Canadian U15 universities.
        FACETS. 2021; 6: 58-70https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0044
      1. Schönbrodt, F. D. et al. Academic job offers that mentioned open science. (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.17605/OSF.IO/7JBNT

        • Macketanz V.
        • Burchardt A.
        • Uszkoreit H.
        TQ-AUTOTEST: Novel analytical quality measure confirms that DeepL is better than Google Translate.
        n.d. 2021;
        • Mejlgaard N.
        • et al.
        Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk.
        Nature. 2020; 586: 358-360
        • Moher D.
        • et al.
        The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: fostering research integrity.
        PLoS Biology. 2020; 18e3000737https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
        • Flier J.
        Faculty promotion must assess reproducibility.
        Nature News. 2017; 549: 133https://doi.org/10.1038/549133a
        • Wellcome Trust
        Open Access Policy. 2021;
        • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
        Open Access Policy. 2021;
        • Canadian Institute of Health Research
        Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications. 2016;
        • Poupon V.
        • Seyller A.
        • Rouleau G.A.
        The Tanenbaum open science Institute: leading a paradigm shift at the Montreal neurological institute.
        Neuron. 2017; 95: 1002-1006https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.026
        • Ali-Khan S.E.
        • Harris L.W.
        • Gold E.R.
        Point of view: motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives.
        Elife. 2017; 6https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29319.001
        • Mills K.
        APA names first open science and methodology chair to deepen commitment to data sharing, transparency in science.
        Am Psychol Assoc. 2018;
        • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        Open Science.
        Earth Data Systems Program. 2021;
        https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/open-science
        Date accessed: October 17, 2021
        • American Society for Cell Biology
        San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. 2012; : 1-10