A Survey of Open Science Attitudes and Behaviors among US Pharmacy Faculty

Spencer E Harpe
{"title":"A Survey of Open Science Attitudes and Behaviors among US Pharmacy Faculty","authors":"Spencer E Harpe","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.20.24309260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To describe the current attitudes, behaviors, and perceived disciplinary norms related to open science practices among full-time pharmacy faculty in the US and to examine differences in attitudes and behaviors across pharmacy disciplines.\nMethods: In this cross-sectional study, the Center for Open Science's Open Scholarship Survey modules on data sharing, code sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, preprints, and open access publishing were administered to a random sample of 3,200 faculty from the AACP Roster of Pharmacy Faculty as of February 2022. Individuals with at least a 0.8 full-time equivalent faculty appointment in pharmacy practice or one of the pharmaceutical sciences were eligible to participate. Results: Responses were obtained from 663 faculty (502 complete; 161 partial). The most positive attitudes were for open access publishing (overall mean [SD]: 4.1 [0.9]) with the lowest attitudes for study preregistration (3.2 [0.9]) and posting preprints (3.1 [1.1]). Statistically significant differences in attitudes across pharmacy disciplines were identified for data sharing, code sharing, and study preregistration. The most commonly reported open science practice was open access publishing (mean [SD], 27.7% [29.1%]). Study preregistration was the least common (mean [SD], 1.7% [7.0%]). After accounting for respondent and institutional characteristics, differences in open science behaviors were noted across pharmacy disciplines.\nConclusion: This study provides a baseline assessment of faculty attitudes towards and engagement in open science practices among US pharmacy faculty. Given the relatively low frequency with which open science practices were reported, there is considerable room for improvement in the uptake of open science practices.","PeriodicalId":501387,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.20.24309260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To describe the current attitudes, behaviors, and perceived disciplinary norms related to open science practices among full-time pharmacy faculty in the US and to examine differences in attitudes and behaviors across pharmacy disciplines. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the Center for Open Science's Open Scholarship Survey modules on data sharing, code sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, preprints, and open access publishing were administered to a random sample of 3,200 faculty from the AACP Roster of Pharmacy Faculty as of February 2022. Individuals with at least a 0.8 full-time equivalent faculty appointment in pharmacy practice or one of the pharmaceutical sciences were eligible to participate. Results: Responses were obtained from 663 faculty (502 complete; 161 partial). The most positive attitudes were for open access publishing (overall mean [SD]: 4.1 [0.9]) with the lowest attitudes for study preregistration (3.2 [0.9]) and posting preprints (3.1 [1.1]). Statistically significant differences in attitudes across pharmacy disciplines were identified for data sharing, code sharing, and study preregistration. The most commonly reported open science practice was open access publishing (mean [SD], 27.7% [29.1%]). Study preregistration was the least common (mean [SD], 1.7% [7.0%]). After accounting for respondent and institutional characteristics, differences in open science behaviors were noted across pharmacy disciplines. Conclusion: This study provides a baseline assessment of faculty attitudes towards and engagement in open science practices among US pharmacy faculty. Given the relatively low frequency with which open science practices were reported, there is considerable room for improvement in the uptake of open science practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国药学院教师开放科学态度和行为调查
目的描述美国全职药学教师目前对开放科学实践的态度、行为和感知的学科规范,并研究不同药学学科在态度和行为上的差异:在这项横断面研究中,开放科学中心的开放学术调查模块涉及数据共享、代码共享、材料共享、预注册、预印本和开放获取出版,调查对象是从 2022 年 2 月的美国药学会药学教职员工名册中随机抽取的 3200 名教职员工。至少拥有相当于 0.8 名全职教职员工的药学实践或药剂学教师均有资格参与。结果:共收到 663 名教师的回复(502 份完整回复;161 份部分回复)。态度最积极的是开放存取出版(总体平均值 [SD]: 4.1 [0.9]),态度最低的是研究预注册(3.2 [0.9])和发布预印本(3.1 [1.1])。各药学学科对数据共享、代码共享和研究成果预注册的态度在统计学上存在明显差异。最常报告的开放科学实践是开放存取出版(平均值 [SD], 27.7% [29.1%])。最不常见的是研究预注册(平均值[标准差],1.7% [7.0%])。在考虑了受访者和机构的特征后,我们发现不同药学学科的开放科学行为存在差异:本研究对美国药学系教师对开放科学实践的态度和参与情况进行了基线评估。鉴于报告开放科学实践的频率相对较低,因此开放科学实践的采用还有很大的改进空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of wiki- and blog-based Virtual Learning Environments as tools for improving collaborative learning in the Bachelor of Nursing degree. Comparative Analysis of Stress Responses in Medical Students Using Virtual Reality Versus Traditional 3D-Printed Mannequins for Pericardiocentesis Training The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Medical Education and Practice: A Systematic Literature Review Precision Education Tools for Pediatrics Trainees: A Mixed-Methods Multi-Site Usability Assessment Silence in physician clinical practice: a scoping review protocol
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1