探索学术界利益相关者对可重复性的理解及其对网络教育工具的期望:定性研究。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-05-05 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2345723
Luka Ursić, Nensi Bralić, Marija Franka Žuljević, Livia Puljak, Ivan Buljan
{"title":"探索学术界利益相关者对可重复性的理解及其对网络教育工具的期望:定性研究。","authors":"Luka Ursić, Nensi Bralić, Marija Franka Žuljević, Livia Puljak, Ivan Buljan","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although reproducibility is central to the scientific method, its understanding within the research community remains insufficient. We aimed to explore the perceptions of research reproducibility among stakeholders within academia, learn about possible barriers and facilitators to reproducibility-related practices, and gather their suggestions for the Croatian Reproducibility Network website. We conducted four focus groups with researchers, teachers, editors, research managers, and policymakers from Croatia (<i>n</i> = 23). The participants observed a lack of consensus on the core definitions of reproducibility, both generally and between disciplines. They noted that incentivization and recognition of reproducibility-related practices from publishers and institutions, alongside comprehensive education adapted to the researchers' career stage, could help with implementing reproducibility. Education was considered essential to these efforts, as it could help create a research culture based on good reproducibility-related practices and behavior rather than one driven by mandates or career advancement. This was particularly found to be relevant for growing reproducibility efforts globally. Regarding the Croatian Reproducibility Network website, the participants suggested we adapt the content to users from different disciplines or career stages and offer guidance and tools for reproducibility through which we should present core reproducibility concepts. Our findings could inform other initiatives focused on improving research reproducibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the understanding of reproducibility among stakeholders within academia and their expectations for a web-based education tool: A qualitative study.\",\"authors\":\"Luka Ursić, Nensi Bralić, Marija Franka Žuljević, Livia Puljak, Ivan Buljan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2345723\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although reproducibility is central to the scientific method, its understanding within the research community remains insufficient. We aimed to explore the perceptions of research reproducibility among stakeholders within academia, learn about possible barriers and facilitators to reproducibility-related practices, and gather their suggestions for the Croatian Reproducibility Network website. We conducted four focus groups with researchers, teachers, editors, research managers, and policymakers from Croatia (<i>n</i> = 23). The participants observed a lack of consensus on the core definitions of reproducibility, both generally and between disciplines. They noted that incentivization and recognition of reproducibility-related practices from publishers and institutions, alongside comprehensive education adapted to the researchers' career stage, could help with implementing reproducibility. Education was considered essential to these efforts, as it could help create a research culture based on good reproducibility-related practices and behavior rather than one driven by mandates or career advancement. This was particularly found to be relevant for growing reproducibility efforts globally. Regarding the Croatian Reproducibility Network website, the participants suggested we adapt the content to users from different disciplines or career stages and offer guidance and tools for reproducibility through which we should present core reproducibility concepts. Our findings could inform other initiatives focused on improving research reproducibility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2345723\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2345723","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管可重复性是科学方法的核心,但研究界对它的认识仍然不足。我们旨在探索学术界利益相关者对研究可重复性的看法,了解可重复性相关实践可能遇到的障碍和促进因素,并收集他们对克罗地亚可重复性网络网站的建议。我们与克罗地亚的研究人员、教师、编辑、研究管理人员和政策制定者(n = 23)进行了四次焦点小组讨论。与会者发现,在可重复性的核心定义上,无论是一般定义还是学科间定义都缺乏共识。他们指出,出版商和机构对可再现性相关实践的激励和认可,以及适合研究人员职业阶段的全面教育,有助于实施可再现性。他们认为,教育对这些工作至关重要,因为教育有助于创造一种基于良好的可重复性相关实践和行为的研究文化,而不是一种受任务或职业晋升驱动的文化。这一点对于在全球范围内加强可重复性尤为重要。关于克罗地亚可重复性网络网站,与会者建议我们调整网站内容,使其适应不同学科或职业阶段的用户,并提供可重复性指导和工具,通过这些指导和工具介绍核心的可重复性概念。我们的研究结果可以为其他以提高研究可重复性为重点的活动提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Exploring the understanding of reproducibility among stakeholders within academia and their expectations for a web-based education tool: A qualitative study.

Although reproducibility is central to the scientific method, its understanding within the research community remains insufficient. We aimed to explore the perceptions of research reproducibility among stakeholders within academia, learn about possible barriers and facilitators to reproducibility-related practices, and gather their suggestions for the Croatian Reproducibility Network website. We conducted four focus groups with researchers, teachers, editors, research managers, and policymakers from Croatia (n = 23). The participants observed a lack of consensus on the core definitions of reproducibility, both generally and between disciplines. They noted that incentivization and recognition of reproducibility-related practices from publishers and institutions, alongside comprehensive education adapted to the researchers' career stage, could help with implementing reproducibility. Education was considered essential to these efforts, as it could help create a research culture based on good reproducibility-related practices and behavior rather than one driven by mandates or career advancement. This was particularly found to be relevant for growing reproducibility efforts globally. Regarding the Croatian Reproducibility Network website, the participants suggested we adapt the content to users from different disciplines or career stages and offer guidance and tools for reproducibility through which we should present core reproducibility concepts. Our findings could inform other initiatives focused on improving research reproducibility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.
×
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