英国心理学博士研究人员对开放科学的知识、看法和经验

IF 1.6 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Cogent Psychology Pub Date : 2023-08-25 DOI:10.1080/23311908.2023.2248765
Madeleine Pownall, Jenny Terry, Elizabeth Collins, Martina Sladekova, Abigail Jones
{"title":"英国心理学博士研究人员对开放科学的知识、看法和经验","authors":"Madeleine Pownall, Jenny Terry, Elizabeth Collins, Martina Sladekova, Abigail Jones","doi":"10.1080/23311908.2023.2248765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To advance the goals and values of open science, it is vital that the next generation of researchers, i.e. PhD researchers, is supported in adopting open science practices. However, to date, there is no comprehensive understanding of psychology PhD researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with open science in a UK context. The present study used a pre-registered mixed methods design to fill this gap in the literature, by surveying psychology PhD students in the UK (n = 196) on their experiences with open science, perceptions of open science, and knowledge of open science tools and practices. Our findings demonstrate that while attitudes towards questionable research practices were consistently high, knowledge and perceptions of open science tools and practices varied considerably across PhD researchers. In particular, supervisory support and guidance with open science practices was mixed across participants. Perceived benefits of engaging with open science included benefits to employability, signalling researcher credibility, sharing learning and resources, building collaboration and relationships, and wider dissemination of PhD researchers’ work. Perceived barriers included lack of time, financial reasons, fear of scooping, fear of judgement or criticism, and incompatibility with research paradigms (e.g. qualitative research). Implications for policy, including British Psychological Society training and support, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46323,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UK Psychology PhD researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of open science\",\"authors\":\"Madeleine Pownall, Jenny Terry, Elizabeth Collins, Martina Sladekova, Abigail Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23311908.2023.2248765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract To advance the goals and values of open science, it is vital that the next generation of researchers, i.e. PhD researchers, is supported in adopting open science practices. However, to date, there is no comprehensive understanding of psychology PhD researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with open science in a UK context. The present study used a pre-registered mixed methods design to fill this gap in the literature, by surveying psychology PhD students in the UK (n = 196) on their experiences with open science, perceptions of open science, and knowledge of open science tools and practices. Our findings demonstrate that while attitudes towards questionable research practices were consistently high, knowledge and perceptions of open science tools and practices varied considerably across PhD researchers. In particular, supervisory support and guidance with open science practices was mixed across participants. Perceived benefits of engaging with open science included benefits to employability, signalling researcher credibility, sharing learning and resources, building collaboration and relationships, and wider dissemination of PhD researchers’ work. Perceived barriers included lack of time, financial reasons, fear of scooping, fear of judgement or criticism, and incompatibility with research paradigms (e.g. qualitative research). Implications for policy, including British Psychological Society training and support, are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogent Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogent Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2248765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2248765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
UK Psychology PhD researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of open science
Abstract To advance the goals and values of open science, it is vital that the next generation of researchers, i.e. PhD researchers, is supported in adopting open science practices. However, to date, there is no comprehensive understanding of psychology PhD researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with open science in a UK context. The present study used a pre-registered mixed methods design to fill this gap in the literature, by surveying psychology PhD students in the UK (n = 196) on their experiences with open science, perceptions of open science, and knowledge of open science tools and practices. Our findings demonstrate that while attitudes towards questionable research practices were consistently high, knowledge and perceptions of open science tools and practices varied considerably across PhD researchers. In particular, supervisory support and guidance with open science practices was mixed across participants. Perceived benefits of engaging with open science included benefits to employability, signalling researcher credibility, sharing learning and resources, building collaboration and relationships, and wider dissemination of PhD researchers’ work. Perceived barriers included lack of time, financial reasons, fear of scooping, fear of judgement or criticism, and incompatibility with research paradigms (e.g. qualitative research). Implications for policy, including British Psychological Society training and support, are discussed.
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
Cogent Psychology
Cogent Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: One of the largest multidisciplinary open access journals serving the psychology community, Cogent Psychology provides a home for scientifically sound peer-reviewed research. Part of Taylor & Francis / Routledge, the journal provides authors with fast peer review and publication and, through open access publishing, endeavours to help authors share their knowledge with the world. Cogent Psychology particularly encourages interdisciplinary studies and also accepts replication studies and negative results. Cogent Psychology covers a broad range of topics and welcomes submissions in all areas of psychology, ranging from social psychology to neuroscience, and everything in between. Led by Editor-in-Chief Professor Peter Walla of Webster Private University, Austria, and supported by an expert editorial team from institutions across the globe, Cogent Psychology provides our authors with comprehensive and quality peer review. Rather than accepting manuscripts based on their level of importance or impact, editors assess manuscripts objectively, accepting valid, scientific research with sound rigorous methodology. Article-level metrics let the research speak for itself.
期刊最新文献
Resilience of Indonesian Navy Wives: effects of self-efficacy and social support Vaccination behavior under uncertainty: a longitudinal study on factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior in Japan with a focus on the effect of close contacts’ vaccination behavior Multinational validation of the Arabic version of the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale (AILS) in university students Factorial validity and norms of the German and British-English online Conflict Monitoring Questionnaire Investigating gender and racial-ethnic biases in sentiment analysis of language
×
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