Dataset Information

On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study.

ABSTRACT: This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved.

SUBMITTER: Grubb AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3157385 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study.

Grubb Alicia M AM Easterbrook Steve M SM

PloS one 20110817 8

This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing ...[more]

PMID: 21858110

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHumans can easily grasp the affective meaning of touch when observing social interactions. Several neural systems support this ability, including the theory of mind (ToM) network and the somatosensory system linked to embodied resonance, but it is unclear how these systems are affected in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Individuals with ASD exhibit impairments in the use of nonverbal communication such as social and reciprocal touch. Despite the importance of touch in social communication and the reported touch aversion in ASD, surprisingly little is known about the neural systems underlying impairments in touch communication in ASD.MethodsThe present study applies a dynamic and socially meaningful stimulus set combined with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to pinpoint atypicalities in the neural circuitry underlying socio-affective touch observation in adults with ASD. Twenty-one adults with ASD and 21 matched neurotypical adults evaluated the valence and arousal of 75 video fragments displaying touch interactions. Subsequently, they underwent fMRI while watching the same videos. Using multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA) and multiple regression analysis, we examined which brain regions represent the socio-affective meaning of observed touch. To further understand the brain-behavior relationship, we correlated the strength of affective representations in the somatosensory cortex with individuals' attitude towards social touch in general and with a quantitative index of autism traits as measured by the Social Responsiveness Scale.ResultsResults revealed that the affective meaning of touch was well represented in the temporoparietal junction, a core mentalizing area, in both groups. Conversely, only the neurotypical group represented affective touch in the somatosensory cortex, a region involved in self-experienced touch. Lastly, irrespective of the group, individuals with a more positive attitude towards receiving, witnessing, and providing social touch and with a higher score on social responsivity showed more differentiated representations of the affective meaning of touch in these somatosensory areas.ConclusionsTogether, our findings imply that male adults with ASD show intact cognitive understanding (i.e., "knowing") of observed socio-affective touch interactions, but lack of spontaneous embodied resonance (i.e., "feeling").

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines.DesignEmpirical analysis.Data sourceGuidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021.Study selectionRecommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations.Data extractionPaired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness).ResultsThe study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach.ConclusionConsensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

Dataset Information

On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study.

Publications

On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets