17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Low availability of code in ecology: A call for urgent action

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Access to analytical code is essential for transparent and reproducible research. We review the state of code availability in ecology using a random sample of 346 nonmolecular articles published between 2015 and 2019 under mandatory or encouraged code-sharing policies. Our results call for urgent action to increase code availability: only 27% of eligible articles were accompanied by code. In contrast, data were available for 79% of eligible articles, highlighting that code availability is an important limiting factor for computational reproducibility in ecology. Although the percentage of ecological journals with mandatory or encouraged code-sharing policies has increased considerably, from 15% in 2015 to 75% in 2020, our results show that code-sharing policies are not adhered to by most authors. We hope these results will encourage journals, institutions, funding agencies, and researchers to address this alarming situation.

          Abstract

          Publication of the analytical code underlying a scientific study is increasingly expected or even mandated by journals, allowing others to reproduce the results. However, a survey of more than 300 recently published ecology papers finds the majority have no code publicly available, handicapping efforts to improve scientific transparency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

          Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How open science helps researchers succeed

            Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.001
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

              The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                PLoS Biol
                PLoS Biol
                plos
                plosbiol
                PLoS Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1544-9173
                1545-7885
                28 July 2020
                July 2020
                28 July 2020
                : 18
                : 7
                : e3000763
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, NIOO-KNAW, Wageningen, the Netherlands
                [2 ] Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [3 ] Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, United Kingdom
                [4 ] Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [5 ] Department of Evolutionary Biology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2910-8085
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6587-9402
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5812-4039
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2886-0649
                Article
                PBIOLOGY-D-20-00928
                10.1371/journal.pbio.3000763
                7386629
                32722681
                51095f56-16ee-4d8c-a2b0-7508e769dfc4
                © 2020 Culina et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 0, Pages: 9
                Funding
                AS-T was supported by German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the SFB TRR 212 (NC 3), project numbers 316099922 and 396782608. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Perspective
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Reproducibility
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Theoretical Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Theoretical Ecology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Conservation Science
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Software Engineering
                Computer Software
                Engineering and Technology
                Software Engineering
                Computer Software
                Engineering and Technology
                Electronics Engineering
                Computer Engineering
                Man-Computer Interface
                Graphical User Interfaces
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Computer Architecture
                User Interfaces
                Graphical User Interfaces
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Institutional Funding of Science
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Scientific Publishing

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article