Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society\'s problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications.

UNASSIGNED: Many interventions, especially those linked to open science, have been proposed to improve reproducibility in science. To what extent these propositions are based on scientific evidence from empirical evaluations is not clear.
UNASSIGNED: The primary objective is to identify Open Science interventions that have been formally investigated regarding their influence on reproducibility and replicability. A secondary objective is to list any facilitators or barriers reported and to identify gaps in the evidence.
UNASSIGNED: We will search broadly by using electronic bibliographic databases, broad internet search, and contacting experts in the field of reproducibility, replicability, and open science. Any study investigating interventions for their influence on the reproducibility and replicability of research will be selected, including those studies additionally investigating drivers and barriers to the implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Studies will first be selected by title and abstract (if available) and then by reading the full text by at least two independent reviewers. We will analyze existing scientific evidence using scoping review and evidence gap mapping methodologies.
UNASSIGNED: The results will be presented in interactive evidence maps, summarized in a narrative synthesis, and serve as input for subsequent research.
UNASSIGNED: This protocol has been pre-registered on OSF under doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D65YS.

Open science (OS) awareness and skills are increasingly becoming an essential part of everyday scientific work as e.g., many journals require authors to share data. However, following an OS workflow can seem challenging at first. Thus, instructions by journals and other guidelines are important. But how comprehensive are they in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology (Ecol Evol)? To find this out, we reviewed 20 published OS guideline articles aimed for ecologists or evolutionary biologists, together with the data policies of 17 Ecol Evol journals to chart the current landscape of OS guidelines in the field, find potential gaps, identify field-specific barriers for OS and discuss solutions to overcome these challenges. We found that many of the guideline articles covered similar topics, despite being written for a narrow field or specific target audience. Likewise, many of the guideline articles mentioned similar obstacles that could hinder or postpone a transition to open data sharing. Thus, there could be a need for a more widely known, general OS guideline for Ecol Evol. Following the same guideline could also enhance the uniformity of the OS practices carried on in the field. However, some topics, like long-term experiments and physical samples, were mentioned surprisingly seldom, although they are typical issues in Ecol Evol. Of the journals, 15 out of 17 expected or at least encouraged data sharing either for all articles or under specific conditions, e.g. for registered reports and 10 of those required data sharing at the submission phase. The coverage of journal data policies varied greatly between journals, from practically non-existing to very extensive. As journals can contribute greatly by leading the way and making open data useful, we recommend that the publishers and journals would invest in clear and comprehensive data policies and instructions for authors.
Avoimen tieteen ymmärrys ja taitojen hallinta on yhä tärkeämpi osa tutkijan arkea, sillä esimerkiksi monet tieteelliset lehdet odottavat aineiston avointa jakamista. Avoimen tieteen työtapojen noudattaminen voi kuitenkin tuntua alkuun haastavalta, minkä vuoksi esimerkiksi tieteellisten lehtien ja muiden tahojen laatimat ohjeet ovat tärkeitä. Mutta kuinka kattavia ne ovat ekologian ja evoluutiobiologian alalla? Kävimme läpi 20 julkaistua ekologeille tai evoluutiobiologeille suunnattua avoimen tieteen ohjeistusta sekä 17 ekologian ja evoluutiobiologian tieteellisen lehden datakäytännöt, tarkoituksenamme kartoittaa alojen avoimen tieteen ohjeiden nykytilaa, löytää mahdollisia puutteita, tunnistaa alakohtaisia esteitä avoimen tieteen käytäntöjen toteutumiselle sekä keskustella ratkaisuista, joilla nämä haasteet voitaisiin ratkaista. Havaitsimme, että monet ohjeistukset käsittelivät samankaltaisia aiheita, vaikka ne oli tarkoitettu kapealle erityisalalle tai suunnattu hyvin rajoitetulle kohderyhmälle. Samoin monissa ohjeistuksissa mainittiin samankaltaisia aineistojen avoimen jakamisen hidastamista tai estämistä aiheuttavia haasteita. Toiset aiheet, kuten pitkäaikaiskokeet ja fyysiset näytteet, sen sijaan mainittiin yllättävän harvoin, vaikka niissä on tyypillisiä ekologian ja evoluutiobiologian alojen haasteita. Tieteellisistä lehdistä 15:ssä 17:sta vaadittiin tai vähintään kannustettiin jakamaan aineisto avoimesti joko kaikkien artikkelien osalta tai tietyin edellytyksin, esim. rekisteröityjen tutkimusraporttien osalta. Lisäksi 10 näistä lehdistä edellytti aineiston avointa jakamista jo submittointivaiheessa. Tieteellisten lehtien aineisto‐ohjeiden kattavuus vaihteli suuresti lehtien välillä, käytännössä olemattomasta hyvin laajaan. Koska tieteellisillä lehdillä on suuri vaikutusvalta avoimen tieteen käytäntöjen edistämiseen, suosittelemme kustantajia ja lehtiä panostamaan selkeisiin ja kattaviin aineistolinjauksiin ja ohjeistuksiin.

As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors.
Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors (Individuals).
The survey\'s response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness.
The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science.
osf.io/gmv6z.

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists\' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists\' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

Cardiovascular disease accounts for 17.9 million deaths globally each year. Many research study data sets have been collected to answer questions regarding the relationship between cardiometabolic health and accelerometer-measured physical activity. This scoping review aimed to map the available data sets that have collected accelerometer-measured physical activity and cardiometabolic health markers. These data were then used to inform the development of a publicly available resource, the Global Physical Activity Data set (GPAD) catalogue.
This review aimed to systematically identify data sets that have measured physical activity using accelerometers and cardiometabolic health markers using either an observational or interventional study design.
Databases, trial registries, and gray literature (inception until February 2021; updated search from February 2021 to September 2022) were systematically searched to identify studies that analyzed data sets of physical activity and cardiometabolic health outcomes. To be eligible for inclusion, data sets must have measured physical activity using an accelerometric device in adults aged ≥18 years; a sample size >400 participants (unless recruited participants in a low- and middle-income country where a sample size threshold was reduced to 100); used an observational, longitudinal, or trial-based study design; and collected at least 1 cardiometabolic health marker (unless only body mass was measured). Two reviewers screened the search results to identify eligible studies, and from these, the unique names of each data set were recorded, and characteristics about each data set were extracted from several sources.
A total of 17,391 study reports were identified, and after screening, 319 were eligible, with 122 unique data sets in these study reports meeting the review inclusion criteria. Data sets were found in 49 countries across 5 continents, with the most developed in Europe (n=53) and the least in Africa and Oceania (n=4 and n=3, respectively). The most common accelerometric brand and device wear location was Actigraph and the waist, respectively. Height and body mass were the most frequently measured cardiometabolic health markers in the data sets (119/122, 97.5% data sets), followed by blood pressure (82/122, 67.2% data sets). The number of participants in the included data sets ranged from 103,712 to 120. Once the review processes had been completed, the GPAD catalogue was developed to house all the identified data sets.
This review identified and mapped the contents of data sets from around the world that have collected potentially harmonizable accelerometer-measured physical activity and cardiometabolic health markers. The GPAD catalogue is a web-based open-source resource developed from the results of this review, which aims to facilitate the harmonization of data sets to produce evidence that will reduce the burden of disease from physical inactivity.

Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields.
We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018 and 2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences, and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature - CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol for the replication study was used, whether there was contact between the reproducing team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how reproducibilty was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully reproduced based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer.
Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single reproducibility study while the remaining 11 reported at least two reproducibility studies in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of reproduciblity success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies reproduced.
This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to reproduce previous research. Such reproducibility studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a successfully reproduced study is ambiguous, and the reproducibility rate is overall modest.
No external funding was received for this work.

暂无摘要。

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students\' scientific literacies (i.e. students\' understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students\' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.