Cited by 798Academic Publishing and Open AccessResearch Data Management Practicesscientometrics and bibliometrics research

How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed

Open access
McKiernan, Erin C, Bourne, Philip E, Brown, C Titus, Buck, Stuart, Kenall, Amye, Lin, Jennifer, McDougall, Damon, Nosek, Brian A +7 more·2016·eLife

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.16800

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bohannon J 2014 Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal. Science Insider, 2014 http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/updated-lax-reviewing-practice-prompts-60-retractions-sage-journal
  2. Cofactor Ltd 2016 Cofactor Journal Selector Tool http://cofactorscience.com/journal-selector
  3. Harvard Library, Office for Scholarly Communication 2014 Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Recommends Open-Access Deposit for Faculty Review Process http://bit.ly/1X8cLob
  4. Public Library of Science 2016 Open Access Funds www.plos.org/publications/publication-fees/open-access-funds/
  5. Publons 2016 Get credit for peer review https://publons.com/
  6. Redhead C 2013 OASPA’s response to the recent article in Science entitled “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?”. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, 2013 http://oaspa.org/response-to-the-recent-article-in-science/
  7. Research Information Network 2014 Nature Communications: Citation analysis http://www.nature.com/press_releases/ncomms-report2014.pdf
  8. Sahu DK Gogtay NJ Bavdekar SB 2005 Effect of open access on citation rates for a small biomedical journal https://web.archive.org/web/20121130165349/http://openmed.nic.in/1174/
  9. Springer 2014 Springer statement on SCIgen-generated papers in conference proceedings http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/statements?SGWID=0-1760813-6-1456249-0
  10. Suber P 2012 Open Access MIT Press http://bit.ly/oa-book
  11. Wikipedia 2016 List of academic journals by preprint policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., Spies, J. R., Thaney, K., Updegrove, A., Woo, K. H., & Yarkoni, T.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MX)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Arnold Ventures (US)
  • BioMed Central (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Crossref (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Center for Open Science (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Mozilla Foundation (US)
  • Boston Foundation (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
McKiernan, Erin C
Venue
eLife
Published
2016-07-07
Volume
5
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2463568293
Cited by
798
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 14
FWCI
128.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R24AG048124)
  • Laura and John Arnold Foundation
  • John Templeton Foundation (46545)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
open science, open access, open data, open source software, scientific careers, citation impact, media attention, research collaboration, research funding
MeSH terms
Research, Research Personnel, Access to Information, Open Access Publishing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review