Back

A Survey of Open Science Attitudes and Behaviors among US Pharmacy Faculty

Harpe, S. E.

2024-06-23 medical education
10.1101/2024.06.20.24309260 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: To describe the current attitudes, behaviors, and perceived disciplinary norms related to open science practices among full-time pharmacy faculty in the US and to examine differences in attitudes and behaviors across pharmacy disciplines. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the Center for Open Sciences Open Scholarship Survey modules on data sharing, code sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, preprints, and open access publishing were administered to a random sample of 3,200 faculty from the AACP Roster of Pharmacy Faculty as of February 2022. Individuals with at least a 0.8 full-time equivalent faculty appointment in pharmacy practice or one of the pharmaceutical sciences were eligible to participate. Results: Responses were obtained from 663 faculty (502 complete; 161 partial). The most positive attitudes were for open access publishing (overall mean [SD]: 4.1 [0.9]) with the lowest attitudes for study preregistration (3.2 [0.9]) and posting preprints (3.1 [1.1]). Statistically significant differences in attitudes across pharmacy disciplines were identified for data sharing, code sharing, and study preregistration. The most commonly reported open science practice was open access publishing (mean [SD], 27.7% [29.1%]). Study preregistration was the least common (mean [SD], 1.7% [7.0%]). After accounting for respondent and institutional characteristics, differences in open science behaviors were noted across pharmacy disciplines. Conclusion: This study provides a baseline assessment of faculty attitudes towards and engagement in open science practices among US pharmacy faculty. Given the relatively low frequency with which open science practices were reported, there is considerable room for improvement in the uptake of open science practices.

Published in Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.