Perceived Risk and Barriers to Open and Responsible Research Across Fifteen UK Universities
Aubert Bonn, N.; Stewart, A. J.; Hughes-Noehrer, L.
Show abstract
Open research practices are increasingly promoted to improve research transparency, reproducibility, accessibility, and societal impact. Despite growing support from research funders, institutions, and policy initiatives, adoption remains uneven across disciplines and research communities. This study examined perceived risks and barriers associated with 14 FORRT Guideline areas using qualitative responses from the UK Reproducibility Network Open and Transparent Research Practices Survey (N = 2,567), conducted across 15 UK higher education institutions. Free-text responses describing risks and barriers were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. A total of 3,951 relevant comments generated 3,433 coded references to barriers and risks. Three interconnected clusters emerged. Individual concerns included lack of motivation, fear of losing intellectual credit, and concerns about exposing mistakes and criticism. Systemic and institutional barriers included lack of time and resources, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient training and support, lack of incentives and recognition, unclear guidance, disciplinary and methodological challenges, and tensions between open practices and intellectual property requirements. Ethical and quality-related concerns included risks to participant confidentiality and privacy, challenges associated with sensitive data, concerns about inappropriate application of open research practices across different research traditions, perceived impacts on research quality and innovation, and potential effects on public trust in research. Lack of time and resources was the most frequently reported barrier. Across responses, barriers were commonly described as interdependent, with shortcomings in funding, infrastructure, institutional support, incentives, and training reinforcing one another. Respondents largely supported the principles underpinning open research but highlighted substantial practical, professional, and ethical challenges to implementation. These findings suggest that increasing open research adoption requires more than policy mandates or awareness-raising activities. Sustainable uptake will depend on aligned incentives, adequate infrastructure and support, recognition of methodological diversity, and approaches that enable openness to be implemented responsibly across different research contexts.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Stakeholders’ views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research 95%
- Dissemination and Stakeholder Engagement Practices Among Dissemination & Implementation Scientists: Results from an Online Survey 93%
- Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving modelling for epidemic responses: reflections from members of the UK infectious disease modelling community on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic 93%
- Transparency and open science reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals 89%
- TRACKing Excess Deaths (TRACKED): an interactive online tool to monitor excess deaths associated with COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom 88%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The urgent need for phased university reopenings to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and conserve institutional resources: A modeling study 90%
- How, why and when are delayed (back-up) antibiotic prescriptions used in primary care? A realist review integrating concepts of uncertainty in healthcare 89%
- Development of the Kunonga Framework for Extending Approaches in Health Inequality and Inequity Evidence Syntheses 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Critical Appraisal of Predatory Journals in Pathology 90%
- Progression / remission of Coronavirus disease 2019: Data driven recommendations for repeating SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. 84%
- Extended Storage of SARS-CoV2 Nasopharyngeal Swabs Does Not Negatively Impact Results of Molecular-Based Testing 82%
"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.