IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2006022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital open science—Teaching digital tools for reproducible and transparent research

Author

Listed:
  • Ulf Toelch
  • Dirk Ostwald

Abstract

An important hallmark of science is the transparency and reproducibility of scientific results. Over the last few years, internet-based technologies have emerged that allow for a representation of the scientific process that goes far beyond traditional methods and analysis descriptions. Using these often freely available tools requires a suite of skills that is not necessarily part of a curriculum in the life sciences. However, funders, journals, and policy makers increasingly require researchers to ensure complete reproducibility of their methods and analyses. To close this gap, we designed an introductory course that guides students towards a reproducible science workflow. Here, we outline the course content and possible extensions, report encountered challenges, and discuss how to integrate such a course in existing curricula.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulf Toelch & Dirk Ostwald, 2018. "Digital open science—Teaching digital tools for reproducible and transparent research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-11, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2006022
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006022
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006022&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Perkel, 2016. "Democratic databases: science on GitHub," Nature, Nature, vol. 538(7623), pages 127-128, October.
    2. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E B Kruuk & Robert Lanfear & Sandra A Binning, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Strech & Tracey Weissgerber & Ulrich Dirnagl & on behalf of QUEST Group, 2020. "Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-9, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Josip Strcic & Antonia Civljak & Terezija Glozinic & Rafael Leite Pacheco & Tonci Brkovic & Livia Puljak, 2022. "Open data and data sharing in articles about COVID-19 published in preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2791-2802, May.
    2. Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi & Ana-Maria Pop, 2024. "Something old, new, and borrowed. Rise of the systematic reviews," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5797-5803, September.
    3. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    4. Joshua D. Carrell & Edward Hammill & Thomas C. Edwards, 2022. "Balancing Rare Species Conservation with Extractive Industries," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Cobi Calyx, 2020. "Sustaining Citizen Science beyond an Emergency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-11, June.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Marcus Munafò & Amalia Mas-Bleda & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Verena Weigert & Chris Keene & Nushrat Khan & Katie Drax & Kayvan Kousha, 2020. "Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    7. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Laura Bowering Mullen, 2024. "Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and Open Science in Psychology: An Overview for Researchers," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1_suppl), pages 21582440231, April.
    9. Lloyd W. Morrison & Craig C. Young, 2016. "Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species," Data, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Rebecca F Alford & Andrew Leaver-Fay & Lynda Gonzales & Erin L Dolan & Jeffrey J Gray, 2017. "A cyber-linked undergraduate research experience in computational biomolecular structure prediction and design," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Lorenzo Lucchini & Laura Alessandretti & Bruno Lepri & Angela Gallo & Andrea Baronchelli, 2020. "From code to market: Network of developers and correlated returns of cryptocurrencies," Papers 2004.07290, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    12. Brian Jackson, 2021. "Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2006022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.