IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/vrcdh_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Basellini, Ugofilippo

Abstract

BACKGROUND In the light of recent concerns about the reliability of scientific research, the open science movement has attracted considerable attention and interest from a variety of sources, including researchers, research institutions, the business sector, intergovernmental organisations, the media, and the public. However, the current extent of openness in demographic research remains unknown. METHODS All relevant publications in four leading journals of anglophone demography – Demography, Population and Development Review, Population Studies, and Demographic Research – over the last decade are analysed. Using a text-search algorithm, two quantitative metrics of open scientific knowledge are estimated: the share of publications that can be openly accessed, and the share of publications providing open software codes for reproducibility or replicability purposes. RESULTS Two contrasting patterns emerge from these indicators. Access to demographic research papers is increasingly available to everyone, with more than 90% of open-access publications in 2023. Conversely, the provision of open software codes has been and still remains considerably low, with only small signs of improvement over time. Over the last three years, on average 31% of articles in Demographic Research provided these materials and only about 12% in the other journals. CONTRIBUTION This reflection provides the first assessment of the adoption of some open science practices in demographic research and their evolution over the last decade. An urgent change is needed in the sharing of software codes (along with the data used, where possible) to contribute to the advancement of demographic research. Some recommendations for promoting this change are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Basellini, Ugofilippo, 2024. "Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal," SocArXiv vrcdh_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:vrcdh_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/vrcdh_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6554c0a1f6ce3c0d86504ea2/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/vrcdh_v1?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. Holly Else & Richard Van Noorden, 2021. "The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science," Nature, Nature, vol. 591(7851), pages 516-519, March.
    2. R Grant Steen & Arturo Casadevall & Ferric C Fang, 2013. "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    3. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Basellini, Ugofilippo, 2023. "Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal," SocArXiv vrcdh, Center for Open Science.
    2. Ugofilippo Basellini, 2024. "Open science practices in demographic research: An appraisal," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 50(43), pages 1265-1280.
    3. H. Latan & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & M. Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Post-Print hal-04276024, HAL.
    4. Turcan Nelly & Rusu Andrei & Cujba Rodica, 2019. "Study on the Mapping of Research Data in the Republic of Moldova in the Context of Open Science," International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 11-22, June.
    5. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2017. "Post retraction citations in context: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 547-565, October.
    6. Margarida Rodrigues & Cidália Oliveira & MárioFranco & Ana Daniel, 2024. "A Bibliometric Study About the Rural Creative Class: Proposal of a Conceptual Framework and Future Agenda," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 15278-15303, September.
    7. Arandjelović, Ognjen, 2023. "A Case for `Killer Robots': Why in the Long Run Martial AI May Be Good for Peace," SocArXiv 9kja8, Center for Open Science.
    8. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    9. Bhumika Bhatt, 2021. "A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4039-4054, May.
    10. Adelaide Martins & Manuel Castelo Branco & Pedro Novo Melo & Carolina Machado, 2022. "Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-26, May.
    11. Nathalie Colasanti & Chiara Fantauzzi & Rocco Frondizi, 2021. "Innovating Public Service Delivery Through Crowdsourcing: What Role for The Third Sector and Civil Society?," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Hosany, A. R. Shaheen & Hosany, Sameer & He, Hongwei, 2022. "Children sustainable behaviour: A review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 236-257.
    13. Maria Theresa Norn & Laia Pujol Priego & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Thomas Kjeldager Ryan & Marie Louise Conradsen & Thomas Martin Durcan & David G. Hulcoop & Aled Edwards & Susanne Müller, 2024. "Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships: connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Annina Lattu & Yuzhuo Cai, 2023. "Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research collaboration," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(5), pages 905-916.
    15. Le, Tam-Tri, 2022. "Tra cứu nhanh về hai chủ đề quan trọng với học giới," OSF Preprints b4sma_v1, Center for Open Science.
    16. Antonello Cammarano & Vincenzo Varriale & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2022. "Open and Crowd-Based Platforms: Impact on Organizational and Market Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, February.
    17. Justyna Żywiołek & Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka & Maciej Mrowiec, 2021. "Knowledge Management in Households about Energy Saving as Part of the Awareness of Sustainable Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Mathis, Bryan & Ohniwa, Ryosuke L., 2024. "Trends in emerging topics generation across countries in life science and medicine," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    19. Valérie Mignon & Marc Joëts, 2025. "Slaying the Undead: How Long Does It Take to Kill Zombie Papers?," EconomiX Working Papers 2025-7, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    20. Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh & Bor Luen Tang, 2022. "Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:vrcdh_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.