IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/vrcdh.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 industry, intergovernmental organizations, 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 openly available data and/or software codes. RESULTS Two contrasting patterns in these indicators emerge. Access to demographic research papers is increasingly available to everyone, with more than 90\% of Open Access publications in 2023. Conversely, the availability of open data and/or software codes is considerably low, ranging from an average of about 6-9\% in three journals to about 28\% in Demographic Research, with no overall signs of improvement over time. CONTRIBUTION This reflection provides the first assessment of the adoption of some open science practices in demographic research and their evolution during the last decade. An urgent change is needed in the sharing of data (when possible) and especially of software codes to contribute advancing demographic research. Some recommendations for fostering this change are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Basellini, Ugofilippo, 2023. "Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal," SocArXiv vrcdh, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:vrcdh
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/vrcdh
    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?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. 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.
    2. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Le, Tam-Tri & Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2022. "Tra cứu nhanh về hai chủ đề quan trọng với học giới," OSF Preprints b4sma, Center for Open Science.
    4. 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.
    5. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    6. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    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. Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina, 2024. "Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Berendes, S. & Hilpert, S. & Günther, S. & Muschner, C. & Candas, S. & Hainsch, K. & van Ouwerkerk, J. & Buchholz, S. & Söthe, M., 2022. "Evaluating the usability of open source frameworks in energy system modelling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Bhumika Bhatt, 2021. "A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4039-4054, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    15. van Ouwerkerk, Jonas & Hainsch, Karlo & Candas, Soner & Muschner, Christoph & Buchholz, Stefanie & Günther, Stephan & Huyskens, Hendrik & Berendes, Sarah & Löffler, Konstantin & Bußar, Christian & Tar, 2022. "Comparing open source power system models - A case study focusing on fundamental modeling parameters for the German energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    16. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2017. "Highly cited retracted papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1653-1661, March.
    17. Wei Chen & Qin-Rui Xing & Hui Wang & Tao Wang, 2018. "Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 217-227, January.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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. 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.