Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study

Fostering open science and responsible research... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318" }, "headline": "Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study", "datePublished": "2025-03-24T10:00:07", "dateModified": "2025-10-20T10:37:04", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jaisson Cenci" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marcos Britto Correa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Lex Bouter" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "David Moher" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ewald Bronkhorst" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marina Christ Franco" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fausto Medeiros Mendes" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tatiana Pereira-Cenci" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marie Charlotte Huysmans" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University. Methods Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants’ perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers’ evaluation system. Results Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants’ perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course. Conclusions The number of participants’ OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants’ perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1", "name": "Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post..." } } ] } Home Browse Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Cenci J, Correa MB, Bouter L et al. Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] Jaisson Cenci https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6883-5600 1,2 , Marcos Britto Correa 2 , Lex Bouter https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2659-5482 3 , [...] David Moher https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206 4 , Ewald Bronkhorst 1 , Marina Christ Franco 2 , Fausto Medeiros Mendes https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-4103 5 , Tatiana Pereira-Cenci 1 , Marie Charlotte Huysmans 1 , Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci 1 Jaisson Cenci https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6883-5600 1,2 , Marcos Britto Correa 2 , [...] Lex Bouter https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2659-5482 3 , David Moher https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206 4 , Ewald Bronkhorst 1 , Marina Christ Franco 2 , Fausto Medeiros Mendes https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-4103 5 , Tatiana Pereira-Cenci 1 , Marie Charlotte Huysmans 1 , Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 Author details Author details 1 Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, Gelderland, 6525EX, The Netherlands 2 Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, 96015560, Brazil 3 Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands 4 Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 5 Dentistry, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil Jaisson Cenci Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Marcos Britto Correa Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Lex Bouter Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing David Moher Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Ewald Bronkhorst Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Marina Christ Franco Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Fausto Medeiros Mendes Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Tatiana Pereira-Cenci Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Marie Charlotte Huysmans Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway. Abstract Background Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University. Methods Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants’ perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers’ evaluation system. Results Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants’ perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course. Conclusions The number of participants’ OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants’ perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords open science, research integrity, educational intervention Corresponding Author(s) Jaisson Cenci ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Jaisson Cenci Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Cenci J et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Cenci J, Correa MB, Bouter L et al. Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.1 ) First published: 24 Mar 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.1 ) Latest published: 20 Oct 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Contributorship Conceptualization: JC, MCF, DM, MSC Methodology: JC, MCF, TPC, MBC, EB, DM, LB, MCH, MSC Data curation: JC, MBC, EB Writing-Original draft preparation: JC, MSC Writing-Reviewing and Editing: JC, MBC, LB, DM, EB, MCF, FMM, TPC, MCH, MSC. Introduction Fostering transparency and responsible research practices (RRPs) is a continuous goal in science and in any educational program designed to train future researchers. In this context, special attention has been given to initiatives that aim to promote RRPs and research integrity (RI). Also, it has been acknowledged that open science (OS) practices can help to foster RRPs and promote transparency in research. 1 While one of the goals of promoting RRPs is to prevent research misconduct, including falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, recent evidence has pointed out that questionable research practices (QRPs), such as p-hacking and spin, are also harmful and responsible for impairing research quality and reproducibility. QRPs are more subtle and identifying them is more difficult. It requires having access to all stages of the research cycle, including well-reported registrations, full protocols, complete raw datasets, and other research materials: open science. 2 , 3 In recent years, as a response to the so-called reproducibility crisis, a growing interest in meta-research has been observed. 2 , 4 Several meta-research studies point to the current problems in the published literature, and this was also evidenced by the “reducing waste in research” movement. From the academic stakeholders’ perspective, one of the proposed interventions is promoting RI courses and training to their researchers. This type of intervention would promote more reflection and induce higher-quality and relevance in science, focusing on transparency, integrity, and scientific rigor. 5 , 6 The early career researchers (ECRs), who have an important role in knowledge production and dissemination, and who will also become the decision-makers and promotors of institutional changes, have crucial importance in the process of normalizing the adoption of OS practices. 7 However, some barriers are reported for the implementation of OS practices, ranging from lack of incentives and recognition in term of career progression to absence of infrastructure and training to incorporate these practices in the routine of research development. 7 , 8 Since educational interventions are one way to overcome the lack of training, they could promote the adoption of OS practices among researchers and help promote RRPs. 9 – 11 Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effect of an educational intervention on the adhesion of graduate students to OS practices. Secondary aims were changes in the perception before and after the intervention in terms of adopting OS practices and RRPs in the scope of typical research activities to promote career and science advancements, social impact, and personal satisfaction. Additionally, changes in perceptions about the actual research evaluation system were assessed. The study hypotheses were that a) the intervention increases the adherence to OS practices measured by counting the open materials shared by the participants; and b) the knowledge and perceptions about RRPs and OS practices are improved by the intervention. Methods Trial design A single-arm pre-post study was designed following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. 12 The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil, ( https://wp.ufpel.edu.br/cepesef/ ) on March 03, 2022, under tracking number 54276221.2.0000.5318. This study also adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki statement. 13 The protocol, questionnaire, analysis plan, Informed Consent Form (ICF), and the complete anonymized dataset are openly available in the project folder on the OSF platform ( https://osf.io/nz7va/ ) without restrictions. No significant methodological changes occurred after the study began, and it was conducted according to the registered protocol. Participants The study was carried out at the Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel) in southern Brazil. The graduate programs at UFPel comprised at the time of the study of 1265 Master’s and 1374 PhD candidates. In Brazil, academic and professional masters are part of graduate studies, and professional habilitation is received after the bachelor studies. At UFPel, no course about RRPs and OS was available to all candidates before the implementation of the course reported here. The inclusion criteria were MSc and PhD candidates, registered in the graduate programs at UFPel. The exclusion criteria were students not fully enrolled in the programs, i.e, participating in specific classes but not fully enrolled, trainees, visiting scholars and mobility students. Recruitment and timeline The inclusion criteria were applied to all MSc and PhD candidates at UFPel registered in the Brazilian national system and all of them were invited to participate. The list of all eligible participants and their e-mail addresses were obtained from the responsible department at UFPel (Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa, Pós-Graduação e Inovação - PRPPGI). Before starting the course, the students who accepted the invitation were asked to answer a questionnaire (survey tool developed for this study and explained below) for the first time. In the same way, the number of OS practices outputs from each participant was collected at the Open Science Framework (OSF.io) before they started the course. Once all the enrolled participants answered the questionnaire, the course started. At the end of the course, all participants were invited to answer the questionnaire again ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Participant timeline with the study steps described. Intervention The intervention was an online interactive course focused on topics such as OS, including open data, RI, RRPs, and transparency in science. During the course, the main problems resulting from research misconduct and questionable practices were discussed, and possible solutions based on adoption of OS practices were promoted. The course also showed how the whole research lifecycle could be carried out using OS practices ( Figure 2 ). Figure 2. The steps and details of the OS life cycle (Adapted from https://www.cos.io/ ). The course was made available in video format with the participation of instructors and researchers on the topics, and included 85 hours of lectures, workshops, and supporting learning material (self-study). The box below provides a summary of the course structure and its contents. Box 1. Modules, main content, and activities of the course. Module Main content Activities 1 Presentation of the general content, format and objectives of the course; explanation of tasks and assessments (asynchrony). Answer a questionnaire 2 Introduction to RI, OS and RRPs; brief explanation about the OS life cycle; research misconduct and questionable research practices (asynchrony). Using the support material provided, discuss the topics presented in class in the module discussion forum Answer 4 open questions about the subject 3 Reproducibility and replicability; reproducibility crises - definition, causes and possible interventions (asynchrony). Writing a short text about which practices you should adopt to favor reproducibility Self-study with the support material Discussion forum 4 Study registration and protocol publication; open methods; what is Open Science Framework and how to use it A synchronous workshop demonstrating all steps of the research life cycle, from registering and publishing protocols, to sharing the manuscript with preprint Students were invited to open an account on the Open Science Framework Self-study with the support material Discussion forum 5 Academic life and citizen science; Definition; Principles; types and examples of citizen science; benefits; challenges; citizen science in practice - the academic vision; citizen science in practice - the view from the other side (asynchrony). Write a short text about academic life and citizen science, and what it is relation with OS and RI Self-study with the support material Discussion forum 6 Open data and data sharing; Why, where and how to share data; FAIR date; data repository (asynchrony). Write a short text about the importance of data sharing, and what it is relation with OS and RI Self-study with the support material Discussion forum 7 Researcher assessment; what the current evaluation of researchers is like; influence of current rewards on the integrity of science; main initiatives; institutions already embracing the change (asynchrony). Write a short text about the influence of the researcher evaluation format on OS and RI adoption Self-study with the support material Discussion forum 8 Synchronous workshop to answer questions Active participation and answering a questionnaire Students were able to access the videos through login into the platform. The intervention was applied just once to each participant, and at the end of the course, each participant was invited to answer the questionnaire again. The course syllabus, all course materials (in Brazilian Portuguese), and content are openly available on a specific project hosted at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/7rz5n/ ). Data collection OSF data collection According to the primary objective of our study, data related to the participants’ OS practices outputs was collected at the OSF website (osf.io). This platform was chosen because the participants had no prior knowledge of any OS tools, and the OSF was demonstrated during the course. The procedure for data collection was based on typing the participants’ names directly on the OSF searching tool. If the participant had an OSF account, this was registered, as well as the number of registered studies, protocols published, analysis plans related to their projects, data sets shared, preprint publications, and OSF projects for each participant. Questionnaire Following an extensive literature review conducted by JC ( https://osf.io/hjtwn ), only one relevant but unvalidated questionnaire was identified. 14 This questionnaire was then adapted to the Brazilian context, incorporating elements from the Brazilian research assessment system and Open Science (OS) practices based on indicators proposed in the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), 15 the Leiden Manifesto, 16 and the Hong Kong Principles. 17 The final survey comprised 50 questions distributed across five sections. The entire questionnaire, including the introduction, informed consent form, questions, and explanation of the concepts, is available in the project folder on the OSF platform ( https://osf.io/nz7va/ ). In brief, the questionnaire consisted of: Part 1 - demographic questions; Part 2-3 questions on researchers evaluation in Brazil; Part 3-27 typical academic activities or characteristics, for which respondents were asked to rate the perceived impact on (I) advancing career, (II) advancing science, (III) personal satisfaction, and (IV) social impact; Part 4-4 questions about their perception about the freedom they sense to adopt RRPs and OS practices, and their willingness to adopt those practices it in the future; and Part 5 - questions related to their current scientific production. Only the 3 first parts of the questionnaire are reported here, because they answer the stated secondary objectives of our protocol. The questionnaire was hosted online at REDCap (REDCap – Research Electronic Data Capture, Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, www.projectredcap.org/ ). REDCap was used to collect, store, and anonymize the data. Piloting the questionnaire This questionnaire was tested with 93 different master’s and PhD students from UFPel (who did not participate in the final study) to assess its comprehensibility in generating answers about the research hypotheses. For each question, participants were asked to answer whether the question was clear about their understanding when answering it. The questions evaluated with a low level of clarity and understanding were edited until they reached a consensus among the participating researchers. The total time needed was about 20 minutes. The pilot results are available at OSF ( https://osf.io/kag4w ). Outcomes Primary outcome The primary outcome was the number of outputs per participant on the OSF platform (preregistrations, protocols, analysis plans/data management plans (DMP), data sets and preprints), before and after the intervention. The primary outcome was collected by JC before the course, just after, and after 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes 1 - The percentage of graduate candidates at UFPel satisfied and dissatisfied with the current evaluation processes for researchers in Brazil before and after the intervention, assessed through the participant’s answers to the 3 questions of the second part of the questionnaire. 2 - The changes in the participants’ perceptions on the importance of typical research activities on four domains (advancing career, advancing science, personal satisfaction, and social impact) before and after the intervention, assessed through the participants’ answers to part 3 of the questionnaire; Blinding and consent The participants were unaware of being enrolled in our study during the course. At the end of the intervention, and after they had answered the questionnaire for the second time, they were informed about the intention of reporting on the data collected, and they were invited to participate and sign the informed consent form (ICF). We used only data from participants who gave permission. There were no negative consequences for students who refused, as the students’ evaluations and grades were conducted and finished before we asked for their ICF signatures. Statistical methods Descriptive statistics was used to report the number of OS practices and summarize questionnaire answer’s part 1. In order to confirm the results for the primary outcome, the Friedman test with Wilcoxon signed-rank with Bonferroni correction post hoc was applied To answer the secondary objectives, the questionnaire answers were evaluated as follows: Descriptive analysis was performed to get the frequencies of the participant’s answers to the 3 questions addressing their perceptions of the current researchers’ assessment system (Charts 2, 3, and 4). No statistical test was previous planned in the protocol, but to confirm the differences in the results, the Wilcoxon signed rank test with continuity correction was applied for each question in part 2. To make evaluation possible using the Wilcoxon test, considering alternatives A, B, C and D as an ordinal scale, alternative E was treated as missing for question 3 of part 2. To compare the participants’ perceptions about the 27 common researchers’ activities related to the third part of the questionnaire, those activities were separated into activities related to traditional and non-traditional practices, as indicated in Table 1 . The main objective was to identify what activities resulted in essential, important, irrelevant, unfavorable, or detrimental perceived impact in each one of the 4 domains (advancing career, advancing science, personal satisfaction, and social impact), and what changes related to it we can identify comparing before and after the intervention. To enable statistical analysis, the responses related to the Likert scale were transformed numerically as follows: detrimental = 1, unfavorable = 2, irrelevant = 3, important = 4, essential = 5. A score (average) for each group of activities was calculated and compared ( Table 2 ). The nomenclature and characterization of activities into traditional and non-traditional were adapted from previous studies. 18 , 19 Table 1. Traditional and non-traditional activities according to the questionnaire. Non-traditional Traditional Publishing in open-access journals; Expertise in peer review/editing; Replication of studies; Publish findings that didn't work; Sharing the complete data and detailed methods; Reviewing raw data from students and staff is; Conducting innovative research with a high risk of failure; Collaborating across borders, disciplines, and sectors; Having your papers read and downloaded Having a public reach, in social media, news, etc.; Having your results and findings used or implemented in practice; Activities in knowledge synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta-research; Development and publication of study protocols; Sharing data in open-access repositories is; Knowledge translation activities; Publish the project analysis plan openly is; Acting on extension projects; Publishing preprints; Participating and presenting results at scientific meetings; Direct student supervision. The publication of scientific papers; Posting comments or editorials; A large number of published papers; Publication in high-impact factor journals; Publishing more scientific papers than other researchers; Connecting to renowned researchers; Being cited in the scientific literature; Table 2. Scores and the confidence interval for each domain on Traditional and Non-Traditional groups. Traditional Non-Traditional Averages Paired T-Test Averages Paired T-Test Before After Average difference (CI) p Before After Average difference (CI) p career advancement 4,18 4,24 -0.6 (-0.15, 0.03) 0.20 4,26 4,32 -0.06 (-0.13, 0.01) 0.11 advancing science 4,13 3,96 0.18* (0.09, 0.27) <.01 4,51 4,61 -0.10* (-0.15, -0.03) <.01 personal satisfaction 4,03 4,01 0.02 (-0.07, 0.10) 0.67 4,22 4,30 -0.07 (-0.14, 0.003) 0.06 social impact 3,93 3,81 0.13* (0.03, 0.22) <.01 4,37 4,54 -0.17* (-0.23, -0.11) <.01 Although no statistical test was planned to this part in the protocol, a Paired T-test was performed for each domain (advancing career, advancing science, personal satisfaction, and social impact) in each group (traditional and non-traditional) to aid data interpretation. Despite not being listed in the protocol as one of the objectives of this study, the assessment of the intention to adopt OS practices (protocol registration; protocol publication; opening the analysis plans; opening the research notebooks; data sharing; and sharing codes), assessed by a question in part 4 of the questionnaire, presented interesting results and was therefore included in this article. Descriptive analysis was done to analyze the answers regarding the participants’ intention to adhere to these practices in the future, and charts was presented to summarize the results ( Figure 7 ). The Wilcoxon test was also applied to each practice to confirm the results. A confidence interval of 95% and a significance level of α = 0.05 were used for all quantitative analyses. All analyses were conducted using R statistical software (Version 4.3.0, RStudio Inc., Boston, USA, free available at https://www.r-project.org/ ). Results The course took place from October 15th to December 14th, 2022. The questionnaire was applied before the course, from October 5 th to 14 th , and reapplied after the course, between December 14 th to 27, 2022. The data relative to their OSF outputs were collected on October 4th and December 14th, 2022, for the before and just after evaluation; on July 15th, 2023, for the 6-month follow-up; and on January 22nd, 2024, for the 12-month follow-up. Demographics Of the 84 participants enrolled in the course, 83 finished all activities. Only the 80 participants who signed the ICF were included in the analysis. The mean age of the participants was 32.3, varying from 22 to 57 years. The gender distribution was 62 females (77.5%) and 18 males (22.5%). Most participants were from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) graduate programs (62; 77.5%) and 18 (22.5%) were from the Arts and Humanity graduate programs. 37 (46.3%) participants were at the PhD level and 43 (53.8%) were at the MSc level. Most of the participants graduated from public universities (59; 73.8%), followed by private universities (20; 25.0%) and Community universities (1; 1.3%). About the duration since they acquired their last title (undergraduate or master’s graduation), 66 (82.5%) got it less than 5 years ago, 11 (13.8%) between 5 to 10 years, and 3 (3.8%) got it more than 10 years ago. Finally, most participants (73; 91%) had never taken a course addressing RI and OS practices. OSF outputs To answer the study’s primary objective, the data referring to the number of outputs in the OSF platform was shown in Figure 3 . The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the end of the course. Two participants have not made an account during the course, and this situation remained after 6 and 12 months. Before the course, the number of projects was 7 and the number of public projects was 3. Just after the course, they increased to 9 and 4 respectively, and after 6 months the number of projects increased to 10. No changes happened after 12 months of the end of intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found before or after the course. Figure 3. The number of OSF outputs before, just after, and six months after intervention. The Friedman test with Wilcoxon signed-rank post hoc results shown that OSF account before the course is statistical different of the other 3 times evaluated (p<.01); the projects and public projects did not show any statistical difference between the evaluated time frames (p=0.6; p=0.3). Participants’ perceptions of the current researchers’ assessment system Overall, participants perceived before the intervention that the current evaluation system contributes to promote good practices in research ( Figure 4 ). However, this perception changed after the intervention, showing a higher proportion of scores 1 and 2 (assessment system does not contribute) and a lower proportion in scores 4 and 5 (assessment system contributes to good practices in research) ( Figure 4 ). The same trends were observed in answering the question on how much the current evaluation system contributes to the delivering value to society ( Figure 5 ). Figure 4. Participants answer to the question 1, Part 2 of the questionnaire. Figure 5. Participants answer to the question 2, Part 2 of the questionnaire. When inquired about the relation between the researchers’ current evaluation model and the hiring processes/distribution of grants, no participant pointed out that ‘the process answers all requirements and must be maintained’ after the intervention compared to 3.2% in the first evaluation. The number of participants who answered that ‘The process answers the most important requirements but may be improved’ decreased from 43.8% to 27.5% after the intervention. The frequencies for the answer ‘The process needs to be reviewed because it partially answers the most important requirements’ increased from 25% to 60% and the answer ‘The process does not answer the most important requirements and needs to be completely reformulated’ increased from 5% to 11% after the intervention. The number of participants who chose the option ‘I don’t want to answer’ decreased from 22.5% to 1.3% ( Figure 6 ). Figure 6. Participants answer to the question 3, Part 2 of the questionnaire. Perceptions about the 27 common researchers’ activities For both, traditional and non-traditional activities, there was a statistical difference in the importance given by the participants before and after the intervention only for ‘advancing science’ and ‘social impact’ domains ( Table 2 ). Current adoption or intention to adopt OS practices by the participants The answers to the question ‘What practices do you adopt or think about adopting for your projects?’ are shown in the Figure 7 . Figure 7. Participants’ intention to adhere to the open science practices in the future. For the results of the Wilcoxon test, protocol registration (p<0.01), protocol publication (p<0.01), publishing and making available the analysis plans (p<0.01), opening the research notebooks (p<0.01), and sharing codes (p<0.01) showed statistical differences between before and after. Only the differences in data sharing (p=0.10) were not statistically significant. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study exploring the impact of an educational intervention on the behavior and perceptions of graduate students in Brazil and South America. In that region, there is still less incentives to promote OS practices and RRPs in comparison with Europe and North America. 20 Despite education-based interventions being cited as an important driver for promoting RRPs and OS practices, 11 , 14 the intervention applied to the participants in the current study proved insufficient for changing short-term behavior, showing little change after 6 and 12 months of follow-up. However, the intervention was somewhat effective to change perceptions of the impact of traditional and non-traditional research activities on advancing career, advancing science, social contribution, and personal satisfaction. Overall participants perceived that the non-traditional activities related to OS practices and RRPs are important to advance science and promote social impact. Concerning the perception about traditional academic activities, the intervention did not promote significative changes. The most significant impacts of the intervention were evident in how the participants perceived the current researcher evaluation system and their future intention to adhere to OS practices. Adherence to OS practices increase after the course only for the registrations at OSF. However, creating an OSF account was one of the tasks to be carried out by students in the course, demonstrating that the best incentive to adopt new practices is to make them normative. This supports the idea that the role in changing policies of institutions and funders are essential for inducing a broad adherence to OS practices and RRPs, which was previously showed. 14 , 17 Regarding the lack of adherence to OS practices, our results are in accordance with previous studies. 21 The possible reasons could be, that the participants on this study were graduate students in a context where not so many scientific products as publications, projects, and datasets are usually produced in a 12-month period. Typically, in Brazil, graduate students spend their first months or years following courses, and dedicate time to their research in the last period of their trajectory. Other reasons could be that our intervention target a multidisciplinary audience, with participants from a diversity of fields of knowledge, and some of them were used to produce only a traditional monography as the product of their graduation trajectory. Observing the responses after the intervention to the first two questions about the current system for evaluating researchers, participants seem to have better understood the restrictions of the current system in contributing to the adoption of good research practices and in inducing researchers to produce science that adds real value to society. Regarding the third question of this part, after the intervention, no participant checked the alternative which said that the process did not need any change. In addition, there was a decrease in the number of participants who believe that the process answered the most important questions but could be improved, as well as an increase in the number of participants who believe that the process is flawed and needs to be revised or even completely reformed. Another important change following the intervention was the number of participants who chose ‘I don’t want to answer’, which showed a significant drop after the intervention, indicating that the intervention was partially effective in changing perceptions and knowledge. This finding suggests that educational interventions should be implemented as a routine. Behavioral changes are deemed to be difficult to realize because they face several barriers and demand strong facilitators. There are many reasons why those changes take extra time and effort: usually the workflow of researches is already overloaded with activities, and important actions such as registering protocols or organizing datasets to be sharable take time, demand extra infrastructure, and most of the times there is no external incentive to these and other OS practices. Besides that, other studies have shown that educational training in ethics were appreciated by participants, 21 , 22 but might not make researchers acting more ethical. However, courses combined with the proper incentives and means may play a crucial role in improving how research is done and the research culture, strengthening integrity rules, as well as preventing researchers from committing research misconduct. 9 When we assessed perceptions regarding 27 typical research studies, the perceived importance of traditional research decreased after the intervention, both for the advancement of science and for social impact, while the perceived importance of non-traditional research increased after the intervention. These results indicate an understanding that many traditional research activities do not exactly contribute to the advancement of science and social impact what corroborate with other studies which questioned researchers at more advanced stages of their career about their perceptions regarding traditional and non-traditional practices. 14 , 23 However, the lack of difference in perceptions about career advancement is somewhat worrying, since it is clear that most non-traditional practices, such as study registration and data sharing, do not promote career progression and are usually not taken into account in the hiring and input distribution processes. 17 , 24 This reinforces the previous idea; thus, if an individual understands that the current system does not contribute to knowledge and social impact, even if it takes time, he/she could be more prone to change behavior and enhance OS practices. Our results show that the intervention was promising in terms of the increasing participant’s willingness to change. The drop in the number of respondents who said they did not currently adopt the practices and those who said they already adopted such practices, followed by the increase in the number of participants stating that they intend to adopt the practices in the future, might be interpreted as readiness for change. Likewise, most participants did not even know exactly what the mentioned practices meant before the intervention. The only exception was data sharing, which showed no statistically significant differences after the intervention. This could possibly be explained as a more intricate practice that depends on infrastructure and should follow several rules from the research environment in which the researcher is inserted. Our research has several limitations. The study was conducted at a single institution with different courses that have very different research approaches, including the way they produce and disseminate scientific findings. There was no control group for comparison. To address our primary objective, we used only one of several platforms for registering studies, protocols, and preprints. Although this platform was demonstrated and used in the course, other platforms might be better suited for different areas of knowledge. Course students might answer the questionnaire a second time based on what was taught in the course, not necessarily because they understood and intend to follow the principles, but to achieve a sufficient evaluation to pass the course. Additionally, it is expected that participants who applied for the voluntary course already have some affinity or interest in the subject. The instrument, although piloted, was not validated and requires further adjustments before being used again in a new study. Another limitation is the intervention itself, which needs improvement for future studies to be more effectively applied and tailored to specific audiences and related areas. 4 However, even if short-term results are not ideal, an intervention addressing the subject can be beneficial by publicizing and encouraging participants to discuss the topic among themselves, with their advisors, institutions, financiers, and other stakeholders. In addition, the limited results can be explained by the fact that training alone is not enough to change behavior regarding RRPs and OS practices. 11 , 14 It is also worth remembering that researchers’ behaviors are not only influenced by the course content but also by the research system and the local research culture, including the examples supervisors and colleagues give. 11 , 25 , 26 Therefore, effective change in behavior towards adoption of RRPs and OS practices is not an individual journey, and should involve cultural changes in institutions, funders and evaluation systems. 2 , 9 , 26 , 27 Consent statement Participants’ consent was obtained with an online form applied after they answered the questionnaire for the second time. To be included in the study and in the final results, participants had to sign the Informed Consent Form (ICF) which is available at ttps:// doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NZ7VA . This ICF was previously approved by the same ethical committee that approved the study protocol. Ethics and consent A single-arm pre-post study was designed following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement 12 The study protocol was approved by the local Brazilian ethics committee (Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil), on March 03, 2022, under tracking number 54276221.2.0000.5318. This study also adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki statement. 13 The protocol, questionnaire, analysis plan, written Informed Consent Form (ICF), and the complete anonymized dataset are openly available in the project folder on the OSF platform ( https://osf.io/nz7va/ ) without restrictions. No significant methodological changes occurred after the study began, and it was conducted according to the registered protocol. Informed consent was mandatory as the study involved participant data. It was obtained to ensure ethical compliance. Participants were informed and given the choice to consent, ensuring voluntary participation and ethical compliance. The written consent was obtained online through signing the ICF by the participant. Data availability Underlying data Open Science Framework (OSF): Research integrity practices: A Pre-Post Study with Brazilian Graduate Students. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NZ7VA . 28 The “Data set” folder in the project contains the following underlying data: − OSF_outputs.xlsx - Anonymized data for the participants products on Open Science Framework platform. − Part1.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the questions of the questionnaire part 1. − Part2.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the questions of the questionnaire part 2. − Part3_N_trad.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the questions of the questionnaire part 3, regarding to the non-traditional activities. − Part3_Trad.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the questions of the questionnaire part 3, regarding to the traditional activities. − Part4_Q123.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the questions 1, 2 and 3 of the questionnaire part 4. − Part4_Q4.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the question 4 of the questionnaire part 4. − Part5.xlsx – Anonymized data for the participants answers to the questions of the questionnaire part 5. Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Study materials are also included in the same project as follows: − “Pilot” folder contain the pilot results of the questionnaire. − “Protocol” folder contain the study protocol, Informed consent form (ICF), and the questionnaire. − “Course Program and Details” folder contain the syllabus and other details about the educational intervention applied to participants. References 1. Haven T, Gopalakrishna G, Tijdink J, et al. : Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC. Res. Notes. 2022; 15 (1): 302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Bouter L: What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2020; 26 (4): 2363–2369. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Labib K, Roje R, Bouter L, et al. : Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2021; 27 (4): 47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 4. Aubert Bonn N, Bouter L: Research Assessments Should Recognize Responsible Research Practices. Narrative Review of a Lively Debate and Promising Developments.Valdés E, Lecaros JA, editors. Handbook of Bioethical Decisions Volume II: Scientific Integrity and Institutional Ethics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023; pp. 441–472. 5. Boehme ONF, Hiney M, Peatfield T, et al. : Research Integrity Practices in Science Europe Member Organisations. Science Europe. 2016; 1–52. Reference Source 6. Abdi S, Pizzolato D, Nemery B, et al. : Educating PhD Students in Research Integrity in Europe. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2021; 27 (1): 5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Toribio-Florez D, Anneser L, deOliveira-Lopes FN, et al. : Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2020; 5 : 586992. Publisher Full Text 8. Zecevic K, Houghton C, Noone C, et al. : Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: a mixed methods study. HRB Open Res. 2020; 3 : 56. Publisher Full Text 9. Satalkar P, Shaw D: How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland. BMC Med. Ethics. 2019; 20 (1): 72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Resnik DB: Ethical virtues in scientific research. Account. Res. 2012; 19 (6): 329–343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. Labib K, Evans N, Roje R, et al. : Education and training policies for research integrity: Insights from a focus group study. Sci. Public Policy. 2021; 49 (2): 246–266. Publisher Full Text 12. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010; 340 : c332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Association WM: World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants. JAMA. 2025; 333 (1): 71–74. Publisher Full Text 14. Aubert Bonn N, Pinxten W: Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (2): e0243664. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. American Society for Cell Biology - DORA: Declaration on Research Assessment.2012. Reference Source 16. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al. : Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015; 520 (7548): 429–431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 17. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al. : The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18 (7): e3000737. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, et al. : Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. 2018; 16 (3): e2004089. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Rice DB, Raffoul H, Ioannidis JPA, et al. : Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities. BMJ. 2020; 369 : m2081. Publisher Full Text 20. UNESCO: Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. France: UNESCO; 2023; 74. 21. Plemmons DK, Brody SA, Kalichman MW: Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2006; 12 (3): 571–582. Publisher Full Text 22. Watts LL, Medeiros KE, Mulhearn TJ, et al. : Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences. Ethics Behav. 2017; 27 (5): 351–384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 23. Cenci J, Franco MC, Pereira-Cenci T, et al. : Perceptions of research integrity and open science practices: a survey of Brazilian dental researchers. Braz. Oral Res. 2024 Dec 20; 38 : e135. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 24. Cobey KD, Haustein S, Brehaut J, et al. : Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine. PLoS Biol. 2023; 21 (1): e3001949. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 25. Leyser JCO: The culture of scientific research. F1000Res. 2015; 4 : 66. Publisher Full Text 26. Forsberg EM, Anthun FO, Bailey S, et al. : Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2018; 24 (4): 1023–1034. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 27. Bouter L: Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved. Account. Res. 2023; 1–10. 28. Cenci J, Bouter L, Moher D, et al. : Research integrity practices: A Pre-Post Study with Brazilian Graduate Students. [Dataset]. Open Science Framework. 2022. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, Gelderland, 6525EX, The Netherlands 2 Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, 96015560, Brazil 3 Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands 4 Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 5 Dentistry, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil Jaisson Cenci Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Marcos Britto Correa Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Lex Bouter Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing David Moher Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Ewald Bronkhorst Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Marina Christ Franco Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Fausto Medeiros Mendes Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Tatiana Pereira-Cenci Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Marie Charlotte Huysmans Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 20 Oct 2025, 14:318 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.2 version 1 Published: 24 Mar 2025, 14:318 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.1 Copyright © 2025 Cenci J et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Cenci J, Correa MB, Bouter L et al. Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155832.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Silverstein P. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r385379 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-385379 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jun 2025 Priya Silverstein , Ashland University, Ashland, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r385379 This article examines a pre-post study evaluating an educational intervention’s impact on graduate students’ understanding of open science and responsible research practices. While the intervention had limited effect on actual implementation (within the period studied), it did lead to an ... Continue reading READ ALL This article examines a pre-post study evaluating an educational intervention’s impact on graduate students’ understanding of open science and responsible research practices. While the intervention had limited effect on actual implementation (within the period studied), it did lead to an increase in intention to adopt open science practices. I think the authors do a good job of identifying the limitations of the study. I also agree with Sarahanne that the Registered Report format would have been preferable to be able to resolve some of the larger design concerns before data collection. Nevertheless, I will focus on things the authors can change within the write-up itself, now that the study has been completed. 1. I think the description of the increase in OSF accounts is misleading -- we later find out that students has to make an OSF account as part of the course itself, so I don't actually think this makes sense as an outcome measure. Instead, perhaps it would make sense to frame it as "despite the vast majority of students instructed to make an OSF account during the course doing so, [results about outputs on OSF]". So, the course helped them with one barrier to sharing outputs on the OSF (creating an account), but this wasn't enough to push them to share outputs. 2. There is currently little rationale for the time points chosen for follow-up. It's ok if the rationale is logistical, but then this should be made clear. 3. It would be helpful to have some detail about how the course was developed and by whom. 4. The course is a great undertaking! The authors may consider sharing the course with FORRT (https://forrt.org/) so that it can be disseminated widely and further refined in future versions. 5. The sentence "This platform was chosen because the participants had no prior knowledge of any OS tools" on page 6 is misleading -- there's no way of knowing that participants had no prior knowledge of OS tools, and there were a few accounts already, so at least some did have knowledge of the OSF. One rationale for the OSF is that it is a "one stop shop" for many different practices, rather than needing to learn multiple tools in order to engage in open science. 6. The distinction between traditional and non-traditional seems a bit forced and the rationale for this split and definitions / conceptualisations could be clearer. 7. There isn't a rationale provided for why some of the scales go from "does not contribute" to "contributes to good practices" -- isn't it possible that participants think these things contribute to BAD practices? 8. Figure 7 caption is wrong -- same as Figure 5 9. "However, creating an OSF account was one of the tasks to be carried out by students in the course, demonstrating that the best incentive to adopt new practices is to make them normative. This supports the idea that the role in changing policies of institutions and funders are essential for inducing a broad adherence to OS practices and RRPs, which was previously showed." -- I'm not sure about this, doesn't this just show that if you ask students to do something as part of the course they'll do it? 10. "This finding suggests that educational interventions should be implemented as a routine." -- I'm not sure this conclusion follows. 11. It would be good to introduce something about models of behaviour change (e.g. the COM-B model) when talking about behavioural change in the discussion. Something that might be interesting (although take with a pinch of salt as it is my own paper) is Silverstein et al. (2024) where we show that capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage in open research practices all affect engagement in open research practices. We found automatic motivation to be the strongest -- that is, having open research as part of your research routine and habits. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: metascience, open science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Silverstein P. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r385379 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-385379 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we outline the changes made in response: We agree with your point that the increase in OSF accounts should not be interpreted as an outcome. We have included an extra explanation to clarify that creating an OSF account was a course requirement and used this to reflect on remaining barriers to the actual implementation of OS practices in the limitation section. Regarding the rationale for the timepoints, we chose these follow-up timepoints, acknowledging the logistical and institutional constraints involved. About the course dissemination and development, we have included details about the development team and the conceptual basis of the course, as well as made the course openly available on OSF We reworded the ‘data collection’ section to reflect that while most participants were unfamiliar with OS platforms, a few did have prior experience. The rationale for choosing OSF is now more straightforward. Traditional vs non-traditional activities were elaborated on the rationale of this distinction and its foundation in prior literature and initiatives advocating for more responsible research practices. We clarified the intent of the 1–5 scale regarding participants’ perceptions of whether the system contributes to good practices, and not whether it promotes bad ones. The figure captions have been corrected. Thank you for spotting this. We integrated a brief sentence in the discussion to contextualize the observed gap between intention and behaviour. We found the insights of your 2024 article valuable. Thanks for mentioning it. Once again, thank you for your detailed and constructive review. We believe these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. Kind regards, Jaisson Cenci (on behalf of all co-authors) Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we outline the changes made in response: We agree with your point that the increase in OSF accounts should not be interpreted as an outcome. We have included an extra explanation to clarify that creating an OSF account was a course requirement and used this to reflect on remaining barriers to the actual implementation of OS practices in the limitation section. Regarding the rationale for the timepoints, we chose these follow-up timepoints, acknowledging the logistical and institutional constraints involved. About the course dissemination and development, we have included details about the development team and the conceptual basis of the course, as well as made the course openly available on OSF We reworded the ‘data collection’ section to reflect that while most participants were unfamiliar with OS platforms, a few did have prior experience. The rationale for choosing OSF is now more straightforward. Traditional vs non-traditional activities were elaborated on the rationale of this distinction and its foundation in prior literature and initiatives advocating for more responsible research practices. We clarified the intent of the 1–5 scale regarding participants’ perceptions of whether the system contributes to good practices, and not whether it promotes bad ones. The figure captions have been corrected. Thank you for spotting this. We integrated a brief sentence in the discussion to contextualize the observed gap between intention and behaviour. We found the insights of your 2024 article valuable. Thanks for mentioning it. Once again, thank you for your detailed and constructive review. We believe these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. Kind regards, Jaisson Cenci (on behalf of all co-authors) Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we outline the changes made in response: We agree with your point that the increase in OSF accounts should not be interpreted as an outcome. We have included an extra explanation to clarify that creating an OSF account was a course requirement and used this to reflect on remaining barriers to the actual implementation of OS practices in the limitation section. Regarding the rationale for the timepoints, we chose these follow-up timepoints, acknowledging the logistical and institutional constraints involved. About the course dissemination and development, we have included details about the development team and the conceptual basis of the course, as well as made the course openly available on OSF We reworded the ‘data collection’ section to reflect that while most participants were unfamiliar with OS platforms, a few did have prior experience. The rationale for choosing OSF is now more straightforward. Traditional vs non-traditional activities were elaborated on the rationale of this distinction and its foundation in prior literature and initiatives advocating for more responsible research practices. We clarified the intent of the 1–5 scale regarding participants’ perceptions of whether the system contributes to good practices, and not whether it promotes bad ones. The figure captions have been corrected. Thank you for spotting this. We integrated a brief sentence in the discussion to contextualize the observed gap between intention and behaviour. We found the insights of your 2024 article valuable. Thanks for mentioning it. Once again, thank you for your detailed and constructive review. We believe these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. Kind regards, Jaisson Cenci (on behalf of all co-authors) Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we outline the changes made in response: We agree with your point that the increase in OSF accounts should not be interpreted as an outcome. We have included an extra explanation to clarify that creating an OSF account was a course requirement and used this to reflect on remaining barriers to the actual implementation of OS practices in the limitation section. Regarding the rationale for the timepoints, we chose these follow-up timepoints, acknowledging the logistical and institutional constraints involved. About the course dissemination and development, we have included details about the development team and the conceptual basis of the course, as well as made the course openly available on OSF We reworded the ‘data collection’ section to reflect that while most participants were unfamiliar with OS platforms, a few did have prior experience. The rationale for choosing OSF is now more straightforward. Traditional vs non-traditional activities were elaborated on the rationale of this distinction and its foundation in prior literature and initiatives advocating for more responsible research practices. We clarified the intent of the 1–5 scale regarding participants’ perceptions of whether the system contributes to good practices, and not whether it promotes bad ones. The figure captions have been corrected. Thank you for spotting this. We integrated a brief sentence in the discussion to contextualize the observed gap between intention and behaviour. We found the insights of your 2024 article valuable. Thanks for mentioning it. Once again, thank you for your detailed and constructive review. We believe these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. Kind regards, Jaisson Cenci (on behalf of all co-authors) Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Field SM. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375971 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-375971 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 May 2025 Sarahanne M Field , University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375971 This article presents a timely and relevant investigation into the impact of educational interventions on graduate students' awareness and adoption of open science and responsible research practices. In my perspective, it is a valuable contribution to research on open science education, ... Continue reading READ ALL This article presents a timely and relevant investigation into the impact of educational interventions on graduate students' awareness and adoption of open science and responsible research practices. In my perspective, it is a valuable contribution to research on open science education, particularly within a Global South context. It is well-conceived and well-reported but would benefit from methodological enhancements and more robust behavioral measures in future work. The strongest impact observed is in the shifting of attitudes, suggesting that this course could serve as a solid first step in a larger institutional transformation process, provided follow-up mechanisms and structural incentives are also put in place. While the topic and approach are highly relevant, particularly in regions where OS adoption is still emerging (currently still a huge gap in the literature, and a generally understudied issue), the study's design limits its ability to draw strong causal conclusions. This is clearly pointed out in the article, and I really appreciate the authors not trying to oversell their conclusions. This said, the absence of a control group makes it difficult to attribute the attitudinal changes that were observed solely to the intervention. Introducing a comparison group in future research would allow for more definitive evaluations of effectiveness and rule out external influences as alternative explanations for the outcomes observed. Naturally, however, this is not something the current article can be changed to include (this would have been good as a registered report, because these kinds of things can be caught before data collection is made). Although the intervention significantly improved participants' awareness and perceptions regarding OS and RRPs, it had a limited impact on actual behavior. Despite a substantial increase in OSF account creation (from 7 to 78, if I read it correctly) there was little follow-through in terms of registrations, protocols, preprints, or data sharing. This disconnect highlights a need for interventions that go beyond awareness-raising. Integrating structural incentives, such as recognition through academic credits, certificates, or institutional rewards, could promote meaningful engagement and sustained behavioral change. Furthermore, extending the follow-up period beyond 12 months may better capture the long-term influence of such training on research output, particularly as graduate students often take time before producing sharable research materials. I think these things can be better emphasised in the discussion. The study’s sole reliance on OSF to assess behavioral change may underestimate the true extent of participants’ engagement with OS too, and this is something else the authors could emphasize. Researchers from various disciplines may use different platforms such as GitHub, Zenodo, or protocols.io, for instance, which were not monitored. Expanding the scope of behavioral metrics in future studies would provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the intervention’s impact. Additionally, qualitative follow-ups like interviews or focus groups could shed light on the specific barriers students face when attempting to implement OS practices, offering a richer contextual understanding of why behavior change may lag behind attitudinal shifts. Another limitation lies in the use of a non-validated questionnaire to assess perceptions and knowledge. Although the instrument was piloted, it lacks formal validation, which may affect the reliability and interpretability of the findings. A validated survey tool would strengthen future studies and ensure consistency across different institutional or cultural contexts. This is particularly important given the study’s goal of influencing policy and educational programming. By collaborating with psychometric experts to refine and validate the questionnaire, future research can generate more robust and generalizable data. Moreover, the intervention was delivered at a single institution with a diverse yet localized cohort, limiting the generalizability of the results. Student engagement may also have been influenced by self-selection bias, as those with a prior interest in research integrity may have been more likely to participate. Future efforts could expand the program to multiple institutions and adapt it to different disciplinary norms to enhance external validity. Tailoring the content more specifically to the research practices and challenges of individual fields might also improve relevance and uptake. Despite these limitations, the course successfully prompted participants to re-evaluate the value of traditional versus non-traditional research practices and the adequacy of current research evaluation systems. This shift in perception is a critical first step toward cultural change, but perception alone is insufficient to effect behavioral transformation. To bridge this gap, future interventions should not only educate but also integrate OS practices into institutional norms and researcher evaluations. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Metascience, open science/science reform, research methodology. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Field SM. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375971 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-375971 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive suggestions you provided. In response to your comments, we have made several additions and clarifications in the manuscript: We reinforced in the discussion that the absence of a control group limits our ability to attribute attitudinal changes exclusively to the intervention. We revised our interpretation of OSF account creation, framing it as an introductory step rather than a true behavioural shift. We added a remark in the limitations section emphasizing that relying solely on OSF may have underestimated the extent of open science engagement across disciplines. We made it clear that future research should track behavioural changes through a broader set of platforms and metrics. We now highlight the value of follow-up with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus group discussions, to better understand barriers to behavioural change. We acknowledged that the questionnaire, although piloted, was not formally validated, and we recommend future validation with psychometric expertise. We addressed the limitation of self-selection bias and the context-specific nature of the cohort, suggesting the need for broader, multi-institutional studies. Finally, we now emphasize in the conclusion that educational efforts alone are insufficient for sustained behavioural change, and must be paired with institutional and structural incentives. Thank you again for your careful review and for helping us improve the manuscript. Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive suggestions you provided. In response to your comments, we have made several additions and clarifications in the manuscript: We reinforced in the discussion that the absence of a control group limits our ability to attribute attitudinal changes exclusively to the intervention. We revised our interpretation of OSF account creation, framing it as an introductory step rather than a true behavioural shift. We added a remark in the limitations section emphasizing that relying solely on OSF may have underestimated the extent of open science engagement across disciplines. We made it clear that future research should track behavioural changes through a broader set of platforms and metrics. We now highlight the value of follow-up with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus group discussions, to better understand barriers to behavioural change. We acknowledged that the questionnaire, although piloted, was not formally validated, and we recommend future validation with psychometric expertise. We addressed the limitation of self-selection bias and the context-specific nature of the cohort, suggesting the need for broader, multi-institutional studies. Finally, we now emphasize in the conclusion that educational efforts alone are insufficient for sustained behavioural change, and must be paired with institutional and structural incentives. Thank you again for your careful review and for helping us improve the manuscript. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive suggestions you provided. In response to your comments, we have made several additions and clarifications in the manuscript: We reinforced in the discussion that the absence of a control group limits our ability to attribute attitudinal changes exclusively to the intervention. We revised our interpretation of OSF account creation, framing it as an introductory step rather than a true behavioural shift. We added a remark in the limitations section emphasizing that relying solely on OSF may have underestimated the extent of open science engagement across disciplines. We made it clear that future research should track behavioural changes through a broader set of platforms and metrics. We now highlight the value of follow-up with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus group discussions, to better understand barriers to behavioural change. We acknowledged that the questionnaire, although piloted, was not formally validated, and we recommend future validation with psychometric expertise. We addressed the limitation of self-selection bias and the context-specific nature of the cohort, suggesting the need for broader, multi-institutional studies. Finally, we now emphasize in the conclusion that educational efforts alone are insufficient for sustained behavioural change, and must be paired with institutional and structural incentives. Thank you again for your careful review and for helping us improve the manuscript. Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive suggestions you provided. In response to your comments, we have made several additions and clarifications in the manuscript: We reinforced in the discussion that the absence of a control group limits our ability to attribute attitudinal changes exclusively to the intervention. We revised our interpretation of OSF account creation, framing it as an introductory step rather than a true behavioural shift. We added a remark in the limitations section emphasizing that relying solely on OSF may have underestimated the extent of open science engagement across disciplines. We made it clear that future research should track behavioural changes through a broader set of platforms and metrics. We now highlight the value of follow-up with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus group discussions, to better understand barriers to behavioural change. We acknowledged that the questionnaire, although piloted, was not formally validated, and we recommend future validation with psychometric expertise. We addressed the limitation of self-selection bias and the context-specific nature of the cohort, suggesting the need for broader, multi-institutional studies. Finally, we now emphasize in the conclusion that educational efforts alone are insufficient for sustained behavioural change, and must be paired with institutional and structural incentives. Thank you again for your careful review and for helping us improve the manuscript. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Schöpfel J. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375970 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-375970 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 May 2025 Joachim Schöpfel , University of Lille, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375970 The article reports the findings of a single-group pre-post study designed to evaluate the impact of an online training program on improving adherence to, knowledge of, and perceptions regarding the adoption of open science practices and responsible research practices among ... Continue reading READ ALL The article reports the findings of a single-group pre-post study designed to evaluate the impact of an online training program on improving adherence to, knowledge of, and perceptions regarding the adoption of open science practices and responsible research practices among graduate researchers at the Brazilian Universidade Federal de Pelotas. According to the results, while the program had minimal to no impact on participants' actual implementation of open science and responsible research practices, it did lead to an improvement in their perceptions of open science and their stated intentions to adopt such practices in the future. The training program and associated research project are described appropriately. However, the review of the existing literature on the education of graduate and PhD students in open science, research ethics, and integrity is based on a rather limited selection of sources. This narrow literature base should be expanded to better contextualize the study and enrich the discussion of its findings. From the outset, the paper should clearly define its target population. Throughout the text, there is a lack of consistency in the use of terminology, with the study shifting between referring to early career researchers, PhD students, and Master’s students. For instance, Figure 1 references only PhD students, whereas the final sample includes over 50% Master’s students—who, in many academic contexts, are not classified as early career researchers and often have limited or no research experience. While this does not imply that Master’s students do not require training in open science, research integrity, and ethics, their academic environment, practical engagement in research, and the potential outcomes of such training can differ significantly from those of PhD students. Assessing both groups together likely diminishes the overall clarity and strength of the study's findings. The design of the study is generally suitable for research in educational settings. Statistical significance is appropriately calculated. Nonetheless, there are at least three notable limitations that undermine the academic rigor of the article. First is the absence of a control group. Second is the brief interval between the pre- and post-assessment phases. Third, the sample itself may not be ideal for evaluating changes in research practices due to its heterogeneity and the early career stage of participants, many of whom have limited opportunities or incentives to engage in research. The authors acknowledge these limitations in their discussion. The project and its data analysis are documented with sufficient transparency to allow replication by other researchers. While the modules, key content, and activities of the online training are summarized in a table with limited detail, a more comprehensive course outline is openly accessible via the OSF platform. Although the statistical methods employed are appropriate for the study’s scope, the design limitations—including the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the sample’s diversity—preclude a causal interpretation of the (partial lack of) effects observed in the training intervention. The source data supporting the study’s findings are available through the OSF platform, ensuring transparency and facilitating future research. As previously noted, the authors demonstrate an awareness of their study’s limitations and are accordingly cautious in their conclusions. However, the discussion section would benefit from being more clearly structured, ideally divided into three or four subsections. Additionally, a separate conclusion section should be added, providing a concise summary of the main findings, key takeaways, and recommendations for future research and training initiatives. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: information sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Schöpfel J. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375970 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-375970 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your points in detail: We acknowledge the limitations regarding the literature base and have revised the introduction and discussion to include a broader set of studies on educational interventions related to open science, research ethics, and research integrity in graduate education. This includes additional references covering training programs, challenges, and best practices in various disciplines and countries. Thank you for highlighting this important inconsistency in terminology. We have revised the manuscript to clearly define our target population as graduate students (both Master’s and PhD), and we now consistently refer to them as such throughout the paper. We also corrected Figure 1 for terminology. Additionally, we have added an explanation to the Discussion, more specifically to the limitation section, addressing how the inclusion of Master’s students may have influenced the findings, considering their earlier research stage and lower engagement in formal research projects. We have expanded the limitations section to reflect the concerns you mention more explicitly: the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the heterogeneity of the participants. Based on your valuable suggestion, we restructured the Discussion section into clear subsections to improve readability and clarity. We also included a new “Conclusion” section summarizing the key findings, limitations, and implications for future research and training programs. We are grateful for your recommendations, which we believe have substantially improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your points in detail: We acknowledge the limitations regarding the literature base and have revised the introduction and discussion to include a broader set of studies on educational interventions related to open science, research ethics, and research integrity in graduate education. This includes additional references covering training programs, challenges, and best practices in various disciplines and countries. Thank you for highlighting this important inconsistency in terminology. We have revised the manuscript to clearly define our target population as graduate students (both Master’s and PhD), and we now consistently refer to them as such throughout the paper. We also corrected Figure 1 for terminology. Additionally, we have added an explanation to the Discussion, more specifically to the limitation section, addressing how the inclusion of Master’s students may have influenced the findings, considering their earlier research stage and lower engagement in formal research projects. We have expanded the limitations section to reflect the concerns you mention more explicitly: the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the heterogeneity of the participants. Based on your valuable suggestion, we restructured the Discussion section into clear subsections to improve readability and clarity. We also included a new “Conclusion” section summarizing the key findings, limitations, and implications for future research and training programs. We are grateful for your recommendations, which we believe have substantially improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your points in detail: We acknowledge the limitations regarding the literature base and have revised the introduction and discussion to include a broader set of studies on educational interventions related to open science, research ethics, and research integrity in graduate education. This includes additional references covering training programs, challenges, and best practices in various disciplines and countries. Thank you for highlighting this important inconsistency in terminology. We have revised the manuscript to clearly define our target population as graduate students (both Master’s and PhD), and we now consistently refer to them as such throughout the paper. We also corrected Figure 1 for terminology. Additionally, we have added an explanation to the Discussion, more specifically to the limitation section, addressing how the inclusion of Master’s students may have influenced the findings, considering their earlier research stage and lower engagement in formal research projects. We have expanded the limitations section to reflect the concerns you mention more explicitly: the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the heterogeneity of the participants. Based on your valuable suggestion, we restructured the Discussion section into clear subsections to improve readability and clarity. We also included a new “Conclusion” section summarizing the key findings, limitations, and implications for future research and training programs. We are grateful for your recommendations, which we believe have substantially improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your points in detail: We acknowledge the limitations regarding the literature base and have revised the introduction and discussion to include a broader set of studies on educational interventions related to open science, research ethics, and research integrity in graduate education. This includes additional references covering training programs, challenges, and best practices in various disciplines and countries. Thank you for highlighting this important inconsistency in terminology. We have revised the manuscript to clearly define our target population as graduate students (both Master’s and PhD), and we now consistently refer to them as such throughout the paper. We also corrected Figure 1 for terminology. Additionally, we have added an explanation to the Discussion, more specifically to the limitation section, addressing how the inclusion of Master’s students may have influenced the findings, considering their earlier research stage and lower engagement in formal research projects. We have expanded the limitations section to reflect the concerns you mention more explicitly: the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the heterogeneity of the participants. Based on your valuable suggestion, we restructured the Discussion section into clear subsections to improve readability and clarity. We also included a new “Conclusion” section summarizing the key findings, limitations, and implications for future research and training programs. We are grateful for your recommendations, which we believe have substantially improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Boté-Vericad JJ. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r373115 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-373115 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Apr 2025 Juan-José Boté-Vericad , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r373115 Authors present a pre-post intervention study on the impact of an educational course promoting open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs) among graduate students at a Brazilian university. The course included approximately 85 hours of lectures and activities, both ... Continue reading READ ALL Authors present a pre-post intervention study on the impact of an educational course promoting open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs) among graduate students at a Brazilian university. The course included approximately 85 hours of lectures and activities, both asynchronous and synchronous, and was designed to encourage graduate students to understand and adopt practices such as study registration, protocol sharing, and data transparency. A total of 80 students participated. The study collected data on both real behavior (measured through the number of Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts and outputs) and self-reported perceptions and intentions (using a detailed questionnaire). The results showed that while students' creation of OSF accounts increased dramatically, there was very little change in other behaviors (such as dataset sharing or preprint posting). However, there were positive changes in how students viewed OS and RRPs and in their intentions to use these practices in the future. The article is well organized and clearly written. It includes all the necessary background, defines the main terms used (like OS and RRPs), and explains why the topic is important. Authors cite key and recent publications, including those from DORA, the Hong Kong Principles, and UNESCO, which shows they are aware of the ongoing discussions in the field. The course itself was well designed, with clearly defined modules and practical activities. Including synchronous workshops and real engagement with the OSF platform adds value to the intervention. The conclusions are careful and balanced. The authors clearly state that the course had a stronger effect on changing perceptions and future intentions than on actual behavior. The questionnaire was piloted but not formally validated, which the authors mention as a limitation. To increase confidence in the findings, a full psychometric validation (e.g., internal consistency, factor analysis) would be recommended in future studies. Also, to better understand why students did not adopt certain practices (like data sharing or preprints), a small number of follow-up interviews could have provided useful context. Some small amendments While the abstract mentions that OSF outputs "showed little or no improvement", it might be helpful to clearly state that no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within 12 months. Mention and explain the questionnaire limitations earlier. The article acknowledges that the questionnaire is not validated, but this point is buried in the discussion. Provide more detail on the institutional context adding a short paragraph on the broader institutional support (or lack thereof) for OS practices at UFPel. Add a short table summarizing the questionnaire structure. Since the text explains the five parts of the questionnaire, a simple table would help readers quickly see the structure. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: My research are in Open Science in the Librarianship and Information Science field. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Boté-Vericad JJ. Reviewer Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r373115 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-373115 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions for further improving the manuscript’s structure and transparency. In response to your points: We have revised the abstract to clarify that, although OSF account creation increased substantially, no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within the 12-month follow-up period. We have reinforced the lack of formal validation of the questionnaire as you suggested. About the table summarizing the five sections of the questionnaire you mentioned, we felt that this would make the manuscript too long. Still, we inserted a direct link to the entire questionnaire available at OSF. Thank you again for your insightful feedback and kind words, which helped us further improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions for further improving the manuscript’s structure and transparency. In response to your points: We have revised the abstract to clarify that, although OSF account creation increased substantially, no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within the 12-month follow-up period. We have reinforced the lack of formal validation of the questionnaire as you suggested. About the table summarizing the five sections of the questionnaire you mentioned, we felt that this would make the manuscript too long. Still, we inserted a direct link to the entire questionnaire available at OSF. Thank you again for your insightful feedback and kind words, which helped us further improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci , Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands 20 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions for further improving the manuscript’s structure and transparency. In response to your points: We have revised the abstract to clarify that, although OSF account creation increased substantially, no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within the 12-month follow-up period. We have reinforced the lack of formal validation of the questionnaire as you suggested. About the table summarizing the five sections of the questionnaire you mentioned, we felt that this would make the manuscript too long. Still, we inserted a direct link to the entire questionnaire available at OSF. Thank you again for your insightful feedback and kind words, which helped us further improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions for further improving the manuscript’s structure and transparency. In response to your points: We have revised the abstract to clarify that, although OSF account creation increased substantially, no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within the 12-month follow-up period. We have reinforced the lack of formal validation of the questionnaire as you suggested. About the table summarizing the five sections of the questionnaire you mentioned, we felt that this would make the manuscript too long. Still, we inserted a direct link to the entire questionnaire available at OSF. Thank you again for your insightful feedback and kind words, which helped us further improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 20 Oct 25 read Version 1 24 Mar 25 read read read read Juan-José Boté-Vericad , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Joachim Schöpfel , University of Lille, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France Sarahanne M Field , University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Priya Silverstein , Ashland University, Ashland, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Schöpfel J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 31 Oct 2025 | for Version 2 Joachim Schöpfel , University of Lille, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France 0 Views copyright © 2025 Schöpfel J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The revised version addresses my previous comments and suggestions and appears suitable for indexing. Thank you. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise information sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Schöpfel J. Peer Review Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189858.r425512) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v2#referee-response-425512 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Silverstein P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jun 2025 | for Version 1 Priya Silverstein , Ashland University, Ashland, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Silverstein P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This article examines a pre-post study evaluating an educational intervention’s impact on graduate students’ understanding of open science and responsible research practices. While the intervention had limited effect on actual implementation (within the period studied), it did lead to an increase in intention to adopt open science practices. I think the authors do a good job of identifying the limitations of the study. I also agree with Sarahanne that the Registered Report format would have been preferable to be able to resolve some of the larger design concerns before data collection. Nevertheless, I will focus on things the authors can change within the write-up itself, now that the study has been completed. 1. I think the description of the increase in OSF accounts is misleading -- we later find out that students has to make an OSF account as part of the course itself, so I don't actually think this makes sense as an outcome measure. Instead, perhaps it would make sense to frame it as "despite the vast majority of students instructed to make an OSF account during the course doing so, [results about outputs on OSF]". So, the course helped them with one barrier to sharing outputs on the OSF (creating an account), but this wasn't enough to push them to share outputs. 2. There is currently little rationale for the time points chosen for follow-up. It's ok if the rationale is logistical, but then this should be made clear. 3. It would be helpful to have some detail about how the course was developed and by whom. 4. The course is a great undertaking! The authors may consider sharing the course with FORRT (https://forrt.org/) so that it can be disseminated widely and further refined in future versions. 5. The sentence "This platform was chosen because the participants had no prior knowledge of any OS tools" on page 6 is misleading -- there's no way of knowing that participants had no prior knowledge of OS tools, and there were a few accounts already, so at least some did have knowledge of the OSF. One rationale for the OSF is that it is a "one stop shop" for many different practices, rather than needing to learn multiple tools in order to engage in open science. 6. The distinction between traditional and non-traditional seems a bit forced and the rationale for this split and definitions / conceptualisations could be clearer. 7. There isn't a rationale provided for why some of the scales go from "does not contribute" to "contributes to good practices" -- isn't it possible that participants think these things contribute to BAD practices? 8. Figure 7 caption is wrong -- same as Figure 5 9. "However, creating an OSF account was one of the tasks to be carried out by students in the course, demonstrating that the best incentive to adopt new practices is to make them normative. This supports the idea that the role in changing policies of institutions and funders are essential for inducing a broad adherence to OS practices and RRPs, which was previously showed." -- I'm not sure about this, doesn't this just show that if you ask students to do something as part of the course they'll do it? 10. "This finding suggests that educational interventions should be implemented as a routine." -- I'm not sure this conclusion follows. 11. It would be good to introduce something about models of behaviour change (e.g. the COM-B model) when talking about behavioural change in the discussion. Something that might be interesting (although take with a pinch of salt as it is my own paper) is Silverstein et al. (2024) where we show that capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage in open research practices all affect engagement in open research practices. We found automatic motivation to be the strongest -- that is, having open research as part of your research routine and habits. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise metascience, open science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci, Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands Dear Dr. Priya Silverstein, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. Your feedback has been very helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we outline the changes made in response: We agree with your point that the increase in OSF accounts should not be interpreted as an outcome. We have included an extra explanation to clarify that creating an OSF account was a course requirement and used this to reflect on remaining barriers to the actual implementation of OS practices in the limitation section. Regarding the rationale for the timepoints, we chose these follow-up timepoints, acknowledging the logistical and institutional constraints involved. About the course dissemination and development, we have included details about the development team and the conceptual basis of the course, as well as made the course openly available on OSF We reworded the ‘data collection’ section to reflect that while most participants were unfamiliar with OS platforms, a few did have prior experience. The rationale for choosing OSF is now more straightforward. Traditional vs non-traditional activities were elaborated on the rationale of this distinction and its foundation in prior literature and initiatives advocating for more responsible research practices. We clarified the intent of the 1–5 scale regarding participants’ perceptions of whether the system contributes to good practices, and not whether it promotes bad ones. The figure captions have been corrected. Thank you for spotting this. We integrated a brief sentence in the discussion to contextualize the observed gap between intention and behaviour. We found the insights of your 2024 article valuable. Thanks for mentioning it. Once again, thank you for your detailed and constructive review. We believe these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. Kind regards, Jaisson Cenci (on behalf of all co-authors) View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest reply Respond Report a concern Silverstein P. Peer Review Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r385379) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-385379 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Field S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. 28 May 2025 | for Version 1 Sarahanne M Field , University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands 0 Views copyright © 2025 Field S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This article presents a timely and relevant investigation into the impact of educational interventions on graduate students' awareness and adoption of open science and responsible research practices. In my perspective, it is a valuable contribution to research on open science education, particularly within a Global South context. It is well-conceived and well-reported but would benefit from methodological enhancements and more robust behavioral measures in future work. The strongest impact observed is in the shifting of attitudes, suggesting that this course could serve as a solid first step in a larger institutional transformation process, provided follow-up mechanisms and structural incentives are also put in place. While the topic and approach are highly relevant, particularly in regions where OS adoption is still emerging (currently still a huge gap in the literature, and a generally understudied issue), the study's design limits its ability to draw strong causal conclusions. This is clearly pointed out in the article, and I really appreciate the authors not trying to oversell their conclusions. This said, the absence of a control group makes it difficult to attribute the attitudinal changes that were observed solely to the intervention. Introducing a comparison group in future research would allow for more definitive evaluations of effectiveness and rule out external influences as alternative explanations for the outcomes observed. Naturally, however, this is not something the current article can be changed to include (this would have been good as a registered report, because these kinds of things can be caught before data collection is made). Although the intervention significantly improved participants' awareness and perceptions regarding OS and RRPs, it had a limited impact on actual behavior. Despite a substantial increase in OSF account creation (from 7 to 78, if I read it correctly) there was little follow-through in terms of registrations, protocols, preprints, or data sharing. This disconnect highlights a need for interventions that go beyond awareness-raising. Integrating structural incentives, such as recognition through academic credits, certificates, or institutional rewards, could promote meaningful engagement and sustained behavioral change. Furthermore, extending the follow-up period beyond 12 months may better capture the long-term influence of such training on research output, particularly as graduate students often take time before producing sharable research materials. I think these things can be better emphasised in the discussion. The study’s sole reliance on OSF to assess behavioral change may underestimate the true extent of participants’ engagement with OS too, and this is something else the authors could emphasize. Researchers from various disciplines may use different platforms such as GitHub, Zenodo, or protocols.io, for instance, which were not monitored. Expanding the scope of behavioral metrics in future studies would provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the intervention’s impact. Additionally, qualitative follow-ups like interviews or focus groups could shed light on the specific barriers students face when attempting to implement OS practices, offering a richer contextual understanding of why behavior change may lag behind attitudinal shifts. Another limitation lies in the use of a non-validated questionnaire to assess perceptions and knowledge. Although the instrument was piloted, it lacks formal validation, which may affect the reliability and interpretability of the findings. A validated survey tool would strengthen future studies and ensure consistency across different institutional or cultural contexts. This is particularly important given the study’s goal of influencing policy and educational programming. By collaborating with psychometric experts to refine and validate the questionnaire, future research can generate more robust and generalizable data. Moreover, the intervention was delivered at a single institution with a diverse yet localized cohort, limiting the generalizability of the results. Student engagement may also have been influenced by self-selection bias, as those with a prior interest in research integrity may have been more likely to participate. Future efforts could expand the program to multiple institutions and adapt it to different disciplinary norms to enhance external validity. Tailoring the content more specifically to the research practices and challenges of individual fields might also improve relevance and uptake. Despite these limitations, the course successfully prompted participants to re-evaluate the value of traditional versus non-traditional research practices and the adequacy of current research evaluation systems. This shift in perception is a critical first step toward cultural change, but perception alone is insufficient to effect behavioral transformation. To bridge this gap, future interventions should not only educate but also integrate OS practices into institutional norms and researcher evaluations. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Metascience, open science/science reform, research methodology. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci, Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands Dear Dr. Sarahanne M. Field , Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging review. We are grateful for your recognition of the relevance of our work and the constructive suggestions you provided. In response to your comments, we have made several additions and clarifications in the manuscript: We reinforced in the discussion that the absence of a control group limits our ability to attribute attitudinal changes exclusively to the intervention. We revised our interpretation of OSF account creation, framing it as an introductory step rather than a true behavioural shift. We added a remark in the limitations section emphasizing that relying solely on OSF may have underestimated the extent of open science engagement across disciplines. We made it clear that future research should track behavioural changes through a broader set of platforms and metrics. We now highlight the value of follow-up with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus group discussions, to better understand barriers to behavioural change. We acknowledged that the questionnaire, although piloted, was not formally validated, and we recommend future validation with psychometric expertise. We addressed the limitation of self-selection bias and the context-specific nature of the cohort, suggesting the need for broader, multi-institutional studies. Finally, we now emphasize in the conclusion that educational efforts alone are insufficient for sustained behavioural change, and must be paired with institutional and structural incentives. Thank you again for your careful review and for helping us improve the manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest reply Respond Report a concern Field SM. Peer Review Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375971) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-375971 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Schöpfel J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 May 2025 | for Version 1 Joachim Schöpfel , University of Lille, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France 0 Views copyright © 2025 Schöpfel J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article reports the findings of a single-group pre-post study designed to evaluate the impact of an online training program on improving adherence to, knowledge of, and perceptions regarding the adoption of open science practices and responsible research practices among graduate researchers at the Brazilian Universidade Federal de Pelotas. According to the results, while the program had minimal to no impact on participants' actual implementation of open science and responsible research practices, it did lead to an improvement in their perceptions of open science and their stated intentions to adopt such practices in the future. The training program and associated research project are described appropriately. However, the review of the existing literature on the education of graduate and PhD students in open science, research ethics, and integrity is based on a rather limited selection of sources. This narrow literature base should be expanded to better contextualize the study and enrich the discussion of its findings. From the outset, the paper should clearly define its target population. Throughout the text, there is a lack of consistency in the use of terminology, with the study shifting between referring to early career researchers, PhD students, and Master’s students. For instance, Figure 1 references only PhD students, whereas the final sample includes over 50% Master’s students—who, in many academic contexts, are not classified as early career researchers and often have limited or no research experience. While this does not imply that Master’s students do not require training in open science, research integrity, and ethics, their academic environment, practical engagement in research, and the potential outcomes of such training can differ significantly from those of PhD students. Assessing both groups together likely diminishes the overall clarity and strength of the study's findings. The design of the study is generally suitable for research in educational settings. Statistical significance is appropriately calculated. Nonetheless, there are at least three notable limitations that undermine the academic rigor of the article. First is the absence of a control group. Second is the brief interval between the pre- and post-assessment phases. Third, the sample itself may not be ideal for evaluating changes in research practices due to its heterogeneity and the early career stage of participants, many of whom have limited opportunities or incentives to engage in research. The authors acknowledge these limitations in their discussion. The project and its data analysis are documented with sufficient transparency to allow replication by other researchers. While the modules, key content, and activities of the online training are summarized in a table with limited detail, a more comprehensive course outline is openly accessible via the OSF platform. Although the statistical methods employed are appropriate for the study’s scope, the design limitations—including the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the sample’s diversity—preclude a causal interpretation of the (partial lack of) effects observed in the training intervention. The source data supporting the study’s findings are available through the OSF platform, ensuring transparency and facilitating future research. As previously noted, the authors demonstrate an awareness of their study’s limitations and are accordingly cautious in their conclusions. However, the discussion section would benefit from being more clearly structured, ideally divided into three or four subsections. Additionally, a separate conclusion section should be added, providing a concise summary of the main findings, key takeaways, and recommendations for future research and training initiatives. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise information sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci, Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands Dear Dr. Joachim Schöpfel, Thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Below, we address each of your points in detail: We acknowledge the limitations regarding the literature base and have revised the introduction and discussion to include a broader set of studies on educational interventions related to open science, research ethics, and research integrity in graduate education. This includes additional references covering training programs, challenges, and best practices in various disciplines and countries. Thank you for highlighting this important inconsistency in terminology. We have revised the manuscript to clearly define our target population as graduate students (both Master’s and PhD), and we now consistently refer to them as such throughout the paper. We also corrected Figure 1 for terminology. Additionally, we have added an explanation to the Discussion, more specifically to the limitation section, addressing how the inclusion of Master’s students may have influenced the findings, considering their earlier research stage and lower engagement in formal research projects. We have expanded the limitations section to reflect the concerns you mention more explicitly: the absence of a control group, the short follow-up period, and the heterogeneity of the participants. Based on your valuable suggestion, we restructured the Discussion section into clear subsections to improve readability and clarity. We also included a new “Conclusion” section summarizing the key findings, limitations, and implications for future research and training programs. We are grateful for your recommendations, which we believe have substantially improved the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest reply Respond Report a concern Schöpfel J. Peer Review Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r375970) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-375970 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Boté-Vericad J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Juan-José Boté-Vericad , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2025 Boté-Vericad J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Authors present a pre-post intervention study on the impact of an educational course promoting open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs) among graduate students at a Brazilian university. The course included approximately 85 hours of lectures and activities, both asynchronous and synchronous, and was designed to encourage graduate students to understand and adopt practices such as study registration, protocol sharing, and data transparency. A total of 80 students participated. The study collected data on both real behavior (measured through the number of Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts and outputs) and self-reported perceptions and intentions (using a detailed questionnaire). The results showed that while students' creation of OSF accounts increased dramatically, there was very little change in other behaviors (such as dataset sharing or preprint posting). However, there were positive changes in how students viewed OS and RRPs and in their intentions to use these practices in the future. The article is well organized and clearly written. It includes all the necessary background, defines the main terms used (like OS and RRPs), and explains why the topic is important. Authors cite key and recent publications, including those from DORA, the Hong Kong Principles, and UNESCO, which shows they are aware of the ongoing discussions in the field. The course itself was well designed, with clearly defined modules and practical activities. Including synchronous workshops and real engagement with the OSF platform adds value to the intervention. The conclusions are careful and balanced. The authors clearly state that the course had a stronger effect on changing perceptions and future intentions than on actual behavior. The questionnaire was piloted but not formally validated, which the authors mention as a limitation. To increase confidence in the findings, a full psychometric validation (e.g., internal consistency, factor analysis) would be recommended in future studies. Also, to better understand why students did not adopt certain practices (like data sharing or preprints), a small number of follow-up interviews could have provided useful context. Some small amendments While the abstract mentions that OSF outputs "showed little or no improvement", it might be helpful to clearly state that no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within 12 months. Mention and explain the questionnaire limitations earlier. The article acknowledges that the questionnaire is not validated, but this point is buried in the discussion. Provide more detail on the institutional context adding a short paragraph on the broader institutional support (or lack thereof) for OS practices at UFPel. Add a short table summarizing the questionnaire structure. Since the text explains the five parts of the questionnaire, a simple table would help readers quickly see the structure. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise My research are in Open Science in the Librarianship and Information Science field. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Oct 2025 Jaisson Cenci, Dentistry, Radboudumc Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, 6525EX, The Netherlands Dear Dr. Juan-José Boté-Vericad, Thank you for your generous and supportive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and clarity of the work, and your suggestions for further improving the manuscript’s structure and transparency. In response to your points: We have revised the abstract to clarify that, although OSF account creation increased substantially, no new registrations, datasets, or preprints were added within the 12-month follow-up period. We have reinforced the lack of formal validation of the questionnaire as you suggested. About the table summarizing the five sections of the questionnaire you mentioned, we felt that this would make the manuscript too long. Still, we inserted a direct link to the entire questionnaire available at OSF. Thank you again for your insightful feedback and kind words, which helped us further improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest reply Respond Report a concern Boté-Vericad JJ. Peer Review Report For: Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A pre-post study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :318 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.171052.r373115) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1#referee-response-373115 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Fostering open science and responsible research...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Cenci J et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318", templates : { twitter : "Fostering open science and responsible research practices: A.... Cenci J et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-318/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/155832/171052") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "171052"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "375965": 0, "375964": 0, "375967": 0, "375966": 0, "375963": 0, "375962": 0, "385381": 0, "425511": 0, "385380": 0, "385383": 0, "385382": 0, "375969": 0, "375968": 0, "375971": 12, "385379": 10, "385378": 0, "375970": 21, "425514": 0, "385385": 0, "385384": 0, "425512": 4, "385387": 0, "425513": 0, "385386": 0, "373111": 0, "373110": 0, "373117": 0, "373116": 0, "373119": 0, "373118": 0, "373113": 0, "373112": 0, "373115": 17, "373114": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3acc1ea1-8050-44d1-b433-28639403c6f1"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });