Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms

Applicability of open science practices to... | 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/11-408" }, "headline": "Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research...", "datePublished": "2022-04-11T15:50:38", "dateModified": "2022-07-20T14:45:53", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jürgen Schneider" } ], "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": "The purpose of this data collection was to uncover the extent to which communities have emerged that cultivate a shared understanding of open science. In a cross-sectional survey, we assessed the applicability of 13 open science practices over different disciplines and research paradigms. Focusing on completed research projects, participants were able to draw informed evaluations concerning the applicability of open science practices. The total sample is N=295 researchers, with approximately equal numbers from six broad disciplines (between 42 and 52 participants per discipline). The survey included an attention check." } { "@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/11-408", "name": "Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects..." } } ] } Home Browse Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Schneider J. Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.2 ) 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 ▬ ✚ Data Note Revised Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Jürgen Schneider https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3772-4198 Jürgen Schneider https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3772-4198 PUBLISHED 20 Jul 2022 Author details Author details University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Jürgen Schneider Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, 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 The purpose of this data collection was to uncover the extent to which communities have emerged that cultivate a shared understanding of open science. In a cross-sectional survey, we assessed the applicability of 13 open science practices over different disciplines and research paradigms. Focusing on completed research projects, participants were able to draw informed evaluations concerning the applicability of open science practices. The total sample is N=295 researchers, with approximately equal numbers from six broad disciplines (between 42 and 52 participants per discipline). The survey included an attention check. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Open Science, Open Access, Open Data, Open Education, Open Evaluation, Open Methods, Open Participation, Open Policies, Open Software, Open Tools Corresponding Author(s) Jürgen Schneider ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Jürgen Schneider Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was supported by Fellowship Open Science, from Wikimedia Germany, Volkswagen Foundation and Stifterverband. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2022 Schneider J. 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: Schneider J. Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.2 ) First published: 11 Apr 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.1 ) Latest published: 20 Jul 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 In the data set we have now added a column with the discipline from each participant (according to the Frascati manual classification). Previously, the data set contained only cluster-level discipline classification information. We also provided more information on the generation of the 13 items for the Open Science Practices survey. In particular, we have now described the interview survey process in more detail. In the data set we have now added a column with the discipline from each participant (according to the Frascati manual classification). Previously, the data set contained only cluster-level discipline classification information. We also provided more information on the generation of the 13 items for the Open Science Practices survey. In particular, we have now described the interview survey process in more detail. See the author's detailed response to the review by Lauren Cadwallader See the author's detailed response to the review by Suzanne Dumouchel READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction “Open science” is not a new term in the repertoire of academic disciplines, it has developed over the last several decades. However, what researchers understand by open science and which open science practices they refer to in particular varies greatly between research projects. In some research projects, open science practices are closely related with aspects of the research paradigm’s philosophy of science (e.g., preregistration in critical rationalism), in other research projects, they are at odds (e.g., replicability in constructivism). Accordingly, the implementation of open science practices naturally varies in degree of implementation and stage of development. The purpose of this data collection was to reveal the extent to which subcommunities have emerged that share a common profile of implementing open science practices and how they are related to research paradigms and disciplines. Materials and methods Data collection protocol The study was conducted as a cross-sectional survey using the survey tool formr ( Arslan, Walther & Tata, 2020 ). In order to achieve a high ecological validity, the survey referred to the applicability of open science practices in concrete research projects instead of time periods (e.g., referring to the past year). We focused on evaluating completed research projects as participants were able to draw on their experiences from all phases of the project, which allowed them to make informed assessments of the factors that influenced research project decisions. Participants were recruited via the online access panel provider prolific.co. We used prolific’s built in filter to target researchers (“Industry Role = Researcher”). In the study description for prolific, we merely indicated that the study addressed practices in research projects; the focus on open science practices was avoided to reduce selection bias in the sample: “In this study, you will indicate whether 13 practices are potentially applicable to a research project you were conducting. The survey contains only 16 items in total. We are looking for participants who have conducted a research project associated with one of the disciplines • Natural sciences • Engineering and technology • Medical and health sciences • Agricultural and veterinary sciences • Social sciences • Humanities and the arts” Participants took on average 3.98 minutes (median 3.43) to answer the survey and received USD 0.85 as compensation (approx. USD 12.81 per hour on average). The first participant started on August 20 2021, the last session on March 16 2022. We aimed for a sample distributed across all research disciplines. For this reason, we drew on the classification of research fields from the OECD Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015). The Frascati Manual is an internationally acknowledged standard on the methodology of collecting and using research and development statistics, developed by the OECD. As a standard, it is the first choice for the definition and taxonomy of research disciplines. For each “broad classification” from the manual (natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, agricultural and veterinary sciences, social sciences, humanities and the arts) we aimed for n=50 participants, which would have led to a total sample of N=300 (limit of allocated financial resources). As soon as 50 participants from a discipline (broad classification) finished the survey, access to the survey closed for participants from that discipline (“cell closed”). For two broad classifications we exceeded the stopping rule (Natural Sciences, Social Sciences), as cells only closed after the last participant from that cell finished the survey, while further participants from that cell were still able to begin the survey (see Table 1 ). In addition, we were only able to recruit 42 participants for the agricultural and veterinary sciences despite several postings on prolific. This may not be surprising, since agricultural and veterinary sciences is a narrower field compared to the other broad classifications. This is also the reason why the data collection is spread over a longer period of time. After the start of data collection, participants of the other broad classifications could be collected within a few weeks. Due to the repeated invitation of researchers from the agricultural and veterinary sciences, the period of data collection stretched out, unfortunately only a few additional participants could be recruited (see codebook). Table 1. Count of participants from each discipline. Discipline (broad classification) Count of participants Natural sciences 52 Engineering and technology 50 Medical and health sciences 50 Agricultural and veterinary sciences 42 Social sciences 51 Humanities and the arts 50 ∑ 295 Procedure and measures On the first page, participants agreed to the declaration of consent. On the second page they indicated the discipline in which the research project was based regarding which they would like to answer the following questions: “Discipline. On the next page you will answer questions regarding a previous research project. To which discipline is this research project most closely related?” In a dropdown menu, participants were able to choose from all 42 second-level classifications from the OECD Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015). In using the second-level classifications, we tried to avoid inconsistent assignments to the broad classifications by the participants. After that an attention check item was displayed (see below). The third page gave a quick instruction on how to answer the items following on the next page: “When answering the items on the next page, please think of a research project of yours that you have already completed. Regardless of whether you actually applied the practices in this research project: Which of the practices would have been potentially applicable , given all the characteristics and circumstances of the project? This includes both scientific, and practical considerations in conducting the study.” On top of the fourth page the following question was displayed: “To what extent are the following behaviors applicable in your research project?” Which was then followed up by 13 items on open science practices (item labels see Table 2 ). The practices were derived and synthesized using a top-down and bottom-up approach from the FOSTER Taxonomy of Open Science (top-down) and nine additional expert interviews from different disciplines (bottom-up). Through the top-down and bottom-up approach, blind spots were mutually exposed to ensure that the broadness of open science practices are reflected in the survey. The FOSTER taxonomy is the only taxonomy on open science that we know of. It was created as part of the FOSTER Plus project, an EU-funded project on Open Science. The goals in the project explicitly covered the generation of high quality training resources, which includes the taxonomy we use. For the bottom-up approach, we interviewed nine experts in open science. We recruited the experts from an open science fellows program in which they served as mentors. Following the theoretical sampling approach, we recruited mentors who came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., sociology, computer science, sinology) and applied different research paradigms (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical). In a focused interview, interviewees were given a narrative prompt to retrospectively consider open science practices in their field: “Please recall one of your most recently completed research projects. Thinking about the entire span of the project, from the initial idea to the completion of the project, what aspects of open science do you consider significant and how can they be exemplified in research projects?” The interviewer then asked follow-up questions about other practices: “Are there other aspects of Open Science that you consider significant in your research projects (i.e., potentially others as well)? If so, how could these be implemented?”. The interviewer also asked follow-up questions to clarify individual practices mentioned. Two trained coders transcribed and segmented the interview material around each open science practices mentioned. Disagreements in the coding process were resolved through discussion throughout the coding process. With the segmented material, the coders conducted a qualitative content analysis. In two stages they abstracted the practices named by the interviewees to an equivalent level of abstraction. These practices thus obtained were finally compared and synthesized with the FOSTER taxonomy resulting in 13 items on open science practices. On the bottom of the page we assessed the research paradigm the project was situated in: “Research paradigm. What was the project’s primary research interest and design?” with the single choice answer categories “mainly qualitative empirical”, “mainly quantitative empirical”, “explicitly mixed-methodological (equally qualitative and quantitative empirical)” and “nonempirical”. Table 2. The items of the 13 open science practices addressed in the survey. Involving the non-academic public in the research process The non-academic public is involved in the process of scientific research – whether in community-driven research or global investigations. Citizens do scientific work—often working together with experts or scientific institutions. They support the generation of relevant research questions, the collection, analysis or description of research data and make a valuable contribution to science. “Citizen Science” Publicly sharing project plans to encourage feedback and collaboration Researchers make their project plans publicly available at an early stage (e.g., on social media, websites) to optimize the study design through feedback and to encourage collaboration. “Open Collaboration” Preregistering study plans Researchers submit important information about their study (for example: research rationale, hypotheses, design and analytic strategy) to a public registry before beginning the study. “Preregistration” Publicly sharing the methodology of the research process Researchers describe methods, procedures and instruments that are used in the process of knowledge generation and make them publicly available. “Open Methodology” Using Open file formats and research software Researchers use software (for analysis, simulation, visualization, etc.) as well as file formats that grant permission to access, re-use, and redistribute material with few or no restrictions. “Open File Formats and Research Software” Publicly sharing research materials Researchers share research materials, for example, biological and geological samples, instruments for measurement or stimuli used in the study. “Open Materials” Publicly sharing data analyses Researchers make the procedure of the data analyses and their scripts (“code”) publicly available so that others are able to reach the same results as are claimed in scientific outputs. “Open Code/Open Script” Publicly sharing research data Researchers publicly provide the data generated in the research process free of cost and accessible so that if can be used, reused and distributed provided that the data source is attributed. “Open Data” Generating open educational resources Researchers produce and release teaching, learning and research materials in any medium that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, images, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge. “Open Educational Resources” Deciding for openness in the peer review process Researchers opt for some kind of openness in the peer review process, including making reviewer or author identities open, publishing review reports or enabling a broader community to participate in the process. “Open Peer Review” Publishing open access Researchers publish their research paper online, free of cost with free reusability regarding copyright restrictions. This involves any form of open access (preprints, gold and hybrid open access, etc.). “Open Access” Providing open source code of software Researchers make source code for a piece of software that was developed in the research process publicly available, along with an open source license permitting reuse, adaptation, and further distribution. “Open Source” Communicating research results to nonacademics Researchers use appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science: Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest, Opinions, Understanding. Science communication may involve science practitioners, mediators, and other members of the general public, either peer-to-peer or between groups. “Science Communication” For details on items and item statistics, see the codebook (created with the R package codebook ; Arslan, 2019 ) in the Extended data ( Schneider, 2022 ). Data validation Participants had to pass an attention check at the beginning of the survey in order to be able to complete the other questions. The attention check looked as follows: “ Please read the following scenario briefly and answer a question about it: A famine has broken out in your village. You and some others have been chosen to leave the village and search for food. It begins to rain heavily and soon there will be flooding. Participants in studies like this are sometimes not very attentive. We have included this question here to check if you have actually read the scenario. If you read this, leave the following question unanswered just click next. According to the scenario, would it be appropriate to take the raft and leave the others behind? ” Followed by a seven-point Likert scale with the ankers “absolutely no” and “absolutely yes”. The attention check was considered “passed” if nothing was marked on the seven-point Likert scale (i.e. an NA value on this item). Overall, 20 participants eligible for participation failed the attention check and were thus excluded. These participants are not included in the data set that is available for download ( Schneider, 2022 ). They jumped to the end of the survey after failing the attention check and therefore did not complete the 13 items on the open science practices. As a limitation regarding data validation, it should be noted that we did not target a representative sample of researchers across disciplines. For the data set, it was important that we had variance in the backgrounds of the researchers. Any analyses comparing disciplines should therefore be interpreted with caution. Ethical approval and consent to participate The present data collection received approval from the ethics committee of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Tübingen (no approval number). Participants agreed to the consent details printed below before beginning the survey. Future analyses In the future, the data will be analyzed to answer the questions whether there are different communities in the application of open science practices and to what extent the open science practice profiles of these communities are similar or different to each other. Are there open science practices that all communities share? Are there practices for which there are particularly strong differences between communities? In addition, the role of research disciplines and research paradigms will be explored. Data availability Underlying data Zenodo: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6834569 ( Schneider, 2022 ). This project contains the following underlying data: • osc_data.RData (data set as RData-file) • osc_data.csv (data set as CSV-file) Extended data Zenodo: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6834569 ( Schneider, 2022 ). This project contains the following extended data: • codebook.html (codebook report of survey and its items) • STROBE-checklist-v4-cross-sectional.pdf (STROBE Statement: Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies) • Consent Statement.pdf (Consent Statement: Details of the Consent Statement the participants agreed to) Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgements We thank the nine interviewees from the pilot study. We acknowledge support by Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Tübingen. References Arslan RC: How to Automatically Document Data With the codebook Package to Facilitate Data Reuse. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2019; 2 (2): 169–187. Publisher Full Text Arslan RC, Walther MP, Tata CS: formr: A study framework allowing for automated feedback generation and complex longitudinal experience-sampling studies using R. Behav. Res. Methods. 2020; 52 (1): 376–387. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Schneider J: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms. [Dataset].2022. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 11 Apr 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Jürgen Schneider Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was supported by Fellowship Open Science, from Wikimedia Germany, Volkswagen Foundation and Stifterverband. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 20 Jul 2022, 11:408 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.2 version 1 Published: 11 Apr 2022, 11:408 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.1 Copyright © 2022 Schneider J. 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 Schneider J. Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111383.2 ) 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 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Jul 2022 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Bellhäuser H. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r145712 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2#referee-response-145712 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 26 Sep 2022 Henrik Bellhäuser , Department of Psychology, Mainz University, Mainz, Germany Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r145712 In this data note, the author gives access to and describes a data set collected from N=295 researchers from various fields that assessed whether a number of open science practices were applicable in their discipline. I value ... Continue reading READ ALL In this data note, the author gives access to and describes a data set collected from N=295 researchers from various fields that assessed whether a number of open science practices were applicable in their discipline. I value the approach to make the data accessible and overall I think the author did a very good job in documenting all details relevant for this data collection. The data is both interesting and easily reusable based on this data note. I have only few minor comments as I believe the previous reviewers and the author already solved the major issues: - At first, I thought the declaration of consent would not be included. Later, I found it on Zenodo—you might want to mention on p.4 where the reader can find it. - If possible, you might add the link to Zenodo already in the abstract. - The codebook is great—makes me want to start form as well. If it would be possible to adjust the y-axes of all variables so that the size of the bars are comparable, it would be even better in my opinion. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: educational psychology 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 Bellhäuser H. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r145712 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2#referee-response-145712 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Liu C, Gong K and Jia X. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r146059 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2#referee-response-146059 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 19 Aug 2022 Chuang Liu , China Academy of Science, Beijing, China Ke Gong , College of Life Sciences/Center for Genomics and Bio-computing, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China Xiangtong Jia , Nankai University, Tianjin, China Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r146059 The research involves nearly all aspects of open science practices (including six broad disciplinary), the span of disciplines is large, the content is complex and the data is valuable. The work had been approved by an ethics committee and the ... Continue reading READ ALL The research involves nearly all aspects of open science practices (including six broad disciplinary), the span of disciplines is large, the content is complex and the data is valuable. The work had been approved by an ethics committee and the data had been validated properly. However, the paper does not mention similar research but no comparable analysis. The total number of the validated participants is 295, and 42-52 for each discipline. It is suggested to increase the number of participants and consider to have different number of participants for different disciplines according to the proportion of research projects of related discipline, so that it may be more reasonable. The practice of open science involves complex socio-technical elements, including scientific communities, general public and companies and so on, participants with different backgrounds may have different opinions, this might be further considered. I agree very much for the setting of attention check, to ensure the reliability of the survey and to avoid the random answers of the respondents. The questionnaire form could be concise and friendly, can even add some bogus items options. Furthermore, I wonder if the author has considered privacy issues during the survey, how have these issues been treated? The survey asked participant to make a judgement between 1-4, why not chosen between 1-10? Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Electronic engineering and telecommuication, engineering education, scientific policies We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we 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 Liu C, Gong K and Jia X. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r146059 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2#referee-response-146059 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dumouchel S. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r144742 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2#referee-response-144742 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 01 Aug 2022 Suzanne Dumouchel , TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, Paris, France Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r144742 I have read the answers to my review and seen ... Continue reading READ ALL I have read the answers to my review and seen the additions and it's fine for me. I approve the publication. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. 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 Dumouchel S. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r144742 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2#referee-response-144742 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 11 Apr 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Cadwallader L. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137032 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v1#referee-response-137032 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 27 May 2022 Lauren Cadwallader , Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137032 This research aims to gain insights into open science practices in six broad disciplinary areas by asking researchers about the potential to practice open science behaviours in relation to a past project. Thirteen different open science behaviours are included, which ... Continue reading READ ALL This research aims to gain insights into open science practices in six broad disciplinary areas by asking researchers about the potential to practice open science behaviours in relation to a past project. Thirteen different open science behaviours are included, which give a comprehensive view of open science rather than just publishing related activities. The rationale for the study is good and asking researchers about past projects, rather than asking them to predict future work, is an interesting and valuable approach to assessing open science practices. The range of open science practices included in the survey is broad, which should give a good insight into all activities that contribute to the aims of being open. However, one aspect I think is lacking is the extent to which researchers were mandated by their funder or institution to carry out any of these activities, which would add context to the extent to which they view certain practices as applicable. In terms of the demographics of the survey sample, it is good to see balanced sample sizes in the disciplines and the inclusion of whether the researcher's work is quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods. The methodology should include more information on which geographical areas were targeted for respondents and information on career stages of the respondents if possible, as these are both factors in adoption of open science practices. I have concerns that the wording used in the Likert scale may have been confusing for respondents. The aim was to get researchers to report on their past research but the question about open science practices was in the present tense ("To what extent are the following behaviours applicable..." [emphasis added]). I'm also unsure of how to interpret the "not at all applicable" response - the codebook seems to suggest a "N/A" option was also offered but this doesn't seem to have been used by anyone. For example, were all respondents creating software but not all thought that sharing software openly applied to their project? Or were the respondents who chose "not at all applicable" really saying they didn't create software? Including the survey instrument (i.e. a pdf copy of the survey questions as presented to the respondents) might help with understanding this better. A couple of other specific points: - There is no mention of data handling with respect to GDPR rules. - The codebook gives an identical explanation for two variables - osp_sco and osp_cit. Presumable the latter is Citizen Science and not Science Communication. The dataset in Zenodo is well presented and easy to use (aside from the labelling mistake mentioned above). As mentioned earlier, I would recommend adding the survey instrument to the dataset to aid understanding and also enable others to repeat this approach. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Scholarly communications, publishing, 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 Cadwallader L. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137032 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v1#referee-response-137032 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 18 Jul 2022 Jürgen Schneider , University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 18 Jul 2022 Author Response Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the ... Continue reading Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the mandates of funders or institutions. Unfortunately, we can't collect this data a posteriori. However, there is first evidence that mandates at the level of the research institution do not necessarily have the greatest impact on researchers' open science practices. For example, the existence of a research data policy at a research institution is not related to higher data sharing: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yhcz We agree that information on the geographical areas and career stage of participants would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. I agree that the wording of the items in the present tense is unfortunate. Participants were encouraged to ask us questions via the survey-internal direct messaging system if any questions arose during the course of the questionnaire. The participants did indeed use this opportunity, and we received 27 direct messages. However, these inquiries were all aimed at the attention check that was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, no questions arose about the subsequent items. We have been careful not to collect personalized data in the survey for which the GDPR would be relevant. Thank you for the pointing out the mistake in the codebook. We corrected this and uploaded a new version of the codebook. Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the mandates of funders or institutions. Unfortunately, we can't collect this data a posteriori. However, there is first evidence that mandates at the level of the research institution do not necessarily have the greatest impact on researchers' open science practices. For example, the existence of a research data policy at a research institution is not related to higher data sharing: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yhcz We agree that information on the geographical areas and career stage of participants would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. I agree that the wording of the items in the present tense is unfortunate. Participants were encouraged to ask us questions via the survey-internal direct messaging system if any questions arose during the course of the questionnaire. The participants did indeed use this opportunity, and we received 27 direct messages. However, these inquiries were all aimed at the attention check that was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, no questions arose about the subsequent items. We have been careful not to collect personalized data in the survey for which the GDPR would be relevant. Thank you for the pointing out the mistake in the codebook. We corrected this and uploaded a new version of the codebook. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 18 Jul 2022 Jürgen Schneider , University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 18 Jul 2022 Author Response Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the ... Continue reading Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the mandates of funders or institutions. Unfortunately, we can't collect this data a posteriori. However, there is first evidence that mandates at the level of the research institution do not necessarily have the greatest impact on researchers' open science practices. For example, the existence of a research data policy at a research institution is not related to higher data sharing: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yhcz We agree that information on the geographical areas and career stage of participants would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. I agree that the wording of the items in the present tense is unfortunate. Participants were encouraged to ask us questions via the survey-internal direct messaging system if any questions arose during the course of the questionnaire. The participants did indeed use this opportunity, and we received 27 direct messages. However, these inquiries were all aimed at the attention check that was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, no questions arose about the subsequent items. We have been careful not to collect personalized data in the survey for which the GDPR would be relevant. Thank you for the pointing out the mistake in the codebook. We corrected this and uploaded a new version of the codebook. Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the mandates of funders or institutions. Unfortunately, we can't collect this data a posteriori. However, there is first evidence that mandates at the level of the research institution do not necessarily have the greatest impact on researchers' open science practices. For example, the existence of a research data policy at a research institution is not related to higher data sharing: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yhcz We agree that information on the geographical areas and career stage of participants would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. I agree that the wording of the items in the present tense is unfortunate. Participants were encouraged to ask us questions via the survey-internal direct messaging system if any questions arose during the course of the questionnaire. The participants did indeed use this opportunity, and we received 27 direct messages. However, these inquiries were all aimed at the attention check that was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, no questions arose about the subsequent items. We have been careful not to collect personalized data in the survey for which the GDPR would be relevant. Thank you for the pointing out the mistake in the codebook. We corrected this and uploaded a new version of the codebook. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dumouchel S. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137033 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v1#referee-response-137033 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 May 2022 Suzanne Dumouchel , TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, Paris, France Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137033 The process of the survey is clearly described such as the tools that have been used and the reasoning behind them. The selection of the researchers is also well explained and the average per discipline is relevant for this kind ... Continue reading READ ALL The process of the survey is clearly described such as the tools that have been used and the reasoning behind them. The selection of the researchers is also well explained and the average per discipline is relevant for this kind of study. However, it could be interesting to be precise with any information regarding the geographic coverage of the researchers and their career stage. It can contribute to better understand of the OS practices. This might have been taken into account however it is not mentioned in the paper. It seems particularly relevant to offer the possibility to specify the discipline and not to stay at the level of the broad classification. On this topic, further explanation of the reasoning behind the broad classification could be useful, especially to understand why "agricultural and veterinary sciences" are not part of natural sciences. What is the reasoning behind this? The selection of the Frascati Manual seems to be relevant but more details can be provided to mention maybe other options and to explain why this one has been selected and upon which criteria? This precision can be expected as well for the FOSTER Taxonomy of Open Science. The role of the nine additional expert interviews is not clear enough. It is difficult for the reader to understand how practices have been synthesised from both the FOSTER Taxonomy and the expert interviews. The paper could be stronger by explaining 1) the goal and process of the interviews; 2) the selection of these experts (for instance regarding the disciplines as it is the main focus in the paper); 3) how the practices have been built from these interviews and the taxonomy. For instance, it can be interesting to highlight the potential bias or reasoning to synthesise in one way or another. It is interesting to see that the survey has run between August 2020 and March 2022. Regarding the increase of knowledge and practices related to Open Science, the answers might have evolved between both. Even if it can be quite tricky to determine this aspect, it can be relevant to mention or highlight any difference if some have been noticed. Lastly the reader could expect a short conclusion about the main outputs of the survey. And if the goal is to provide it in a dedicated paper, some highlights can be useful or at least it can be announced at the end of the paper. In any case, this kind of survey is particularly relevant and should contribute to implement the OS practices in the different disciplines as well as to better identify the needs for the researchers. With these small precisions, we believe the paper (and the data collected) contributes to the OS reflexion. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: research infrastructures, social sciences and humanities, FAIR data, EOSC, 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 Dumouchel S. Reviewer Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137033 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v1#referee-response-137033 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 18 Jul 2022 Jürgen Schneider , University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 18 Jul 2022 Author Response Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. We agree that specifying the disciplines might be a valuable information for data users. Therefore, we have now included the disciplines in the data set as well as the Codebook. Concerning the Frascati manual, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The Frascati Manual is an internationally acknowledged standard on the methodology of collecting and using research and development statistics, developed by the OECD. As a standard, it is the first choice for the definition and taxonomy of research disciplines.” Concerning the FOSTER taxonomy, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The FOSTER taxonomy is the only taxonomy on open science that we know of. It was created as part of the FOSTER Plus project, an EU-funded project on Open Science. The goals in the project explicitly covered the generation of high quality training resources, which includes the taxonomy we use.” We agree that more information on the synthesis of the FOSTER taxonomy and the interviews would help readers understand the construction of the survey. We therefore added the following paragraph to the methods section: “Through the top-down and bottom-up approach, blind spots were mutually exposed to ensure that the broadness of open science practices are reflected in the survey. […] For the bottom-up approach, we interviewed nine experts in open science. We recruited the experts from an open science fellows program in which they served as mentors. Following the theoretical sampling approach, we recruited mentors who came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., sociology, computer science, sinology) and applied different research paradigms (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical). In a focused interview, interviewees were given a narrative prompt to retrospectively consider open science practices in their field: "Please recall one of your most recently completed research projects. Thinking about the entire span of the project, from the initial idea to the completion of the project, what aspects of open science do you consider significant and how can they be exemplified in research projects?" The interviewer then asked exmanent follow-up questions about other practices: "Are there other aspects of Open Science that you consider significant in your research projects (i.e., potentially others as well)? If so, how could these be implemented?". The interviewer also asked intrinsic follow-up questions to clarify individual practices mentioned. Two trained coders transcribed and segmented the interview material around each open science practices mentioned. Disagreements in the coding process were resolved through discussion throughout the coding process. With the segmented material, the coders conducted a qualitative content analysis. They abstracted the practices named by the interviewees to an equivalent level of abstraction in two stages. These practices thus obtained were finally compared and synthesized with the FOSTER taxonomy resulting in 13 items on open science practices." We agree that the choice of the timeframe may raise some questions. The reason for the long time frame was our desire to recruit more researchers from the broad classification of "agricultural and veterinary sciences". Accordingly, we have added a paragraph: “This is also the reason why the data collection is spread over a longer period of time. After the start of data collection, participants of the other broad classifications could be collected within a few weeks. Due to the repeated invitation of researchers from the agricultural and veterinary sciences, the period of data collection stretched out, unfortunately, only a few additional participants could be recruited (see codebook).” We agree that information on the output of the survey would be interesting information for the readers. We included the following paragraph in a newly created “Future analyses” section: “In the future, the data will be analyzed to answer the questions whether there are different communities in the application of open science practices and to what extent the open science practice profiles of these communities are similar or different to each other. Are there open science practices that all communities share? Are there practices for which there are particularly strong differences between communities? In addition, the role of research disciplines and research paradigms will be explored.” Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. We agree that specifying the disciplines might be a valuable information for data users. Therefore, we have now included the disciplines in the data set as well as the Codebook. Concerning the Frascati manual, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The Frascati Manual is an internationally acknowledged standard on the methodology of collecting and using research and development statistics, developed by the OECD. As a standard, it is the first choice for the definition and taxonomy of research disciplines.” Concerning the FOSTER taxonomy, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The FOSTER taxonomy is the only taxonomy on open science that we know of. It was created as part of the FOSTER Plus project, an EU-funded project on Open Science. The goals in the project explicitly covered the generation of high quality training resources, which includes the taxonomy we use.” We agree that more information on the synthesis of the FOSTER taxonomy and the interviews would help readers understand the construction of the survey. We therefore added the following paragraph to the methods section: “Through the top-down and bottom-up approach, blind spots were mutually exposed to ensure that the broadness of open science practices are reflected in the survey. […] For the bottom-up approach, we interviewed nine experts in open science. We recruited the experts from an open science fellows program in which they served as mentors. Following the theoretical sampling approach, we recruited mentors who came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., sociology, computer science, sinology) and applied different research paradigms (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical). In a focused interview, interviewees were given a narrative prompt to retrospectively consider open science practices in their field: "Please recall one of your most recently completed research projects. Thinking about the entire span of the project, from the initial idea to the completion of the project, what aspects of open science do you consider significant and how can they be exemplified in research projects?" The interviewer then asked exmanent follow-up questions about other practices: "Are there other aspects of Open Science that you consider significant in your research projects (i.e., potentially others as well)? If so, how could these be implemented?". The interviewer also asked intrinsic follow-up questions to clarify individual practices mentioned. Two trained coders transcribed and segmented the interview material around each open science practices mentioned. Disagreements in the coding process were resolved through discussion throughout the coding process. With the segmented material, the coders conducted a qualitative content analysis. They abstracted the practices named by the interviewees to an equivalent level of abstraction in two stages. These practices thus obtained were finally compared and synthesized with the FOSTER taxonomy resulting in 13 items on open science practices." We agree that the choice of the timeframe may raise some questions. The reason for the long time frame was our desire to recruit more researchers from the broad classification of "agricultural and veterinary sciences". Accordingly, we have added a paragraph: “This is also the reason why the data collection is spread over a longer period of time. After the start of data collection, participants of the other broad classifications could be collected within a few weeks. Due to the repeated invitation of researchers from the agricultural and veterinary sciences, the period of data collection stretched out, unfortunately, only a few additional participants could be recruited (see codebook).” We agree that information on the output of the survey would be interesting information for the readers. We included the following paragraph in a newly created “Future analyses” section: “In the future, the data will be analyzed to answer the questions whether there are different communities in the application of open science practices and to what extent the open science practice profiles of these communities are similar or different to each other. Are there open science practices that all communities share? Are there practices for which there are particularly strong differences between communities? In addition, the role of research disciplines and research paradigms will be explored.” Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 18 Jul 2022 Jürgen Schneider , University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 18 Jul 2022 Author Response Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. We agree that specifying the disciplines might be a valuable information for data users. Therefore, we have now included the disciplines in the data set as well as the Codebook. Concerning the Frascati manual, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The Frascati Manual is an internationally acknowledged standard on the methodology of collecting and using research and development statistics, developed by the OECD. As a standard, it is the first choice for the definition and taxonomy of research disciplines.” Concerning the FOSTER taxonomy, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The FOSTER taxonomy is the only taxonomy on open science that we know of. It was created as part of the FOSTER Plus project, an EU-funded project on Open Science. The goals in the project explicitly covered the generation of high quality training resources, which includes the taxonomy we use.” We agree that more information on the synthesis of the FOSTER taxonomy and the interviews would help readers understand the construction of the survey. We therefore added the following paragraph to the methods section: “Through the top-down and bottom-up approach, blind spots were mutually exposed to ensure that the broadness of open science practices are reflected in the survey. […] For the bottom-up approach, we interviewed nine experts in open science. We recruited the experts from an open science fellows program in which they served as mentors. Following the theoretical sampling approach, we recruited mentors who came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., sociology, computer science, sinology) and applied different research paradigms (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical). In a focused interview, interviewees were given a narrative prompt to retrospectively consider open science practices in their field: "Please recall one of your most recently completed research projects. Thinking about the entire span of the project, from the initial idea to the completion of the project, what aspects of open science do you consider significant and how can they be exemplified in research projects?" The interviewer then asked exmanent follow-up questions about other practices: "Are there other aspects of Open Science that you consider significant in your research projects (i.e., potentially others as well)? If so, how could these be implemented?". The interviewer also asked intrinsic follow-up questions to clarify individual practices mentioned. Two trained coders transcribed and segmented the interview material around each open science practices mentioned. Disagreements in the coding process were resolved through discussion throughout the coding process. With the segmented material, the coders conducted a qualitative content analysis. They abstracted the practices named by the interviewees to an equivalent level of abstraction in two stages. These practices thus obtained were finally compared and synthesized with the FOSTER taxonomy resulting in 13 items on open science practices." We agree that the choice of the timeframe may raise some questions. The reason for the long time frame was our desire to recruit more researchers from the broad classification of "agricultural and veterinary sciences". Accordingly, we have added a paragraph: “This is also the reason why the data collection is spread over a longer period of time. After the start of data collection, participants of the other broad classifications could be collected within a few weeks. Due to the repeated invitation of researchers from the agricultural and veterinary sciences, the period of data collection stretched out, unfortunately, only a few additional participants could be recruited (see codebook).” We agree that information on the output of the survey would be interesting information for the readers. We included the following paragraph in a newly created “Future analyses” section: “In the future, the data will be analyzed to answer the questions whether there are different communities in the application of open science practices and to what extent the open science practice profiles of these communities are similar or different to each other. Are there open science practices that all communities share? Are there practices for which there are particularly strong differences between communities? In addition, the role of research disciplines and research paradigms will be explored.” Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. We agree that specifying the disciplines might be a valuable information for data users. Therefore, we have now included the disciplines in the data set as well as the Codebook. Concerning the Frascati manual, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The Frascati Manual is an internationally acknowledged standard on the methodology of collecting and using research and development statistics, developed by the OECD. As a standard, it is the first choice for the definition and taxonomy of research disciplines.” Concerning the FOSTER taxonomy, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The FOSTER taxonomy is the only taxonomy on open science that we know of. It was created as part of the FOSTER Plus project, an EU-funded project on Open Science. The goals in the project explicitly covered the generation of high quality training resources, which includes the taxonomy we use.” We agree that more information on the synthesis of the FOSTER taxonomy and the interviews would help readers understand the construction of the survey. We therefore added the following paragraph to the methods section: “Through the top-down and bottom-up approach, blind spots were mutually exposed to ensure that the broadness of open science practices are reflected in the survey. […] For the bottom-up approach, we interviewed nine experts in open science. We recruited the experts from an open science fellows program in which they served as mentors. Following the theoretical sampling approach, we recruited mentors who came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., sociology, computer science, sinology) and applied different research paradigms (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical). In a focused interview, interviewees were given a narrative prompt to retrospectively consider open science practices in their field: "Please recall one of your most recently completed research projects. Thinking about the entire span of the project, from the initial idea to the completion of the project, what aspects of open science do you consider significant and how can they be exemplified in research projects?" The interviewer then asked exmanent follow-up questions about other practices: "Are there other aspects of Open Science that you consider significant in your research projects (i.e., potentially others as well)? If so, how could these be implemented?". The interviewer also asked intrinsic follow-up questions to clarify individual practices mentioned. Two trained coders transcribed and segmented the interview material around each open science practices mentioned. Disagreements in the coding process were resolved through discussion throughout the coding process. With the segmented material, the coders conducted a qualitative content analysis. They abstracted the practices named by the interviewees to an equivalent level of abstraction in two stages. These practices thus obtained were finally compared and synthesized with the FOSTER taxonomy resulting in 13 items on open science practices." We agree that the choice of the timeframe may raise some questions. The reason for the long time frame was our desire to recruit more researchers from the broad classification of "agricultural and veterinary sciences". Accordingly, we have added a paragraph: “This is also the reason why the data collection is spread over a longer period of time. After the start of data collection, participants of the other broad classifications could be collected within a few weeks. Due to the repeated invitation of researchers from the agricultural and veterinary sciences, the period of data collection stretched out, unfortunately, only a few additional participants could be recruited (see codebook).” We agree that information on the output of the survey would be interesting information for the readers. We included the following paragraph in a newly created “Future analyses” section: “In the future, the data will be analyzed to answer the questions whether there are different communities in the application of open science practices and to what extent the open science practice profiles of these communities are similar or different to each other. Are there open science practices that all communities share? Are there practices for which there are particularly strong differences between communities? In addition, the role of research disciplines and research paradigms will be explored.” Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 11 Apr 2022 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 Jul 22 read read read Version 1 11 Apr 22 read read Suzanne Dumouchel , CNRS, Paris, France Lauren Cadwallader , Public Library of Science, San Francisco, USA Chuang Liu , China Academy of Science, Beijing, China Ke Gong , North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China Xiangtong Jia , Nankai University, Tianjin, China Henrik Bellhäuser , Mainz University, Mainz, Germany 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 © 2022 Bellhäuser H. 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. 26 Sep 2022 | for Version 2 Henrik Bellhäuser , Department of Psychology, Mainz University, Mainz, Germany 0 Views copyright © 2022 Bellhäuser H. 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 In this data note, the author gives access to and describes a data set collected from N=295 researchers from various fields that assessed whether a number of open science practices were applicable in their discipline. I value the approach to make the data accessible and overall I think the author did a very good job in documenting all details relevant for this data collection. The data is both interesting and easily reusable based on this data note. I have only few minor comments as I believe the previous reviewers and the author already solved the major issues: - At first, I thought the declaration of consent would not be included. Later, I found it on Zenodo—you might want to mention on p.4 where the reader can find it. - If possible, you might add the link to Zenodo already in the abstract. - The codebook is great—makes me want to start form as well. If it would be possible to adjust the y-axes of all variables so that the size of the bars are comparable, it would be even better in my opinion. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise educational psychology 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) Bellhäuser H. Peer Review Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r145712) 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/11-408/v2#referee-response-145712 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2022 Gong K et al. 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. 19 Aug 2022 | for Version 2 Chuang Liu , China Academy of Science, Beijing, China Ke Gong , College of Life Sciences/Center for Genomics and Bio-computing, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China Xiangtong Jia , Nankai University, Tianjin, China 0 Views copyright © 2022 Gong K et al. 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 research involves nearly all aspects of open science practices (including six broad disciplinary), the span of disciplines is large, the content is complex and the data is valuable. The work had been approved by an ethics committee and the data had been validated properly. However, the paper does not mention similar research but no comparable analysis. The total number of the validated participants is 295, and 42-52 for each discipline. It is suggested to increase the number of participants and consider to have different number of participants for different disciplines according to the proportion of research projects of related discipline, so that it may be more reasonable. The practice of open science involves complex socio-technical elements, including scientific communities, general public and companies and so on, participants with different backgrounds may have different opinions, this might be further considered. I agree very much for the setting of attention check, to ensure the reliability of the survey and to avoid the random answers of the respondents. The questionnaire form could be concise and friendly, can even add some bogus items options. Furthermore, I wonder if the author has considered privacy issues during the survey, how have these issues been treated? The survey asked participant to make a judgement between 1-4, why not chosen between 1-10? Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Electronic engineering and telecommuication, engineering education, scientific policies We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Liu C, Gong K and Jia X. Peer Review Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r146059) 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/11-408/v2#referee-response-146059 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2022 Dumouchel 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. 01 Aug 2022 | for Version 2 Suzanne Dumouchel , TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, Paris, France 0 Views copyright © 2022 Dumouchel 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. 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 I have read the answers to my review and seen the additions and it's fine for me. I approve the publication. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. 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) Dumouchel S. Peer Review Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136169.r144742) 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/11-408/v2#referee-response-144742 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2022 Cadwallader L. 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. 27 May 2022 | for Version 1 Lauren Cadwallader , Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA, USA 0 Views copyright © 2022 Cadwallader L. 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 research aims to gain insights into open science practices in six broad disciplinary areas by asking researchers about the potential to practice open science behaviours in relation to a past project. Thirteen different open science behaviours are included, which give a comprehensive view of open science rather than just publishing related activities. The rationale for the study is good and asking researchers about past projects, rather than asking them to predict future work, is an interesting and valuable approach to assessing open science practices. The range of open science practices included in the survey is broad, which should give a good insight into all activities that contribute to the aims of being open. However, one aspect I think is lacking is the extent to which researchers were mandated by their funder or institution to carry out any of these activities, which would add context to the extent to which they view certain practices as applicable. In terms of the demographics of the survey sample, it is good to see balanced sample sizes in the disciplines and the inclusion of whether the researcher's work is quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods. The methodology should include more information on which geographical areas were targeted for respondents and information on career stages of the respondents if possible, as these are both factors in adoption of open science practices. I have concerns that the wording used in the Likert scale may have been confusing for respondents. The aim was to get researchers to report on their past research but the question about open science practices was in the present tense ("To what extent are the following behaviours applicable..." [emphasis added]). I'm also unsure of how to interpret the "not at all applicable" response - the codebook seems to suggest a "N/A" option was also offered but this doesn't seem to have been used by anyone. For example, were all respondents creating software but not all thought that sharing software openly applied to their project? Or were the respondents who chose "not at all applicable" really saying they didn't create software? Including the survey instrument (i.e. a pdf copy of the survey questions as presented to the respondents) might help with understanding this better. A couple of other specific points: - There is no mention of data handling with respect to GDPR rules. - The codebook gives an identical explanation for two variables - osp_sco and osp_cit. Presumable the latter is Citizen Science and not Science Communication. The dataset in Zenodo is well presented and easy to use (aside from the labelling mistake mentioned above). As mentioned earlier, I would recommend adding the survey instrument to the dataset to aid understanding and also enable others to repeat this approach. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Scholarly communications, publishing, 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 18 Jul 2022 Jürgen Schneider, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Thank you as well for the constructive comments. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that it would have been interesting to have data on the mandates of funders or institutions. Unfortunately, we can't collect this data a posteriori. However, there is first evidence that mandates at the level of the research institution do not necessarily have the greatest impact on researchers' open science practices. For example, the existence of a research data policy at a research institution is not related to higher data sharing: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yhcz We agree that information on the geographical areas and career stage of participants would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. I agree that the wording of the items in the present tense is unfortunate. Participants were encouraged to ask us questions via the survey-internal direct messaging system if any questions arose during the course of the questionnaire. The participants did indeed use this opportunity, and we received 27 direct messages. However, these inquiries were all aimed at the attention check that was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, no questions arose about the subsequent items. We have been careful not to collect personalized data in the survey for which the GDPR would be relevant. Thank you for the pointing out the mistake in the codebook. We corrected this and uploaded a new version of the codebook. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Cadwallader L. Peer Review Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137032) 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/11-408/v1#referee-response-137032 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2022 Dumouchel 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. 24 May 2022 | for Version 1 Suzanne Dumouchel , TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, Paris, France 0 Views copyright © 2022 Dumouchel 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. 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 process of the survey is clearly described such as the tools that have been used and the reasoning behind them. The selection of the researchers is also well explained and the average per discipline is relevant for this kind of study. However, it could be interesting to be precise with any information regarding the geographic coverage of the researchers and their career stage. It can contribute to better understand of the OS practices. This might have been taken into account however it is not mentioned in the paper. It seems particularly relevant to offer the possibility to specify the discipline and not to stay at the level of the broad classification. On this topic, further explanation of the reasoning behind the broad classification could be useful, especially to understand why "agricultural and veterinary sciences" are not part of natural sciences. What is the reasoning behind this? The selection of the Frascati Manual seems to be relevant but more details can be provided to mention maybe other options and to explain why this one has been selected and upon which criteria? This precision can be expected as well for the FOSTER Taxonomy of Open Science. The role of the nine additional expert interviews is not clear enough. It is difficult for the reader to understand how practices have been synthesised from both the FOSTER Taxonomy and the expert interviews. The paper could be stronger by explaining 1) the goal and process of the interviews; 2) the selection of these experts (for instance regarding the disciplines as it is the main focus in the paper); 3) how the practices have been built from these interviews and the taxonomy. For instance, it can be interesting to highlight the potential bias or reasoning to synthesise in one way or another. It is interesting to see that the survey has run between August 2020 and March 2022. Regarding the increase of knowledge and practices related to Open Science, the answers might have evolved between both. Even if it can be quite tricky to determine this aspect, it can be relevant to mention or highlight any difference if some have been noticed. Lastly the reader could expect a short conclusion about the main outputs of the survey. And if the goal is to provide it in a dedicated paper, some highlights can be useful or at least it can be announced at the end of the paper. In any case, this kind of survey is particularly relevant and should contribute to implement the OS practices in the different disciplines as well as to better identify the needs for the researchers. With these small precisions, we believe the paper (and the data collected) contributes to the OS reflexion. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise research infrastructures, social sciences and humanities, FAIR data, EOSC, 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 18 Jul 2022 Jürgen Schneider, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. I will respond to your comments chronologically: We agree that information regarding the geographic coverage and their career stage would complement the data set. Unfortunately, we had to keep the survey short due to financial resources. Therefore, we don’t have these data. We agree that specifying the disciplines might be a valuable information for data users. Therefore, we have now included the disciplines in the data set as well as the Codebook. Concerning the Frascati manual, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The Frascati Manual is an internationally acknowledged standard on the methodology of collecting and using research and development statistics, developed by the OECD. As a standard, it is the first choice for the definition and taxonomy of research disciplines.” Concerning the FOSTER taxonomy, we added the following paragraph to the methods section: “The FOSTER taxonomy is the only taxonomy on open science that we know of. It was created as part of the FOSTER Plus project, an EU-funded project on Open Science. The goals in the project explicitly covered the generation of high quality training resources, which includes the taxonomy we use.” We agree that more information on the synthesis of the FOSTER taxonomy and the interviews would help readers understand the construction of the survey. We therefore added the following paragraph to the methods section: “Through the top-down and bottom-up approach, blind spots were mutually exposed to ensure that the broadness of open science practices are reflected in the survey. […] For the bottom-up approach, we interviewed nine experts in open science. We recruited the experts from an open science fellows program in which they served as mentors. Following the theoretical sampling approach, we recruited mentors who came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., sociology, computer science, sinology) and applied different research paradigms (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, theoretical). In a focused interview, interviewees were given a narrative prompt to retrospectively consider open science practices in their field: "Please recall one of your most recently completed research projects. Thinking about the entire span of the project, from the initial idea to the completion of the project, what aspects of open science do you consider significant and how can they be exemplified in research projects?" The interviewer then asked exmanent follow-up questions about other practices: "Are there other aspects of Open Science that you consider significant in your research projects (i.e., potentially others as well)? If so, how could these be implemented?". The interviewer also asked intrinsic follow-up questions to clarify individual practices mentioned. Two trained coders transcribed and segmented the interview material around each open science practices mentioned. Disagreements in the coding process were resolved through discussion throughout the coding process. With the segmented material, the coders conducted a qualitative content analysis. They abstracted the practices named by the interviewees to an equivalent level of abstraction in two stages. These practices thus obtained were finally compared and synthesized with the FOSTER taxonomy resulting in 13 items on open science practices." We agree that the choice of the timeframe may raise some questions. The reason for the long time frame was our desire to recruit more researchers from the broad classification of "agricultural and veterinary sciences". Accordingly, we have added a paragraph: “This is also the reason why the data collection is spread over a longer period of time. After the start of data collection, participants of the other broad classifications could be collected within a few weeks. Due to the repeated invitation of researchers from the agricultural and veterinary sciences, the period of data collection stretched out, unfortunately, only a few additional participants could be recruited (see codebook).” We agree that information on the output of the survey would be interesting information for the readers. We included the following paragraph in a newly created “Future analyses” section: “In the future, the data will be analyzed to answer the questions whether there are different communities in the application of open science practices and to what extent the open science practice profiles of these communities are similar or different to each other. Are there open science practices that all communities share? Are there practices for which there are particularly strong differences between communities? In addition, the role of research disciplines and research paradigms will be explored.” View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Dumouchel S. Peer Review Report For: Applicability of open science practices to completed research projects from different disciplines and research paradigms [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2022, 11 :408 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.123102.r137033) 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/11-408/v1#referee-response-137033 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 = "Applicability of open science practices to...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Schneider J'); 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/11-408/v2/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/11-408", templates : { twitter : "Applicability of open science practices to completed research.... Schneider J, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-408/v2" } }; 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/111383/136169") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "136169"); $(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 = { "144742": 17, "137031": 0, "144741": 0, "146058": 0, "138314": 0, "146059": 18, "137032": 33, "146057": 0, "138505": 0, "137033": 38, "134607": 0, "145712": 16, "134608": 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 = "36e866be-1194-4cfc-883c-5d78446afaa5"; 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(",","/")); } }); });