<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Cobey KD</submitter><funding>Wellcome Trust</funding><pagination>e3001949</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9873153</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>21(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science pract</pubmed_abstract><journal>PLoS biology</journal><pubmed_title>Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9873153</pmcid><funding_grant_id>223828/Z/21/Z</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Franzen DL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Costas R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Britto Correa M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Alperin JP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fergusson DA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Riedel N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Camack N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ardern CL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hoffman MM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Haustein S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stratton JA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moschini U</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moher D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>van Leeuwen T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Strech D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cenci MS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Paschetta M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Presseau J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rac VE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cobey KD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Buccione R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bacellar IOL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sena ES</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schatzl HM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dirnagl U</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Brehaut J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hemkens LG</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gould van Praag C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pasquale V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moraes Bielemann R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Roskams-Edris D</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.</name><description>The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science pract</description><dates><release>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2023 Jan</publication><modification>2026-03-27T16:49:08.06Z</modification><creation>2025-04-19T14:30:47.01Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9873153</accession><cross_references><pubmed>36693044</pubmed><doi>10.1371/journal.pbio.3001949</doi></cross_references></HashMap>