黑料网吃瓜爆料

Dr_Jack_Wilkinson_OSF

How do you build better trust in science? At a time of growing interest and concern over research transparency and reproducibility, researchers are under increasing pressure to make their methods and findings open and verifiable. But demonstrating Open Research (OR) principles in practice isn鈥檛 always straightforward.

For (he/him), Senior Lecturer in Biostatistics in the Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health (FBMH), one of the most effective enablers is the use of the right tools. Over the past seven years, Jack has made the tool (Open Science Framework) 鈥� a free, open-source platform for managing and sharing research 鈥� a central part of his workflow. From analysing IVF success rates to meta-research, Jack鈥檚 work is grounded in a commitment to research transparency and reproducibility. Recently, he has focused on developing a protocol to help researchers identify fraudulent research 鈥� an area where transparent reporting and access to data are vital for critical appraisal.

In this OR Spotlight, Jack speaks with Open Research Specialist Josh Emsley (he/him) about how OSF supports his workflows, what he鈥檚 learned from using it over the years, and how it can help other researchers strengthen the robustness of their work. This conversation is part of a wider project led by the (OOR), which is engaging researchers across the University of 黑料网吃瓜爆料 to explore how are being applied in different research contexts.

Building transparency: How Jack uses OSF across the research lifecycle

Jack first discovered OSF through Twitter (now known as X) in 2018, while completing his PhD on how success is measured in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) treatment. Due to complexities with selecting and measuring different outcomes in IVF, which creates room for selective reporting and invalid analysis, Jack developed statistical methods and practical guidance to help researchers produce more robust, transparent analyses in the field. He used OSF to store and share the , linking this within the main body of a paper he later published based on his PhD research.

For Jack, his motivation to start using OSF wasn鈥檛 so much about metrics or compliance, but something that felt right:

鈥淚鈥檝e been motivated by the idea that it鈥檚 a good thing to do鈥� I believe in open and transparent science so that people can scrutinise it, potentially identify errors, etc鈥� maybe people will reuse my data or it makes it more likely that my paper will be cited鈥� but my primary motivation was that it seemed like a good thing to do so that people can confirm the robustness of my results.鈥�

This early instinct towards transparency has continued to develop with Jack鈥檚 research, and he uses OSF across every stage of the research lifecycle:

• At the planning stage, he shares protocols and preregistered analysis plans that outline what he intends to do before carrying out his research. While clinical trial preregistration requires specific clinical trial registries, OSF functions as an easy, cheap generalist repository for other types of health research preregistration. OSF provides a time stamped version of a study protocol, creating a clear record of planned methods that can be cited and linked to in future publications. The registration can also be kept private under an embargo for up to four years.
• During and after analysis, he uploads code, data and project documentation like data dictionaries which help others understand how to read, use and interpret supporting research data. OSF project spaces can be used as a central platform to store and organise project materials, enabling private or public sharing along with the appropriate component copyright licencing.
• After publication, he uses OSF to share supplementary materials and evolving guidance documents. This includes preprints, which OSF supports through its own preprint servers. For instance, Jack co-developed a white paper which was published as a preprint and hosted on OSF, allowing for multiple versioning and updating over time 鈥� something static journal articles cannot accommodate. For Jack, this flexibility is a key strength of using the platform. Jack also notes that a tip for anyone using the platform to always check the privacy settings of a project space to ensure that files are correctly made publicly accessible as and when intended.

One of Jack鈥檚 current projects, , examines how researchers and funders define and evaluate whether a health intervention is likely to be effective before large clinical trials begin. Increasingly, funders ask applicants to provide evidence of 'promise' (sometimes called 'proof of concept' or 'evidence of efficacy'), but there is no shared understanding of what this means or how to assess it. The PROMISE study therefore aims to reduce research waste by developing guidance on how to define, report and evaluate this early evidence of effectiveness.

In Stage 2 of the project, Jack and colleagues are reviewing clinical trial protocols to understand how 'promise' is evidenced in practice. OSF plays a central role in the project鈥檚 transparency: the team has shared their protocols, data extraction files, and supporting materials on the platform, ensuring the process is clear and open for scrutiny.

Why it matters: the benefits of using OSF for researchers

Jack鈥檚 motivation for using OSF is simple: it helps him do better science. He highlights that transparent reporting and open data sharing make the critical appraisal of published research much easier. But what are other potential benefits for researchers who might be considering using the platform for the first time?

Here are some of the other benefits to using OSF that Jack鈥檚 experience highlights:

1. Outputs are discoverable and citable: Each files gets a DOI (digital object identifier), making it easy to track and cite in papers, grant applications or on a CV.
2. It enables iteration: OSF support version control, so outputs can evolve overtime in response to feedback.
3. Early-career friendly: Jak uses OSF with PhD students to instil good OR habits early.

Concluding remarks

Looking ahead, Jack reflects that broader adoption of OR practices may ultimately require stronger expectations from journals and funders, such as mandating preregistration, data sharing or the publication of analysis code. 鈥淭hese are big, difficult questions,鈥� he notes, 鈥渂ut they might need more than just encouragement.鈥�

Aligned with the University of 黑料网吃瓜爆料鈥檚 commitment to developing a secure research environment, the OOR identifies, assesses and establishes institutional access to a range of platforms that enable researchers to openly share their research securely and with confidence. To find out more about the OOR鈥檚 set of recommended OR systems, check out the  to access dozens of systems that have been subscribed to and supported, and discover the benefits that each tool can offer.

If you want to read more about how researchers are using OSF at 黑料网吃瓜爆料, check out a past OR spotlight that explores how health researcher Dr. Hannah Long uses OSF in her field of qualitative health psychology.