| Title |
The what, why, and how of born-open data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-015-0630-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey N. Rouder |
| Abstract |
Although many researchers agree that scientific data should be open to scrutiny to ferret out poor analyses and outright fraud, most raw data sets are not available on demand. There are many reasons researchers do not open their data, and one is technical. It is often time consuming to prepare and archive data. In response, my laboratory has automated the process such that our data are archived the night they are created without any human approval or action. All data are versioned, logged, time stamped, and uploaded including aborted runs and data from pilot subjects. The archive is GitHub, github.com, the world's largest collection of open-source materials. Data archived in this manner are called born open. In this paper, I discuss the benefits of born-open data and provide a brief technical overview of the process. I also address some of the common concerns about opening data before publication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 15% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Czechia | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 59% |
| Scientists | 17 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Czechia | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 22% |
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 32% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2023.
All research outputs
#764,457
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#49
of 2,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,874
of 287,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#2
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.