ManyPrimates-2019

Note

This paper wasn’t the most relevant, as it didn’t go into much detail on collaboration.

Collaborative open science as a way to reproducibility and new insights in primate cognition research

  • File: data/review/fulltext/oa-id-W4251805646.pdf
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8w7zd
  • OpenAlex ID: https://openalex.org/W4251805646

Characteristics of the paper

  • Type of paper (e.g., tips, example): review?, example
  • Themes (e.g., tools, organization):
    • organization
    • tools
    • review
    • workflow
  • Other keywords (e.g., newcomers):
    • Systematic review
    • Large-scale collaboration
    • Large-scale infrastructure

Tools

Specific tools mentioned; their function; where in the research process used

  • GitHub; sharing materials and final papers; archiving, dissemination
  • Mailing lists; communication; all
  • Google Docs; collaborative writing; writing, planning
  • Google Drive; sharing of procedures and documentation; all
  • Slack
  • OSF; archiving protocols and analysis plans; archiving
  • Organization website; share news and communicate updates; all

Organizational structure for open collaboration

Governance

  • Started from symposium as part of regular major conference.
  • Established a mailing list to connect everyone.
  • No clear description of how they organized their governance.

Workflow

  • They weren’t completely clear on how exactly they used the workflows they (very briefly) describe.
  • Use GitHub or Google Drive to share things.
  • Use Google Docs to write papers.
  • Use their website to disseminate news and findings.
  • Projects should preregister the plans, and all data, code, and materials are uploaded to GitHub.

Educational perspectives

Educational needs

  • No major educational comments were made.
  • Outreach of results and activities is done through social media and conferences.

Barriers

Barriers for open science

  • Logistical. Impossible to use the exact same methods across all studies, so re-using of methods and materials wasn’t very directly useful.
  • Also technical and knowledge, not enough funding to hire relevant expertise and technical resources.
  • Lacked a clear governance structure, which is something they want to do in the future.