Transparency 2025: A panel discussion on new ideas to promote transparency in research*
本小组介绍是在会议的最后一天举行，包括金妮巴布教授（澳大拉多人开放式访问战略集团董事，Maura Hiney博士（奖项后卫生研究委员会的爱尔兰首脑）的短暂介绍和回应。和香港大学数学教育教授的弗雷德里克教授。副教授Tracey（南澳大利亚大学）召开了会议。
Ginny Barbour started the session by stating that transparency is key to integrity and innovation in the future research ‘ecosystem’, which she described as ‘an interconnected, equitable, accountable, global scholarly ecosystem of well-curated, interoperable research articles, data and software supported by diverse open publishing models’. Ginny reminded the audience that open scholarship offers increased transparency in the dissemination of outputs, with benefits of increased availability and transparency of research data and related software, but there needs to be a focus on the underlying infrastructure needed for open scholarship. Ginny said that we need transparency in every stage of research, including planning, the research process, publication and post-publication. To ensure long-term, diverse approaches in relation to transparency we need policies, incentives, hiring criteria, support and tools.
Maura专门向开放式出版物发表讲话，提高资助者表达的一些问题，包括质量差和掠夺性期刊的增加，以及作者处理费用的往往过高的成本。她建议有需要为使用不可接受的期刊或在封闭的期刊上发布的研究人员制定制裁。Maura而不是依靠计划，而不是依靠计划，让观众审议研究人员在人文和社会科学中发布开放访问所需的激励措施类型。
Maura表示，“开放数据”有可能加快研究过程，同时提高我们对结果的信心。但是，这种巨大和越来越多的数据的访问，使用和策划都会在研究人员和机构策划复杂数据集的能力方面存在许多挑战，并使它们与公平（可找到的，可访问，可互操作，可重复使用）对齐原则。这些挑战包括：
- The cost of training and employing data stewards with appropriate skill-sets and ensuring that there are opportunities for career progression within the data field.
- 需要数据管理计划都非常好，但研究人员是否了解所需的内容，并且他们访问了适当的基础设施来实现他们的DMP？
- 确保不误用的开放访问数据 - 迈向治理的访问模型（例如苏格兰公共福利面板）。
- 奖励人们在良好的数据管理实践中 - 在应用中的信用，其他奖励？
- Getting public buy-in on decisions about data to drive policy and regulatory change.
- 确保数据的质量 - 圈子回到培训，基础设施等。
根据Maura的说法，资助者的最大挑战是“了解哪些举措会产生什么影响文化变革在研究社区的研究和产出所有权，以及数据共享和透明度的好处“。
我们最后的发言人弗雷德里克·梁,谁提供his perspective on transparency from the point of view of an educational researcher (a perspective which was almost absent at the conference where most of the presentations related to science and medicine). Frederick suggested that many education researchers are still skeptical about publishing in open-access journals and the proliferation of predatory journals has not helped in this regard. He also noted that the process of publication of findings in educational research is typically long and some researchers may fear that other researchers will publish papers based on the data before the researchers who originally collected the data get the opportunity. Furthermore, for many educational researchers, some data are voluminous, “thick”, multimedia, which is difficult to share. In terms of communicating research results, Frederick reminded the audience that many results of educational research are of interest to the public and so it is important to keep research findings accessible, and avoid using specialist/technical vocabulary. Having said that, Frederick warned that there is a need to educate the public on how to interpret the results of educational research, and in the case of qualitative research it is critical to describe the process as clearly as possible (that is, be transparent) so as to let readers judge whether the interpretation is reasonable or not.
The audience posed many questions related to transparency in research, and shared their perspectives based on their own disciplinary and/or institutional contexts. The panelists generously shared their expertise, covering a vast array of topics from developing research cultures, establishing incentives and institutional structures for transparency and debates around pre- and post-publication peer review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*此摘要已从每个演示者的PowerPoint幻灯片中融合。
应对理事会成员，Tracey Bretag.