Fostering effective and sustainable scientific collaboration and knowledge exchange: a workshop-based approach to establish a national ecological observatory network (NEON) domain-specific user group.

The decision to establish a network of researchers centers on identifying shared research goals. Ecologically specific regions, such as the USA's National Ecological Observatory Network's (NEON's) eco-climatic domains, are ideal locations by which to assemble researchers with a diverse range of expertise but focused on the same set of ecological challenges. The recently established Great Lakes User Group (GLUG) is NEON's first domain specific ensemble of researchers, whose goal is to address scientific and technical issues specific to the Great Lakes Domain 5 (D05) by using NEON data to enable advancement of ecosystem science. Here, we report on GLUG's kick off workshop, which comprised lightning talks, keynote presentations, breakout brainstorming sessions and field site visits. Together, these activities created an environment to foster and strengthen GLUG and NEON user engagement. The tangible outcomes of the workshop exceeded initial expectations and include plans for (i) two journal articles (in addition to this one), (ii) two potential funding proposals, (iii) an assignable assets request and (iv) development of classroom activities using NEON datasets. The success of this 2.5-day event was due to a combination of factors, including establishment of clear objectives, adopting engaging activities and providing opportunities for active participation and inclusive collaboration with diverse participants. Given the success of this approach we encourage others, wanting to organize similar groups of researchers, to adopt the workshop framework presented here which will strengthen existing collaborations and foster new ones, together with raising greater awareness and promotion of use of NEON datasets. Establishing domain specific user groups will help bridge the scale gap between site level data collection and addressing regional and larger ecological challenges.

A registered report survey of open research practices in psychology departments in the UK and Ireland.

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM-B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement.