Welcome to the Open Scholarship Knowledge Base! When you find that there is a gap in this knowledge base or have a good idea for a new resource to add, you can add your own by following this guide. This resource includes a how-to video showing the steps needed. It also includes written instructions on adding the resource, describing it, aligning it with the OSKB metadata, and making it discoverable.

Welcome to the Open Scholarship Knowledge Base! When you find that there is a gap in this knowledge base or have a good idea for a new resource to create, you can author your own by following this guide. This resource includes a how-to video showing the steps needed. It also includes written instructions on editing the resource, adding formatting and sections, aligning it with the OSKB metadata, and making it discoverable.

These are slides for a masters-level course with the following course description:An intensive course in which students will create sophisticated work in multiple modalities (e.g. text, images, audio, etc.) that develops and expresses ideas focused on the needs of the audience to increase its knowledge, foster understanding, or promote a change in its attitudes.The audience for this course was primarily working professionals with a wide range of prior knowledge of these practices, so this material could easily be (and was) adapted for undergraduate students. I think it would also be possible to adapt for high schoolers, if desired.

This list of resources consists of resources for researchers, editors, and reviewers interested in practicing open science principles, particularly in education research. This list is not exhaustive but meant as a starting point for individuals wanting to learn more about doing open science work specifically for qualitative research. For more general information about open science research, please visit https://www.cos.io/.

Fields closely related to empirical legal research are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis code, and other materials openly available, and preregistering studies. Empirical legal research appears to be lagging behind other fields. This may be due, in part, to a lack of meta-research and guidance on empirical legal studies. The authors seek to fill that gap by evaluating some indicators of credibility in empirical legal research, including a review of guidelines at legal journals. They then provide both general recommendations for researchers, and more specific recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: case law analysis, surveys, and qualitative studies. They end with suggestions for policies and incentive systems that may be implemented by journals and law schools.

This list of resources consists of resources for researchers, editors, and reviewers interested in practicing open science principles, particularly in education research. This list is not exhaustive but meant as a starting point for individuals wanting to learn more about doing open science work specifically for qualitative research.This list was compiled by the following contributors: Rachel Renbarger, Sondra Stegenga, Thomas, Sebastian Karcher, and Crystal Steltenpohl. This resource list grew out of a hackathon at the Virtual Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research.

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) is an organization whose mission focuses on bringing together scholars who want to improve methods and practices in psychological science. The organization reaffirmed in June 2020 that “[we] cannot do good science without diverse voices,” and acknowledged that “right now the demographics of SIPS are unrepresentative of the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepresentative of the global population. We have work to do when it comes to better supporting Black scholars and other underrepresented minorities.”

The purpose of the Global Engagement Task Force, started in January 2020, was to explore suggestions made after the 2019 Annual Conference, held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, around inclusion and access for scholars from regions outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe (described in the report as “geographically diverse” regions), a task complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest in several task force members’ countries of residence. This report outlines several suggestions, specifically around building partnerships with geographically diverse open science organizations; increasing SIPS presence at other, more local events; diversifying remote events; considering geographically diverse annual conference locations; improving membership and financial resources; and surveying open science practitioners from geographically diverse regions.