Assembling the evidence…
Lack of time and resources was the most frequently reported barrier.
the largest coded theme, though single-coder classification could affect the exact ranking
Three interconnected clusters emerged.
the thematic matrix and extensive quotations consistently support the three-cluster organisation
Barriers were commonly described as interdependent, with shortcomings in funding, infrastructure, institutional support, incentives, and training reinforcing one another.
qualitative patterns and 16 explicit responses support interdependence without formally establishing systemic relationships
Respondents largely supported the principles underpinning open research but highlighted substantial practical, professional, and ethical challenges to implementation.
counter-nodes and barrier themes support the direction, but the barrier-focused prompt does not estimate prevalence
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths
The study analyses 3,951 relevant comments across 14 practice areas and 15 UK higher-education institutions, producing a unified map of individual, institutional, ethical, and quality concerns.
↳ Methods §2; Results §3.1 and Table 1
The paper gives the open-text prompt, coding and exclusion rules, a worked multi-coding example, reconciled code totals, and a Figshare dataset intended to support reanalysis.
↳ Methods §2, lines 59–88; Results §3.1; Limitations §4.4
The paper links unequal completion across the ordered survey to an explicit warning against quantitative comparisons between practices, and it follows that caution in interpreting the thematic counts.
↳ Methods §2, lines 84–88; Limitations §4.4, lines 695–703
Limitations
One researcher performed the coding with periodic co-author discussion rather than independent dual coding, and the paper does not examine how the team's relationship to open research could shape interpretation.
↳ Methods §2, lines 70–83; Limitations §4.4, lines 715–722
Time, resources, training, incentives, infrastructure, and institutional support reproduce themes already identified in the literature cited in the Introduction. The principal advance is integration across practices rather than new barrier categories.
↳ Introduction, lines 13–24; Results §§3.3.1–3.3.7
The Discussion identifies plausible institutional levers but does not test their effectiveness, feasibility, or comparative value. The results therefore guide intervention design rather than establish actionable remedies.
↳ Discussion §§4.1–4.3; Conclusion
The paper's strongest feature is its integration of 3,433 barrier codes across 14 practices into a coherent cross-practice account, supported by Table 1, Figures 1–2, and extensive quotations. The Methods section is unusually explicit about the analysed prompt, exclusion rules, multi-coding, iterative theme refinement, and the limits of frequency comparisons. Confidence in the thematic taxonomy is moderated by reliance on one primary coder and the absence of a substantive reflexivity statement. The policy pathway is visible and connected to a subsequent UKRN survey, but the study remains a diagnostic analysis rather than an evaluation of institutional remedies.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Are you an author of this paper?
Sound3.4
Confidence mediumThe score reflects a meaningful cross-practice synthesis spanning 14 open-research areas and a three-cluster account of interconnected barriers. Its principal categories nevertheless confirm barriers already identified in the cited single-practice literature.
“Three interconnected clusters emerged.”
The open-text prompt, coding rules, worked multi-coding example, iterative theme refinement, and data availability are reported transparently. A single primary coder conducted the analysis, and the paper does not discuss researcher positionality toward open research.
“the researcher responsible for the coding (NAB) met with co-authors”
The paper follows a coherent progression from survey question and coding procedures to thematic results, implications, and limitations, with central claims appropriately framed as respondent perceptions. A minor count-label imprecision and occasional blending of descriptive findings with recommendations prevent a higher score.
“these numbers should only be used to identify and illustrate recurrent themes”
Prior work is used to distinguish this study's broad scope from surveys of individual practices, and the limitations address attrition, survey fatigue, and coder dependence. Contextual engagement is relevant but does not deeply examine competing evidence or fully develop respondent-selection implications.
“Quantitative comparisons between the different open research practices is therefore not advised.”
Caveats4 of 4 checks
The comment, code-instance, barrier, counter-node, and excluded-code totals reconcile across Results §3.1 and Table 1. The paper also consistently cautions against comparing frequencies across practices with unequal response volumes.
The paper states that the survey was anonymous, that the authors lacked identifiable information, and that the coded dataset is available on Figshare. It does not include an ethics-approval or consent-process declaration for the underlying multi-institutional survey.
Flags: 1 declared / 5 total
15 of 15 checkable references verified
18 references in manuscript 3 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable
No retraction notice found in Retraction Watch.
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
The study characterises implementation barriers under real-world conditions and identifies targets for institutional action. It does not evaluate an intervention or establish which proposed changes improve uptake.
“This will likely require investment in infrastructure, specialist support and training”
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.