ArticlePloS one2025
Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many fields of science have heightened introspection in the wake of concerns around reproducibility and replicability of published findings. In recent years, the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) community too has worked to implement policy changes and mainstream open science practices. Our work investigates early-career HCI researchers' perceptions of open science and engagement with best practices through 18 semi-structured interviews. In particular, we study researchers with mixed methods or qualitative research backgrounds. Our findings highlight opportunities and challenges for the adoption of open science practices within HCI. Participants describe barriers such as a lack of incentives, cultural resistance, and concerns about intellectual property. However, they also identify positive trends, such as increased awareness of open science practices, evolving norms around peer review, and perceived benefits such as enhanced visibility, transparency, diversity, accessibility, collaboration, and research credibility. We offer recommendations to address these barriers and to promote transparency and openness in HCI. We suggest that relatively small changes at major conferences like the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) could meaningfully impact community norms. While our findings provide valuable insights about the open science practices of early-career HCI researchers, their applicability is limited to the USA only. In addition, interviews rely on self-reported data and are therefore subject to, e.g., recall bias. Future studies should include HCI researchers with different levels of experience and from various countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.