Write a comment

This is a high-quality paper that presents the results of a survey studying the awareness and use of open research practices across countries and disciplines.

I only have two minor comments, which are listed below.

The most significant limitation of the paper is the sampling approach, which has resulted in a very limited number of respondents from for instance Africa and Asia, and a strong dominance of respondents from Europe. Also, because the authors worked with Reproducibility Networks to invite researchers to participate in the survey, there is likely to be a bias toward researchers with a relatively strong interest in open research. While the authors acknowledge this limitation in their paper, I think they should put more emphasis on it. The authors could for instance also highlight this limitation in the abstract of their paper, where it is currently not mentioned.

On p. 7, “The study approved” should be “The study was approved”.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.