Suppr超能文献

同行评审员开放倡议:通过同行评审激励开放研究实践。

The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review.

作者信息

Morey Richard D, Chambers Christopher D, Etchells Peter J, Harris Christine R, Hoekstra Rink, Lakens Daniël, Lewandowsky Stephan, Morey Candice Coker, Newman Daniel P, Schönbrodt Felix D, Vanpaemel Wolf, Wagenmakers Eric-Jan, Zwaan Rolf A

机构信息

Cardiff University , Cardiff, UK.

Bath Spa University , Bath, UK.

出版信息

R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Jan 13;3(1):150547. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150547. eCollection 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism-reviewers withholding comprehensive review-to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle.

摘要

开放性是科学的核心价值观之一。开放的科学实践,如在发表文章的同时共享数据、材料和分析脚本,有许多好处,包括更容易进行复制和扩展研究、增加用于理论构建和元分析的数据可用性,以及即使在论文发表后也增加了同行评审和合作的可能性。尽管现代信息技术使共享比以往任何时候都更容易,但开放实践的采用一直很缓慢。我们认为,这可能部分是由于激励措施不一致所产生的社会困境,并提出了一种具体的机制——审稿人不进行全面评审——以实现将开放实践作为科学原则来创建预期的目标。

相似文献

1
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review.
R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Jan 13;3(1):150547. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150547. eCollection 2016 Jan.
3
Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations.
Prev Sci. 2022 Jul;23(5):774-786. doi: 10.1007/s11121-021-01284-x. Epub 2021 Aug 6.
5
Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review.
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Apr 18;6:18. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00018. eCollection 2012.
6
What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 18;20(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01005-y.
7
Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research.
PeerJ Comput Sci. 2024 Jun 28;10:e2066. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2066. eCollection 2024.
8
Involving Patient Partners in the KRESCENT Peer Review: Intent, Process, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2022 Nov 15;9:20543581221136402. doi: 10.1177/20543581221136402. eCollection 2022.
9
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
10
Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2762-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.

引用本文的文献

1
The Replication Database: Documenting the Replicability of Psychological Science.
J Open Psychol Data. 2024 Sep 11;12:8. doi: 10.5334/jopd.101. eCollection 2024.
2
International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of open research in psychology: a systematic mapping review.
R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Mar 19;12(3):241726. doi: 10.1098/rsos.241726. eCollection 2025 Mar.
3
Adapting Open Science and Pre-registration to Longitudinal Research.
Infant Child Dev. 2024 Jan-Feb;33(1). doi: 10.1002/icd.2315. Epub 2022 Apr 22.
4
Reproducibility in the Social Sciences.
Annu Rev Sociol. 2022 Jul;48(1):65-85. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-090221-035954. Epub 2022 Apr 26.
5
Can You Hear What's Coming? Failure to Replicate ERP Evidence for Phonological Prediction.
Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2022 Sep 22;3(4):556-574. doi: 10.1162/nol_a_00078. eCollection 2022.
6
Seven steps to enhance Open Science practices in animal science.
PNAS Nexus. 2022 Jul 11;1(3):pgac106. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac106. eCollection 2022 Jul.
7
Dataset of physiological, behavioral, and self-report measures from a group decision-making lab study.
Data Brief. 2022 Sep 24;45:108630. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2022.108630. eCollection 2022 Dec.
8
Developing an open science 'mindset'.
Health Psychol Behav Med. 2021 Dec 26;10(1):1-21. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2021.2012474. eCollection 2022.
10
Olfaction in the Multisensory Processing of Faces: A Narrative Review of the Influence of Human Body Odors.
Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 5;12:750944. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.750944. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
The what, why, and how of born-open data.
Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep;48(3):1062-9. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0630-z.
2
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):615-31. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459058.
3
SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.
Science. 2015 Jun 26;348(6242):1422-5. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374.
4
No impact without data access.
Nat Genet. 2015 Jul;47(7):691. doi: 10.1038/ng.3351.
5
Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals.
PLoS One. 2009 Sep 18;4(9):e7078. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007078.
6
Normative dissonance in science: results from a national survey of u.s. Scientists.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007 Dec;2(4):3-14. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3.
7
Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate.
PLoS One. 2007 Mar 21;2(3):e308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000308.
8
The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis.
Am Psychol. 2006 Oct;61(7):726-8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726.
9
Reproducible epidemiologic research.
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 May 1;163(9):783-9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj093. Epub 2006 Mar 1.
10
Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey.
Acad Med. 2006 Feb;81(2):128-36. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200602000-00007.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验