Suppr超能文献

现在是时候用随机对照试验来评估开放科学实践的效果了。

Now is the time to assess the effects of open science practiceswith randomized control trials.

机构信息

Center for Personalized Health.

Department of Psychology.

出版信息

Am Psychol. 2022 Apr;77(3):467-475. doi: 10.1037/amp0000871. Epub 2021 Nov 22.

Abstract

We issue a call for the design and conduct of experimental trials to test the effects of researchers' adoption of Open Science (OS) research practices. OS emerged to address lapses in the transparency, quality, integrity, and reproducibility of research by proposing that investigators institute practices, such as preregistering study hypotheses, procedures, and statistical analyses, before launching their research. These practices have been greeted with enthusiasm by some parts of the scientific community, but empirical evidence of their effects relies mainly on observational studies; furthermore, questions remain about the time and effort required by these practices and their ultimate benefit to science. To assess the outcomes of OS research practices, we propose they be viewed as behavioral interventions for scientists and tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to identify potential benefits and (unintended) harms. As this is a call to action rather than an action plan per se, we sketch out four potential trial designs to encourage further deliberation and planning. Experimental tests to document the outcomes of OS practices can provide evidence to optimize how scientists, funders, policymakers, and institutions utilize these strategies to advance scientific practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

我们呼吁设计和开展实验性试验,以检验研究人员采用开放科学(OS)研究实践的效果。OS 的出现是为了解决研究的透明度、质量、完整性和可重复性方面的失误,提出研究者在开展研究之前,应预先注册研究假设、程序和统计分析等做法。这些做法受到科学界某些部分的热烈欢迎,但关于它们的效果的经验证据主要依赖于观察性研究;此外,关于这些做法所需的时间和精力以及它们对科学的最终益处,仍存在疑问。为了评估 OS 研究实践的结果,我们建议将其视为针对科学家的行为干预,并在随机对照试验(RCT)中进行测试,以确定潜在的益处和(意外)危害。由于这是一个行动呼吁,而不是一个行动计划本身,我们勾勒出了四种潜在的试验设计,以鼓励进一步的审议和规划。实验性测试可以记录 OS 实践的结果,为优化科学家、资助者、政策制定者和机构如何利用这些策略来推进科学实践提供证据。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。

相似文献

2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
7
Mobile researchers, immobile data: Managing data (producers).移动研究人员,固定数据:管理数据(生产者)。
Soc Stud Sci. 2023 Jun;53(3):341-357. doi: 10.1177/03063127231156862. Epub 2023 Feb 22.
9
A guide to open science practices for animal research.动物研究的开放科学实践指南。
PLoS Biol. 2022 Sep 15;20(9):e3001810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810. eCollection 2022 Sep.

本文引用的文献

1
A manifesto for reproducible science.可重复科学宣言。
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
5
Is Preregistration Worthwhile?预注册是否值得?
Trends Cogn Sci. 2020 Feb;24(2):94-95. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.009. Epub 2019 Dec 28.
7
Mapping the universe of registered reports.绘制注册报告的全貌。
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Nov;2(11):793-796. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0444-y.
8
Preregistration Is Hard, And Worthwhile.预先注册很难,但很有价值。
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Oct;23(10):815-818. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009. Epub 2019 Aug 14.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验