Center for Personalized Health.
Department of Psychology.
Am Psychol. 2022 Apr;77(3):467-475. doi: 10.1037/amp0000871. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
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).
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)。