Ceci Stephen J, Clark Cory J, Jussim Lee, Williams Wendy M
Department of Psychology, Cornell University.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Am Psychol. 2024 Aug 15. doi: 10.1037/amp0001391.
Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
诸如预注册、公开可用的程序和数据以及功效分析等开放科学倡议，因其提高了研究结果的[此处原文缺失具体内容]而受到了合理的赞誉。然而，一项旨在提高科学[此处原文缺失具体内容]的潜在同等重要的倡议在很大程度上被忽视了。对抗性合作（ACs）指的是团队科学，其中成员被选来代表不同（甚至相互矛盾）的观点和假设，有无中立团队成员来仲裁争议均可。在此，我们提供关于对抗性合作的背景信息，并认为它们是有效、必要且未得到充分利用的。我们解释对抗性合作如何以及为何能够提高科学的可靠性和有效性，以及为何它们的益处不仅限于团队科学领域，还包括诸如事实核查、群体智慧、期刊评审和顺序编辑等场合。提高科学有效性将提高行为科学研究产生的政策和干预措施的效力，随着时间的推移，这有助于挽救我们学科的声誉，因为其成果将被视为是对各种观点进行认真、开放思考的结果。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2025美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
