Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University.
School of Psychology, Keele University.
Am Psychol. 2024 Oct;79(7):898-900. doi: 10.1037/amp0001294.
This commentary is written in response to Sharpe's (2024) article titled "Editor Bias and Transparency in Psychology's Open Science Era." The article clearly describes the conversation on bias, transparency, and editor accountability occurring in the field of psychology in recent years. However, in this era of public accountability, where there is a groundswell seeking a more decolonized science, we use the commentary to discuss how the article could have gone further. We used an equity model to explore whether the model of change being proposed by Sharpe is at the right level of analysis and whether it is equipped with the needed ingredients to bring about a solution to the long-standing problem of editor bias and lack of transparency. We offer an alternative to the individual model that Sharpe's article puts forth and recommend the use of a systems thinking approach to generate action items for a more decolonized science in the realm of publishing and editor bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
这篇评论是对 Sharpe（2024 年）题为“心理学开放科学时代的编辑偏见和透明度”的文章的回应。该文章清楚地描述了近年来心理学领域关于偏见、透明度和编辑责任的讨论。然而，在这个公众问责的时代，人们强烈要求科学去殖民化，我们使用评论来讨论这篇文章本可以更进一步的地方。我们使用公平模型来探讨 Sharpe 提出的变革模式是否处于正确的分析层面，以及它是否具备解决编辑偏见和缺乏透明度这一长期问题所需的要素。我们提出了 Sharpe 文章中提出的个人模式的替代方案，并建议采用系统思维方法为出版和编辑偏见领域的去殖民化科学制定行动方案。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2024 APA，保留所有权利）。
