Cargando…
An Open Science Peer Review Oath
One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000Research
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25653839 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 |
_version_ | 1782354060303663104 |
---|---|
author | Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel |
author_facet | Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel |
author_sort | Aleksic, Jelena |
collection | PubMed |
description | One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4304228 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | F1000Research |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43042282015-02-03 An Open Science Peer Review Oath Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel F1000Res Research Note One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. F1000Research 2015-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4304228/ /pubmed/25653839 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Aleksic J et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). |
spellingShingle | Research Note Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel An Open Science Peer Review Oath |
title | An Open Science Peer Review Oath |
title_full | An Open Science Peer Review Oath |
title_fullStr | An Open Science Peer Review Oath |
title_full_unstemmed | An Open Science Peer Review Oath |
title_short | An Open Science Peer Review Oath |
title_sort | open science peer review oath |
topic | Research Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25653839 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aleksicjelena anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT alexaadrian anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT attwoodteresak anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT chuehongneil anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT dahlomartin anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT daveyrobert anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT dinkelholger anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT forstnerkonradu anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT grigorovivo anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT herichejeankarim anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT lahtileo anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT macleandan anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT markiemichaell anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT molloyjenny anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT schneidermariavictoria anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT scottcamille anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT smithunnarichard anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT vieirabrunomiguel anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT anopensciencepeerreviewoath AT aleksicjelena opensciencepeerreviewoath AT alexaadrian opensciencepeerreviewoath AT attwoodteresak opensciencepeerreviewoath AT chuehongneil opensciencepeerreviewoath AT dahlomartin opensciencepeerreviewoath AT daveyrobert opensciencepeerreviewoath AT dinkelholger opensciencepeerreviewoath AT forstnerkonradu opensciencepeerreviewoath AT grigorovivo opensciencepeerreviewoath AT herichejeankarim opensciencepeerreviewoath AT lahtileo opensciencepeerreviewoath AT macleandan opensciencepeerreviewoath AT markiemichaell opensciencepeerreviewoath AT molloyjenny opensciencepeerreviewoath AT schneidermariavictoria opensciencepeerreviewoath AT scottcamille opensciencepeerreviewoath AT smithunnarichard opensciencepeerreviewoath AT vieirabrunomiguel opensciencepeerreviewoath AT opensciencepeerreviewoath |