Cargando…
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society Publishing
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736937/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26909182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547 |
_version_ | 1782413382686605312 |
---|---|
author | Morey, Richard D. Chambers, Christopher D. Etchells, Peter J. Harris, Christine R. Hoekstra, Rink Lakens, Daniël Lewandowsky, Stephan Morey, Candice Coker Newman, Daniel P. Schönbrodt, Felix D. Vanpaemel, Wolf Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan Zwaan, Rolf A. |
author_facet | Morey, Richard D. Chambers, Christopher D. Etchells, Peter J. Harris, Christine R. Hoekstra, Rink Lakens, Daniël Lewandowsky, Stephan Morey, Candice Coker Newman, Daniel P. Schönbrodt, Felix D. Vanpaemel, Wolf Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan Zwaan, Rolf A. |
author_sort | Morey, Richard D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism—reviewers withholding comprehensive review—to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4736937 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | The Royal Society Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47369372016-02-23 The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review Morey, Richard D. Chambers, Christopher D. Etchells, Peter J. Harris, Christine R. Hoekstra, Rink Lakens, Daniël Lewandowsky, Stephan Morey, Candice Coker Newman, Daniel P. Schönbrodt, Felix D. Vanpaemel, Wolf Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan Zwaan, Rolf A. R Soc Open Sci Research Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism—reviewers withholding comprehensive review—to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle. The Royal Society Publishing 2016-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4736937/ /pubmed/26909182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ © 2016 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Morey, Richard D. Chambers, Christopher D. Etchells, Peter J. Harris, Christine R. Hoekstra, Rink Lakens, Daniël Lewandowsky, Stephan Morey, Candice Coker Newman, Daniel P. Schönbrodt, Felix D. Vanpaemel, Wolf Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan Zwaan, Rolf A. The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
title | The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
title_full | The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
title_fullStr | The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
title_full_unstemmed | The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
title_short | The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
title_sort | peer reviewers' openness initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736937/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26909182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT moreyrichardd thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT chamberschristopherd thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT etchellspeterj thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT harrischristiner thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT hoekstrarink thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT lakensdaniel thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT lewandowskystephan thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT moreycandicecoker thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT newmandanielp thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT schonbrodtfelixd thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT vanpaemelwolf thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT wagenmakersericjan thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT zwaanrolfa thepeerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT moreyrichardd peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT chamberschristopherd peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT etchellspeterj peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT harrischristiner peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT hoekstrarink peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT lakensdaniel peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT lewandowskystephan peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT moreycandicecoker peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT newmandanielp peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT schonbrodtfelixd peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT vanpaemelwolf peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT wagenmakersericjan peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview AT zwaanrolfa peerreviewersopennessinitiativeincentivizingopenresearchpracticesthroughpeerreview |