scholarly journals Dawning of a new age? Economics journals’ data policies on the test bench

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Sven Vlaeminck
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
Research Organisations ◽  
Published Research ◽  
The Way

In the field of social sciences and particularly in economics, studies have frequently reported a lack of reproducibility of published research. Most often, this is due to the unavailability of data reproducing the findings of a study. However, over the past years, debates on open science practices and reproducible research have become stronger and louder among research funders, learned societies, and research organisations. Many of these have started to implement data policies to overcome these shortcomings. Against this background, the article asks if there have been changes in the way economics journals handle data and other materials that are crucial to reproduce the findings of empirical articles. For this purpose, all journals listed in the Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports edition for economics have been evaluated for policies on the disclosure of research data. The article describes the characteristics of these data policies and explicates their requirements. Moreover, it compares the current findings with the situation some years ago. The results show significant changes in the way journals handle data in the publication process. Research libraries can use the findings of this study for their advisory activities to best support researchers in submitting and providing data as required by journals.

scholarly journals Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of Religion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Jane Charles ◽  
James Edward Bartlett ◽  
Kyle J. Messick ◽  
Thomas Joseph Coleman ◽  
Alex Uzdavines
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Psychology Of Religion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
The Way

There is a push in psychology toward more transparent practices, stemming partially as a response to the replication crisis. We argue that the psychology of religion should help lead the way toward these new, more transparent practices to ensure a robust and dynamic subfield. One of the major issues that proponents of Open Science practices hope to address is researcher degrees of freedom (RDF). We pre-registered and conducted a systematic review of the 2017 issues from three psychology of religion journals. We aimed to identify the extent to which the psychology of religion has embraced Open Science practices and the role of RDF within the subfield. We found that many of the methodologies that help to increase transparency, such as pre-registration, have yet to be adopted by those in the subfield. In light of these findings, we present recommendations for addressing the issue of transparency in the psychology of religion and outline how to move toward these new Open Science practices.

scholarly journals Publishing open, reproducible research with undergraduates

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Feld Strand ◽  
Violet Aurora Brown
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Rapid Pace ◽  
Science Collaboration ◽  
Science Framework

In response to growing concern in psychology and other sciences about low rates of replicability of published findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), there has been a movement toward conducting open and transparent research (see Chambers, 2017). This has led to changes in statistical reporting guidelines in journals (Appelbaum et al., 2018), new professional societies (e.g, Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science), frameworks for posting materials, data, code, and manuscripts (e.g., Open Science Framework, PsyArXiv), initiatives for sharing data and collaborating (e.g., Psych Science Accelerator, Study Swap), and educational resources for teaching through replication (e.g., Collaborative Replications and Education Project). This “credibility revolution” (Vazire, 2018) provides many opportunities for researchers. However, given the recency of the changes and the rapid pace of advancements (see Houtkoop et al., 2018), it may be overwhelming for faculty to know whether and how to begin incorporating open science practices into research with undergraduates.In this paper, we will not attempt to catalogue the entirety of the open science movement (see recommended resources below for more information), but will instead highlight why adopting open science practices may be particularly beneficial to conducting and publishing research with undergraduates. The first author is a faculty member at Carleton College (a small, undergraduate-only liberal arts college) and the second is a former undergraduate research assistant (URA) and lab manager in Dr. Strand’s lab, now pursuing a PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. We argue that open science practices have tremendous benefits for undergraduate students, both in creating publishable results and in preparing students to be critical consumers of science.

Open Science: A Candid Conversation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendal N. Smith ◽  
Matthew C. Makel
Keyword(s):  
Gifted Education ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Informal Conversation ◽  
Advanced Academics ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Published Research

In response to concerns about the credibility of many published research findings, open science reforms such as preregistration, data sharing, and alternative forms of publication are being increasingly adopted across scientific communities. Although journals in giftedness and advanced academics research have already implemented several of these practices, they remain unfamiliar to some researchers. In this informal conversation, Kendal Smith and Matthew Makel discuss how they came to know and use open science practices; open science values; benefits and objections; and their future aspirations for open science practices in gifted education research. Their conversation aims to help make open science practices more understandable and actionable for both early career and established researchers.

scholarly journals A Hydrologist's Guide to Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn A. Hall ◽  
Sheila M. Saia ◽  
Andrea L. Popp ◽  
Nilay Dogulu ◽  
Stanislaus J. Schymanski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Current State ◽  
Research And Education

Abstract. Open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research can have a significant impact on the scientific community and broader society. While more individuals and organizations within the hydrology community are embracing open science practices, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social (e.g., fear of being scooped) challenges remain. Furthermore, there are a growing number of constantly evolving open science tools, resources, and initiatives that can seem overwhelming. These challenges and the ever-evolving nature of the open science landscape may seem insurmountable for hydrologists interested in pursuing open science. Therefore, we propose general Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science for research and education and the Open Hydrology Practical Guide to improve the accessibility of currently available tools and approaches. We aim to inform and empower hydrologists as they transition to open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible research. We discuss the benefits as well as common open science challenges and how hydrologists can overcome them. The Open Hydrology Principles and Open Hydrology Practical Guide reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology; we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve and expand with emerging open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join in and help advance open science by contributing to the living version of this document and by sharing open hydrology resources in the community-supported repository (https://open-hydrology.github.io).

Open Science: A Candid Conversation

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-123
Author(s):  
Kendal N. Smith ◽  
Matthew C. Makel
Keyword(s):  
Gifted Education ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Informal Conversation ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Published Research

In response to concerns about the credibility of many published research findings, open science reforms such as preregistration, data sharing, and alternative forms of publication are being increasingly adopted across scientific communities. Although journals on giftedness and advanced academic research have already implemented several of these practices, they remain unfamiliar to some researchers. In this informal conversation, Kendal Smith and Matthew Makel discuss how they came to know and use open science practices, the values of open science, benefits and objections, and their future aspirations for open science practices in gifted education research. Their conversation aims to help make open science practices more understandable and actionable for both early career and established researchers.

scholarly journals Open Science is for Aging Research, Too

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek M Isaacowitz ◽  
Majse Lind
Keyword(s):  
Age Differences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Belief Updating ◽  
Aging Research ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Larger Sample

Abstract In response to concerns about the replicability of published research, some disciplines have used open science practices to try to enhance the credibility of published findings. Gerontology has been slow to embrace these changes. We argue that open science is important for aging research, both to reduce questionable research practices that may also be prevalent in the field (such as too many reported significant age differences in the literature, underpowered studies, hypothesizing after the results are known, and lack of belief updating when findings do not support theories), as well as to make research in the field more transparent overall. To ensure the credibility of gerontology research moving forward, we suggest concrete ways to incorporate open science into gerontology research: for example, by using available preregistration templates adaptable to a variety of study designs typical for aging research (even secondary analyses of existing data). Larger sample sizes may be achieved by many-lab collaborations. Though using open science practices may make some aspects of gerontology research more challenging, we believe that gerontology needs open science to ensure credibility now and in the future.

scholarly journals About Open Science and Autonomy of Science

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-63
Author(s):  
Paolo Budroni
Keyword(s):  
Data Science ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
The Past ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
European Science ◽  
Relevant Role ◽  
Autonomy Of Science ◽  
The Way

This article invites us to a concise walk through the past, offering insights defined by the major challenges science encountered during the centuries. Some lessons for today and tomorrow are enumerated in the three sections of the article, and they go beyond the relatively few perspectives offered by today's Data Science: Open Science (OS) is what has always happened and is nothing new, because science has always sought to be open. Esthetical values played a relevant role in the past. Former scientists recognized the intrinsic relation between the way they opened science and the way they followed the principles of beauty and the sense of esthetic. Their groundbreaking heritage still inspires us in being ready to open new ways in science. Whereas Latin was the original lingua franca of European science, and English is the recent lingua franca, the new lingua franca is software. Pieces of software are the filter, which connect researchers to the world, through layers of data. They assist in observing, in choosing, and in selecting. Open scientists should be aware of the fact that their autonomy in science depends on the quality of these pieces. Another lesson is that ethics—regarded as a source of innovative activities—must be a core component of innovative processes in OS, because society needs a responsible use of data and algorithms in corresponding practices that serve OS.

scholarly journals Principles of open, transparent and reproducible science in author guidelines of sleep research and chronobiology journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
Manuel Spitschan ◽  
Marlene H. Schmidt ◽  
Christine Blume
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Sleep Research ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
Data Citation ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Data Transparency ◽  
Different Levels

Background: "Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 27 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. The TOP Factor is a quantitative summary of the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Results: Across the 27 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25 th, 75 th percentile] 3 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 29) in sleep research and chronobiology journals. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their author guidelines.

scholarly journals Transparency and open science principles in reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
Manuel Spitschan ◽  
Marlene H. Schmidt ◽  
Christine Blume
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Sleep Research ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
Data Citation ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Data Transparency ◽  
Different Levels

Background: "Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 28 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. This instrument rates the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Results: Across the 28 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25th, 75th percentile] 2.5 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 28) in sleep research and chronobiology journals. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support the recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their guidelines and making adherence to them mandatory.

scholarly journals Preprints: a tool and a vehicle towards greater reproducibility in the life sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iratxe Puebla
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Science Practices

We have seen a number of initiatives arise in recent years aiming to tackle concerns around the reproducibility of published findings. Researchers in the life sciences now have a number of tools at their disposal to boost the reproducibility of their science and preprints have emerged as an instrumental element within this toolkit. Preprints broaden the when, by whom and how of the review and feedback on research compared to the journal publication process, help address publication bias, and can play an important role as a vehicle towards open science practices. Preprints hold further untapped potential to close the gap between discovery and dissemination, and to accelerate the path to a more reproducible research ecosystem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document