Need for Open-Science Policies

Year 2023, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 69 - 73, 26.12.2023

Osman Hayran

https://doi.org/10.52675/jhesp.1372087

Abstract

Publishing, sharing, and disseminating their research results are among scientists’ most important objectives. This process, which consists of stages full of intensive labor and care, is very laborious and may not always result in a positive outcome. A review of the scientific literature indicates that some non-academic authors publish more than academics. On the other hand, the presence of a widespread reproducibility problem even in highly cited publications negatively affects the reliability of scientific findings. Open-science policies and public peer review practices are needed to overcome these problems.

Keywords

Reproducibility, Replication crisis, Open-science, Meta-science

References

• Allen, C., Mehler, D.M.A (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology, 17, e3000246.
• Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2023). Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study. Scientometrics, 128, 3171-3184.
• Ioannidis, J.P.A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D.D., Goodman, S.N. (2015). Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLOS Biology, 13, e1002264.
• Mathur, M.B., Fox, M.P. (2023). Toward open and reproducible epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 192, 658–664.
• Munafò, M.R., Nosek, B.A., Bishop, D., Button, K.S., Chambers, C.D., du Sert, N.P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E-J., Ware, J., Ionnidis J. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 1, 0021.
• Pashler, H., Wagenmakers, E. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528-530.
• Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., Wilkinson G. (2000). Open peer review: a randomised trial. Brit. J. Psychiat, 176, 47–51.