scholarly journals Gambling Researchers’ Use and Views of Open Science Principles and Practices: A Brief Report

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debi LaPlante ◽  
Eric R. Louderback ◽  
Brett Abarbanel
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Extensive Experience ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Psychology And Economics ◽  
Open Materials

Scientists across disciplines have begun to implement “open science” principles and practices, which are designed to enhance the quality, transparency, and replicability of scientific research. Yet, studies examining the use of open science practices in social science fields such as psychology and economics show that awareness and use of such practices often is low. In gambling studies research, no studies to date have empirically investigated knowledge of and use of open science practices. In the present study, we collected survey data about awareness and use of open science practices from 86 gambling studies research stakeholders who had attended a major international gambling studies conference in May 2019. We found that—as hypothesized—a minority of gambling research stakeholders reported: 1) either some or extensive experience using open science research practices in general, and 2) either some or regular experience using specific open science practices, including study pre-registration, open materials/code, open data, and pre-print archiving. Most respondents indicated that replication was important for all studies in gambling research, and that genetic, neuroscience, and lab-based game characteristic studies were areas most in need of replication. Our results have important implications for open science education initiatives and for contemporary research methodology in gambling studies.

scholarly journals Evidence on Research Transparency in Economics

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-214
Author(s):  
Edward Miguel
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Radar Screen ◽  
Rapid Transition ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Journal Policies ◽  
Economics Research

A decade ago, the term “research transparency” was not on economists' radar screen, but in a few short years a scholarly movement has emerged to bring new open science practices, tools and norms into the mainstream of our discipline. The goal of this article is to lay out the evidence on the adoption of these approaches – in three specific areas: open data, pre-registration and pre-analysis plans, and journal policies – and, more tentatively, begin to assess their impacts on the quality and credibility of economics research. The evidence to date indicates that economics (and related quantitative social science fields) are in a period of rapid transition toward new transparency-enhancing norms. While solid data on the benefits of these practices in economics is still limited, in part due to their relatively recent adoption, there is growing reason to believe that critics' worst fears regarding onerous adoption costs have not been realized. Finally, the article presents a set of frontier questions and potential innovations.

scholarly journals We Need the Open Artefact: Design Science as a Pathway to Open Science in Information Systems Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathal Doyle ◽  
Markus Luczak-Roesch ◽  
A Mittal
Keyword(s):  
Process Model ◽  
Design Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Information Systems Research ◽  
Competitive Funding

© 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Design science research (DSR) is facing some significant challenges such as how to make the knowledge and artefacts we create more accessible; exclusion from competitive funding schemes that require open practices; and a potential reproducibility crisis if scholars do not have access to everything needed to repeat past research. To help tackle these challenges we suggest that the community should strongly engage with open science, which has been growing in prominence in other fields in recent years. A review of current DSR literature suggests that researchers have not yet discussed how open science practices can be adopted within the field. Thus, we propose how the concepts of open science, namely open access, open data, open source, and open peer review, can be mapped to a DSR process model. Further, we identify an emerging concept, the open artefact, which provides an opportunity to make artefacts more accessible to practice and scholars. The aim of this paper is to stimulate a discussion amongst researchers about these open science practices in DSR, and whether it is a necessary step forward to keep the pace of the changing academic environment.

scholarly journals Factor structure of intelligence and divergent thinking subtests: A registered report

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0251268
Author(s):  
Russell T. Warne ◽  
Sam Golightly ◽  
Makai Black
Keyword(s):  
Creative Thinking ◽  
Divergent Thinking ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Intelligence Test ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Suitable Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Open Materials

Psychologists have investigated creativity for 70 years, and it is now seen as being an important construct, both scientifically and because of its practical value to society. However, several fundamental unresolved problems persist, including a suitable definition of creativity and the ability of psychometric tests to measure divergent thinking—an important component of creativity—in a way that aligns with theory. It is this latter point that this registered report is designed to address. We propose to administer two divergent thinking tests (the verbal and figural versions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; TTCT) with an intelligence test (the International Cognitive Ability Resource test; ICAR). We will then subject the subscores from these tests to confirmatory factor analysis to test which of nine theoretically plausible models best fits the data. When this study is completed, we hope to better understand whether the degree to which the TTCT and ICAR measure distinct constructs. This study will be conducted in accordance with all open science practices, including pre-registration, open data and syntax, and open materials (with the exception of copyrighted and confidential test stimuli).

scholarly journals Transparency, Documentation, and Open Science

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-200
Author(s):  
Derek Isaacowitz
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Sample Size Justification ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Do So

Abstract Some GSA journals are especially interested in promoting transparency and open science practices, reflecting how some subdisciplines in aging are moving toward open science practices faster than others. In this talk, I will consider the transparency and open science practices that seem most relevant to aging researchers, such as preregistration, open data, open materials and code, sample size justification and analytic tools for considering null effects. I will also discuss potential challenges to implementing these practices as well as reasons why it is important to do so despite these challenges. The focus will be on pragmatic suggestions for researchers planning and conducting studies now that they hope to publish later.

scholarly journals We need the open artefact: Design Science as a pathway to Open Science in Information Systems research

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathal Doyle ◽  
Markus Luczak-Roesch ◽  
Abhinav Mittal
Keyword(s):  
Process Model ◽  
Design Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Information Systems Research ◽  
Competitive Funding

Design science research is facing some significant challenges such as how to make the knowledge and artefacts we create more accessible; exclusion from competitive funding schemes that require open practices; and a potential reproducibility crisis if scholars do not have access to everything needed to repeat past research. To help tackle these challenges we suggest that the community should strongly engage with open science, which has been growing in prominence in other fields in recent years. A review of current DSR literature suggests that re-searchers have not yet discussed how open science practices can be adopted with-in the field. Thus, we propose how the concepts of open science, namely open access, open data, open source, and open peer review, can be mapped to a DSR process model. Further, we identify an emerging concept, the open artefact, which provides an opportunity to make artefacts more accessible to practice and scholars. The aim of this paper is to stimulate a discussion amongst researchers about these open science practices in DSR, and whether it is a necessary step forward to keep the pace of the changing academic environment. ....................................................................................................................................................................This paper is a preprint of a paper accepted at DESRIST 2019 (https://desrist2019.org/).

scholarly journals A Call for Open Science in Giftedness Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. McBee ◽  
Matthew C. Makel ◽  
Scott J. Peters ◽  
Michael S. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gifted Education ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Internet Resources ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Open Materials

Current practices in study design and data analysis have led to low reproducibility and replicability of findings in fields such as psychology, medicine, biology, and economics. Because gifted education research relies on the same underlying statistical and sociological paradigms, it is likely that it too suffers from these problems. This article discusses the origin of the poor replicability and introduces a set of open science practices that can increase the rigor and trustworthiness of gifted education’s scientific findings: preregistration, open data and open materials, registered reports, and preprints. Readers are directed to Internet resources for facilitating open science. To model these practices, a pre peer-review preprint of this article is available at https://psyarxiv.com/nhuv3/ .

scholarly journals Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016 – 2019): A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric R. Louderback ◽  
Sally M Gainsbury ◽  
Robert Heirene ◽  
Karen Amichia ◽  
Alessandra Grossman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open publication, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods to behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016 – 12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice’s prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI:[0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI:[2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI:[31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI:[5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI:[0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI:[12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI:[4.6, 8.9]) used a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI:[1.4, 4.2]) of the studies were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more broadly.

scholarly journals Conducting a Meta-Analysis in the Age of Open Science: Tools, Tips, and Practical Recommendations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moreau ◽  
Beau Gamble
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Video Tutorials ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Psychology researchers are rapidly adopting open science practices, yet clear guidelines on how to apply these practices to meta-analysis remain lacking. In this tutorial, we describe why open science is important in the context of meta-analysis in psychology, and suggest how to adopt the three main components of open science: preregistration, open materials, and open data. We first describe how to make the preregistration as thorough as possible—and how to handle deviations from the plan. We then focus on creating easy-to-read materials (e.g., search syntax, R scripts) to facilitate reproducibility and bolster the impact of a meta-analysis. Finally, we suggest how to organize data (e.g., literature search results, data extracted from studies) that are easy to share, interpret, and update as new studies emerge. For each step of the meta-analysis, we provide example templates, accompanied by brief video tutorials, and show how to integrate these practices into the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q8stz/).

scholarly journals A Call for Open Science in Giftedness Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew McBee ◽  
Matthew Makel ◽  
Scott J. Peters ◽  
Michael S. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Sample Size Determination ◽  
Size Determination ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Internet Resources ◽  
Open Materials

The ruinous consequences of currently accepted practices in study design and data analysis have revealed themselves in the low reproducibility of findings in fields such as psychology, medicine, biology, and economics. Because giftedness research relies on the same underlying statistical and sociological paradigms, it is likely that our field also suffers from poor reproducibility and unreliable literature. This paper describes open science practices that will increase the rigor and trustworthiness of gifted education’s scientific processes and their associated findings: open data; open materials; and preregistration of hypotheses, design, sample size determination, and statistical analysis plans. Readers are directed to internet resources for facilitating open science.

scholarly journals We Need the Open Artefact: Design Science as a Pathway to Open Science in Information Systems Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathal Doyle ◽  
Markus Luczak-Roesch ◽  
A Mittal
Keyword(s):  
Process Model ◽  
Design Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Information Systems Research ◽  
Competitive Funding

© 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Design science research (DSR) is facing some significant challenges such as how to make the knowledge and artefacts we create more accessible; exclusion from competitive funding schemes that require open practices; and a potential reproducibility crisis if scholars do not have access to everything needed to repeat past research. To help tackle these challenges we suggest that the community should strongly engage with open science, which has been growing in prominence in other fields in recent years. A review of current DSR literature suggests that researchers have not yet discussed how open science practices can be adopted within the field. Thus, we propose how the concepts of open science, namely open access, open data, open source, and open peer review, can be mapped to a DSR process model. Further, we identify an emerging concept, the open artefact, which provides an opportunity to make artefacts more accessible to practice and scholars. The aim of this paper is to stimulate a discussion amongst researchers about these open science practices in DSR, and whether it is a necessary step forward to keep the pace of the changing academic environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document