scholarly journals Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Grant ◽  
Kathleen Wendt ◽  
Bonnie J. Leadbeater ◽  
Lauren H. Supplee ◽  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Prevention Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Science Movement

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Open science provides opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. Open science also addresses key challenges to the credibility of prevention science, such as irreproducibility of results, selective non-reporting (publication bias, outcome reporting bias), and other detrimental research practices. The overarching goal of this paper is to provide an overview of open science practices for prevention science researchers, and to identify key stakeholders and resources to support implementation of these practices. We consider various aspects of applying open science practices in prevention science, such as identifying evidence-based interventions. In addition, we call for the adoption of prevention science practices in the open science movement, such as the use of program planning principles to develop, implement, and evaluate open science efforts. We also identify some challenges that need to be considered in the transition to a transparent, open, and reproducible prevention science. Throughout, we identify activities that will strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. We conclude with the notion that prevention scientists are well-positioned to engage with the open science movement, especially given their expertise in examining and addressing complex social and behavioral issues. By embracing transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote well-being.

The Role of Open Science Practices in Scaling Evidence-Based Prevention Programs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren H. Supplee ◽  
Robert T. Ammerman ◽  
Anne K. Duggan ◽  
John A. List ◽  
Dana Suskind
Keyword(s):  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices

scholarly journals The Sustainability Argument for Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Govaart ◽  
Simon M. Hofmann ◽  
Evelyn Medawar
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Academic Environments ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Systemic Level ◽  
Climate Crisis

Ever-increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions narrow the timeframe for humanity to mitigate the climate crisis. Scientific research activities are resource demanding and, consequently, contribute to climate change; at the same time, scientists have a central role in advancing knowledge, also on climate-related topics. In this opinion piece, we discuss (1) how open science – adopted on an individual as well as on a systemic level – can contribute to making research more environmentally friendly, and (2) how open science practices can make research activities more efficient and thereby foster scientific progress and solutions to the climate crises. While many building blocks are already at hand, systemic changes are necessary in order to create academic environments that support open science practices and encourage scientists from all fields to become more carbon-conscious, ultimately contributing to a sustainable future.

scholarly journals Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform

2021 ◽  
pp. 036168432110265
Author(s):  
Jes L. Matsick ◽  
Mary Kruk ◽  
Flora Oswald ◽  
Lindsay Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Feminist Psychology ◽  
Feminist Scholarship ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Discourse ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Science Movement

Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.

scholarly journals Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Sean Grant ◽  
Lauren Supplee
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Social Interventions ◽  
Registration Data ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Intervention Evaluations

Clearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are “evidence-based”, clearinghouses evaluate empirical research using published standards of evidence that focus on study design features. Study designs that support causal inferences are necessary but insufficient for intervention evaluations to produce true results. The use of open science practices can improve the probability that evaluations produce true results and increase trust in research. In this study, we examined the degree to which the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses consider the transparency, openness, and reproducibility of intervention evaluations. We found that seven clearinghouses consider at least one open science practice: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, materials sharing, and citation standards. Clearinghouse processes and standards could be updated to promote research transparency and reproducibility by reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving “evidence-based” designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could improve research quality, increase trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making, and support the evidence ecosystem to adopt open science practices.

scholarly journals Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jes Matsick ◽  
Mary Kruk ◽  
Flora Oswald ◽  
Lindsay Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Feminist Psychology ◽  
Feminist Scholarship ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Discourse ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Science Movement

Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.

scholarly journals Harman & Lorandos (2020). Preprint of Allegations of Family Violence in Court: How Parental Alienation Affects Judicial Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jill Harman ◽  
Demosthenes Lorandos
Keyword(s):  
Family Violence ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Parental Alienation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Legal Defense ◽  
Research Assistants

We tested a set of findings reported by Meier (2019) related to the use of parental alienation (PA) as a legal defense in cases in which there are allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. A total of 967 appellate reports in which PA was found or alleged were sequentially selected from a legal database search. Nineteen research assistants blind to the study’s hypotheses coded the reports for the variables used to test six pre-registered hypotheses using a series of logistic and linear regression models. We failed to find any support for the conclusions made by Meier (2019). Parents found (versus alleged) to alienate their children, regardless of their gender, had greater odds of losing parenting time, losing custody of their children, and losing their case. These findings held even when the accusing parent had been found to have been abusive. Losses or decreases in custody were not found when the (alleged) alienated parent was found to have been abusive. Results indicate that the majority of courts carefully weigh allegations of all forms of family violence in their determinations about the best interests of children. These findings, along with several others, raise concerns that the methodological, analytical, and statistical problems we detail about Meier’s report (2019) make her conclusions untrustworthy. Discussion focuses on the importance of using open science practices for transparent and rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses and the dangers of misusing scientific findings to mislead influential professionals who affect the well-being of millions of families.

scholarly journals The New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else is Known

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Geoff Cumming
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
New Statistics

&&& Now published in the American Statistician: https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518266 *** The "New Statistics" emphasizes effect sizes, confidence intervals, meta-analysis and the use of Open Science practices. We present 3 specific ways in which a New Statistics approach can help improve scientific practice: by reducing over-confidence in small samples, by reducing confirmation bias, and by fostering more cautious judgements of consistency.

scholarly journals Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

2021 ◽  
pp. 036168432110292
Author(s):  
Madeleine Pownall ◽  
Catherine V. Talbot ◽  
Anna Henschel ◽  
Alexandra Lautarescu ◽  
Kelly E. Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Career Research ◽  
Science Movement

Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.

scholarly journals Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Sean Grant ◽  
Lauren H. Supplee
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Causal Inferences ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Social Interventions ◽  
Registration Data ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Intervention Evaluations

AbstractClearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are “evidence-based,” clearinghouses review intervention evaluations using published standards of evidence that focus primarily on internal validity and causal inferences. Open science practices can improve trust in evidence from evaluations on the effectiveness of social interventions. Including open science practices in clearinghouse standards of evidence is one of many efforts that could increase confidence in designations of interventions as “evidence-based.” In this study, we examined the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses that review preventive interventions—an important and influential subset of all evidence clearinghouses. We found that seven consider at least one open science practice when evaluating interventions: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, material sharing, and citation standards. We provide a framework with specific recommendations to help federal and other evidence clearinghouses implement the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Our proposed “TOP Guidelines for Clearinghouses” includes reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving “evidence-based” designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could increase the trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making and support improvements throughout the evidence ecosystem.

scholarly journals Trusting on the Shoulders of Open Giants? Open Science Increases Trust in Science for the Public and Academics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjin Song ◽  
David Matthew Markowitz ◽  
Samuel Hardman Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Total N ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Science Movement

Researchers often focus on the benefits of adopting open science practices for improving the credibility of research studies, yet questions remain whether the general public, as well as academics, value and trust studies consistent with open science practices. In the current package of studies, we examined how open science can increase trust in science for the public and academics as well. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,214), we manipulated journal article abstracts to contain descriptions of open science practices or not. Across all studies, open science research was perceived as more credible and trustworthy than non-open science research. Study 2 explored if open science practices compensated for negative perceptions of privately-funded research versus publicly-funded research, though we did not find evidence for this claim. Finally, Study 3 examined perceptions of open science from communication science scholars and observed open science research was perceived more favorably than non-open science research, though the effect was only pronounced for early career researchers. We discuss implications for the open science movement and public trust in science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document