scholarly journals The Open Science Movement is For All of Us

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moin Syed
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Core Issues ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement has been gaining steam in numerous scientific disciplines (e.g., ecology, cancer biology, economics) as well as sub-disciplines of psychology (e.g., social, personality). These issues, however, are still not widely understood nor seen as applicable to all types of research. This presentation will include an overview of core issues in the open science movement and how they apply to all types of psychological research (any sub-discipline, any method). Emphasis will be placed on how incorporating open science principles can improve both theoretical and empirical work in psychology.

scholarly journals The Promise of the Open Science Movement for Research on Identity

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moin Syed
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Core Issues ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement has been gaining steam in numerous scientific disciplines (e.g., ecology, cancer biology, economics) as well as sub-disciplines of psychology (e.g., social, personality). These issues, however, have been scantly discussed in the context of identity research. This presentation will include an overview of core issues in the open science movement and how they apply to research on identity. Emphasis will be placed on how incorporating open science principles can improve both theoretical and empirical work on identity.

scholarly journals Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 1033-1051
Author(s):  
Dietmar Wolfram ◽  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Adam Hembree ◽  
Hyoungjoo Park
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Early Adopters ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Different Levels

AbstractOpen peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers’ comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.

scholarly journals Cultural Psychology, Diversity, and Representation in Open Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 427-454
Author(s):  
Moin Syed ◽  
Ummul-Kiram Kathawalla
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Psychology ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
And Behaviors ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Research Studies

The current moment in psychology is one of great challenges and great opportunities. The open science movement—the move toward more transparent, credible, and reproducible science—has led to a redefinition of what constitutes “normal science.” However, the field of cultural psychology, broadly construed, has by and large not engaged with the open science movement and, likewise, the open science movement has by and large not engaged with cultural psychology. The purpose of the present chapter is to bring open science and cultural psychology closer together, highlighting how they can benefit one another. In doing so, the discussion is focused on three types of representations regarding diversity in psychological research and how they intersect with open science: representation of researchers, or the diversity of the scientists actually doing the research; representation of samples, or who is included as participants in our research studies; and representation of perspectives, or the substantive conceptual and theoretical views we bring to our work. For each of these three types of representation the problem is outlined, followed by a discussion of how embracing the principles and behaviors of open science can help.

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 Cultural Psychology, Diversity, and Representation in Open Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moin Syed ◽  
Ummul-Kiram Kathawalla
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Psychology ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
And Behaviors ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Research Representation ◽  
Research Studies

The current moment in psychology is one of great challenges and great opportunities. The open science movement--the move towards more transparent, credible, and reproducible science--has led to a redefinition of what constitutes “normal science.” However, the field of cultural psychology, broadly construed, has by and large not engaged with the open science movement, and likewise, the open science movement has by and large not engaged with cultural psychology. The purpose of the present chapter is to bring open science and cultural psychology closer together, highlighting how they can benefit one another. In doing so, we focus our discussion on three types of representations regarding diversity in psychological research and how they intersect with open science: representation of researchers, or the diversity of the scientists actually doing the research, representation of samples, or who is included as participants in our research studies, and representation of perspectives, or the substantive conceptual and theoretical views we bring to our work. For each of these three types of representation we outline the problem, and then discuss how embracing the principles and behaviors of open science can help.

scholarly journals Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeleine Pownall ◽  
Catherine V. Talbot ◽  
Anna Henschel ◽  
Alexandra Lautarescu ◽  
Kelly Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Career Research ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Open Science aims to improve the rigour, 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, ten 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 grassroots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which Open Science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with six practical recommendations for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with Open Science practices in their own research.

Curtailing the Use of Preregistration: A Misused Term

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1105-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B. Rice ◽  
David Moher
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Educational Outreach ◽  
Epidemiological Investigation ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Research Protocols ◽  
Science Movement

Improving the usability of psychological research has been encouraged through practices such as prospectively registering research plans. Registering research aligns with the open-science movement, as the registration of research protocols in publicly accessible domains can result in reduced research waste and increased study transparency. In medicine and psychology, two different terms, registration and preregistration, have been used to refer to study registration, but applying inconsistent terminology to represent one concept can complicate both educational outreach and epidemiological investigation. Consistently using one term across disciplines to refer to the concept of study registration may improve the understanding and uptake of this practice, thereby supporting the movement toward improving the reliability and reproducibility of research through study registration. We recommend encouraging use of the original term, registration, given its widespread and long-standing use, including in national registries.

Introduction to the special section on Increasing Replicability, Transparency, and Openness in Clinical Psychology

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Tackett ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Clinical Psychologists ◽  
Existing Problems

As psychological research comes under increasing fire for the crisis of replicability, attention has turned to methods and practices that facilitate (or hinder) a more replicable and veridical body of empirical evidence. These trends have focused on “open science” initiatives, including an emphasis on replication, transparency, and data sharing. Despite this broader movement in psychology, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have been largely absent from the broader conversation on documenting the extent of existing problems as well as generating solutions to problematic methods and practices in our area (Tackett et al., 2017). The goal of the current special section was to bring together psychopathology researchers to explore these and related areas as they pertain to the types of research conducted in clinical psychology and allied disciplines.

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para repositório conforme a Ciência Aberta

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angélica Conceição Dias Miranda ◽  
Milton Shintaku ◽  
Simone Machado Firme
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Open File ◽  
Research Institutes ◽  
Criteria For Evaluation ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Bibliographic Study

Resumo: Os repositórios têm se tornado comum nas universidades e institutos de pesquisa, como forma de ofertar acesso à produção científica e, com isso, dar visibilidade à instituição. Entretanto, em muitos casos ainda estão restritos aos conceitos do movimento do arquivo aberto e acesso aberto, sendo que já se discute o Movimento da Ciência Aberta, revelando certo descompasso, requerendo estudos que apoiem a atualização dessa importante ferramenta. Nesse sentido, o presente estudo verifica os requisitos envolvidos nos movimentos abertos, de forma a apoiar a discussão técnica e tecnológica. Um estudo bibliográfico, que transforma as informações sobre os movimentos em critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para criação de repositórios, apresentando a implementação da interação como um novo desafio. Nas considerações procura-se contribuir com a discussão sobre a Ciência Aberta, de forma mais aplicada bem como o ajuste dos repositórios a esse movimento.Palavras-chave: Repositórios.  Critérios de avaliação. Arquivo aberto. Acesso aberto. Dados abertos. Ciência aberta.SURVEY OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF REPOSITORY TOOLS ACCORDING TO OPEN SCIENCE Abstract: Repositories have become common in universities and research institutes, as a way of offering access to scientific production, thereby giving visibility to the institution. Meanwhile, in many cases, repositories are restricted to the concepts of open movement and open access considering that the Open Science Movement is already being discussed. Regarding this matter, this study verifies the requirements involved in the open movements, in order to support a technical and technological discussion.  A bibliographic study that transforms information about movements into criteria to evaluate tools used to create repositories, presenting an implementation of interaction as a new challenge. In the considerations, we contribute with a discussion about an Open Science, in a more applied way, as well as the adjustment of the repositories to this movement.Keywords: Repositories. Evaluation Criteria. Open File. Open Access. Open Data. Open Science.

scholarly journals Registered report: Widespread potential for growth factor-driven resistance to anticancer kinase inhibitors

eLife ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Greenfield ◽  
Erin Griner ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Signaling Pathways ◽  
Receptor Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Downstream Signaling ◽  
Rtk Inhibitors ◽  
Block Sensitivity

The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology seeks to address growing concerns about reproducibility in scientific research by conducting replications of 50 papers in the field of cancer biology published between 2010 and 2012. This Registered Report describes the proposed replication plan of key experiments from ‘Widespread potential for growth-factor-driven resistance to anticancer kinase inhibitors’ by Wilson and colleagues, published in Nature in 2012 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Wilson et al., 2012</xref>). The experiments that will be replicated are those reported in Figure 2B and C. In these experiments, Wilson and colleagues show that sensitivity to receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors can be bypassed by various ligands through reactivation of downstream signaling pathways (Figure 2A; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Wilson et al., 2012</xref>), and that blocking the receptors for these bypassing ligands abrogates their ability to block sensitivity to the original RTK inhibitor (Figure 2C; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Wilson et al., 2012</xref>). The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology is a collaboration between the Center for Open Science and Science Exchange, and the results of the replications will be published by eLife.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document