Open Science: Recommendations for research on school bullying

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Noret ◽  
Simon C. Hunter ◽  
Sofia Milheiro Pimenta ◽  
Rachel Taylor ◽  
Rebecca Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
School Bullying ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Participatory Research Methods ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement has developed out of growing concerns over the scientific standard of published academic research and a perception that science is in crisis (the "replication crisis"). Bullying research sits within this scientific family and without taking a full part in discussions risks falling behind. Open science practices can inform and support a range of research goals while increasing the transparency and trustworthiness of the research process. In this paper, we aim to explain the relevance of open science for bullying research and discuss some of the questionable research practices which challenge the replicability and integrity of research. We also consider how open science practices can be of benefit to research on school bullying. In doing so, we discuss how open science practices, such as pre-registration, can be of benefit to a range of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative research and studies employing a participatory research methods approach. To support researchers in adopting more open practices, we also highlight a range of relevant resources and set out a series of recommendations to the bullying research community.

scholarly journals Psychology and open science in Africa: Why is it needed and how can we implement it?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soufian Azouaghe ◽  
Adeyemi Adetula ◽  
Patrick S. Forscher ◽  
Dana Basnight-Brown ◽  
Nihal Ouherrou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Western World ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Replication Crisis

The quality of scientific research is assessed not only by its positive impact on socio-economic development and human well-being, but also by its contribution to the development of valid and reliable scientific knowledge. Thus, researchers regardless of their scientific discipline, are supposed to adopt research practices based on transparency and rigor. However, the history of science and the scientific literature teach us that a part of scientific results is not systematically reproducible (Ioannidis, 2005). This is what is commonly known as the "replication crisis" which concerns the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, of which psychology is no exception.Firstly, we aim to address some aspects of the replication crisis and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). Secondly, we discuss how we can involve more labs in Africa to take part in the global research process, especially the Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA). For these goals, we will develop a tutorial for the labs in Africa, by highlighting the open science practices. In addition, we emphasize that it is substantial to identify African labs needs and factors that hinder their participating in the PSA, and the support needed from the Western world. Finally, we discuss how to make psychological science more participatory and inclusive.

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 Alchemy & algorithms: perspectives on the philosophy and history of open science

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Lahti ◽  
Filipe da Silva ◽  
Markus Laine ◽  
Viivi Lähteenoja ◽  
Mikko Tolonen
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Community Resource ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Video And Audio ◽  
The University ◽  
Science Movement

This paper gives the reader a chance to experience, or revisit, PHOS16: a conference on the History and Philosophy of Open Science. In the winter of 2016, we invited a varied international group to engage with these topics at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Our aim was to critically assess the defining features, underlying narratives, and overall objectives of the open science movement. The event brought together contemporary open science scholars, publishers, and advocates to discuss the philosophical foundations and historical roots of openness in academic research. The eight sessions combined historical views with more contemporary perspectives on topics such as transparency, reproducibility, collaboration, publishing, peer review, research ethics, as well as societal impact and engagement. We gathered together expert panellists and 15 invited speakers who have published extensively on these topics, allowing us to engage in a thorough and multifaceted discussion. Together with our involved audience we charted the role and foundations of openness of research in our time, considered the accumulation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, and debated the various technical, legal, and ethical challenges of the past and present. In this article, we provide an overview of the topics covered at the conference as well as individual video interviews with each speaker. In addition to this, all the talks, Q&A sessions, and interviews were recorded and they are offered here as an openly licensed community resource in both video and audio form.

Open Science and Its Impact on Libraries, Publishers, and Authors

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
Josiline Phiri Chigwada
Keyword(s):  
Information Sources ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Body ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Structured Document ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement enables the accessibility and reusability of research output across the globe. Researchers and other stakeholders in the research process can now easily collaborate to add to the body of knowledge. This chapter documents how open science is impacting the role of libraries, publishers, and authors in the digital era. A structured document analysis and web analysis were done to find out how authors, publishers, and librarians are affected by open science. It was found that librarians are taking advantage of open science to provide various information sources to patrons, the publishers are now charging article processing fees to make the journal articles open access upon publishing, and authors are now able to access many information sources during the research process and enjoy greater visibility of their research output. The author recommends the adoption of open science especially in the developing countries and the enactment of policies that support open science at national, regional, and international levels.

scholarly journals The past, present, and future of ego depletion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Inzlicht ◽  
Malte Friese
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Ego Depletion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Scientific Status ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Mere Existence

At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what is suggests about ego depletion; but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological science.

scholarly journals Quantity Over Quality? Reproducible Psychological Science from a Mixed Methods Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hollen N. Reischer ◽  
Henry R. Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Rapid Improvement ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Study Designs

A robust dialogue about the (un)reliability of psychological science findings has emerged in recent years. In response, metascience researchers have developed innovative tools to increase rigor, transparency, and reproducibility, stimulating rapid improvement and adoption of open science practices. However, existing reproducibility guidelines are geared toward purely quantitative study designs. This leaves some ambiguity as to how such guidelines should be implemented in mixed methods (MM) studies, which combine quantitative and qualitative research. Drawing on extant literature, our own experiences, and feedback from 79 self-identified MM researchers, the current paper addresses two main questions: (a) how and to what extent do existing reproducibility guidelines apply to MM study designs; and (b) can existing reproducibility guidelines be improved by incorporating best practices from qualitative research and epistemology? In answer, we offer 10 key recommendations for use within and outside of MM research. Finally, we argue that good science and good ethical practice are mutually reinforcing and lead to meaningful, credible science.

scholarly journals ‘Trust Us’: Open Data and Preregistration in Political Science and International Relations

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bermond Scoggins ◽  
Matthew Peter Robertson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Statistical Inference ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Replication Crisis

The scientific method is predicated on transparency -- yet the pace at which transparent research practices are being adopted by the scientific community is slow. The replication crisis in psychology showed that published findings employing statistical inference are threatened by undetected errors, data manipulation, and data falsification. To mitigate these problems and bolster research credibility, open data and preregistration have increasingly been adopted in the natural and social sciences. While many political science and international relations journals have committed to implementing these reforms, the extent of open science practices is unknown. We bring large-scale text analysis and machine learning classifiers to bear on the question. Using population-level data -- 93,931 articles across the top 160 political science and IR journals between 2010 and 2021 -- we find that approximately 21% of all statistical inference papers have open data, and 5% of all experiments are preregistered. Despite this shortfall, the example of leading journals in the field shows that change is feasible and can be effected quickly.

scholarly journals Accelerating open science: The collaborative replications and education project (CREP)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerit Pfuhl ◽  
Jon Grahe
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Education Project ◽  
Science Practices

Watch the VIDEO.Recent years have seen a revolution in publishing, and large support for open access publishing. There has been a slower acceptance and transition to other open science principles such as open data, open materials, and preregistration. To accelerate the transition and make open science the new standard, the collaborative replications and education project (CREP; http://osf.io/wfc6u/)) was launched in 2013, hosted on the Open Science Framework (osf.io). OSF is like a preprint, collecting partial data with each individual contributors project. CREP introduces open science at the start of academic research, facilitating student research training in open science and solidifying behavioral science results. The CREP team attempts to achieve this by inviting contributors to replicate one of several replication studies selected for scientific impact and suitability for undergraduates to complete during one academic term. Contributors follow clear protocols with students interacting with a CREP team that reviews the materials and video of the procedure to ensure quality data collection while students are learning science practices and methods. By combining multiple replications from undergraduates across the globe, the findings can be pooled to conduct meta-analysis and so contribute to generalizable and replicable research findings. CREP is careful to not interpret any single result. CREP has recently joined forces with the psychological science accelerator (PsySciAcc), a globally distributed network of psychological laboratories accelerating the accumulation of reliable and generalizable results in the behavioral sciences. The Department of Psychology at UiT is part of the network and has two ongoing CREP studies, maintaining open science practices early on. In this talk, we will present our experiences of conducting transparent replicable research, and experience with preprints from a supervisor and researcher perspective.

scholarly journals Advancing Transparency and Impact of Research: Initiating Crosstalk between Indigenous Research and Mainstream “Open Science”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Priscilla Lui ◽  
Monica C. Skewes ◽  
Sarah Gobrial ◽  
David Rollock
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Native Communities ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Human Functioning ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Science Movement

To answer questions about human psychology, psychological science needs to yield credible findings. Because of their goals of understanding people’s lived experiences and advocating for the needs of the Native communities, Indigenous scholars tend to use community-based participatory research (CBPR) or approach science from a constructivist framework. The primary goal of mainstream psychological science is to uncover generalizable facts about human functioning. Approached from a postpositivist framework, mainstream psychological scholars tend to assume the possibility of identifying researcher biases and achieving objective science. Recently, many psychological findings fail to replicate in new samples. The replication crisis raised concerns about the validity of psychological science. The mainstream open science has been promoted as a solution to this replication crisis; the open science movement encourages researchers to emphasize transparency and accountability to the broad research community. The notion of transparency aligns with the principles of CBPR—research approach common in Indigenous research. Yet, open science practices are not widely adopted in Indigenous research, and mainstream open science does not emphasize researchers’ accountability to the communities that their science is intended to serve. We examined Indigenous researchers’ awareness and concerns about mainstream open science. Participants endorsed the value of transparency with the participants and their communities. They also were concerned about being disadvantaged and the possible negative impact of data sharing on the Native communities. We suggest that there is value in connecting mainstream open science and Indigenous research to advance science that empowers people and makes positive community impact.

What Psychology Teachers Should Know About Open Science and the New Statistics

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-179
Author(s):  
Beth Morling ◽  
Robert J. Calin-Jageman
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Psychology Courses ◽  
Psychology Teachers ◽  
New Statistics ◽  
Science Movement

Psychology teachers have likely heard about the “replication crisis” and the “open science movement” in psychology, and they are probably aware that psychologists have proposed new standards for research practice. How should our psychology courses reflect these new standards? We describe several modern practices that have transformed our field and that seem likely to endure: preregistration of studies, transparency of reporting, norms for replication, and the new statistical focus on estimation and precision. We offer suggestions for how to integrate these new practices into psychology courses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document