scholarly journals The Future of Sociology Depends on Open Science

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nate Breznau
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Future ◽  
Current Practices

Reliability, transparency and ethical crises pushed psychology to reorganize as a discipline over the last decade. Political science also shows signs of reworking itself in response to these crises. Sociology sits on the sidelines. There have not been the same reliability or ethical scandals, at least not in the limelight, nor has there been strong disciplinary moves toward open science. This paper therefore investigates sociology as a discipline looking at current practices, definitions of sociology, positions of sociological associations and a brief consideration of the arguments of three highly influential sociologists: Weber, Merton and Habermas. Based on this disciplinary review, I suggest that sociology is no different from its neighboring disciplines in terms of reliability or ethical dilemmas. Therefore, sociology should adopt open science practices immediately. Weber, Merton and Habermas – three very different social thinkers epistemologically – offer strong arguments that favor what we know as “open science” today. Open science promotes ethics and reliability, reduces fraud and ultimately increases the value of sociology for policymakers and the public. The paper concludes with some basic steps individual researchers can take to move sociology toward open science.

Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Fox ◽  
Katy E Pearce ◽  
Adrienne L Massanari ◽  
Julius Matthew Riles ◽  
Łukasz Szulc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Respect For Persons ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Communication ◽  
The Future

Abstract The open science (OS) movement has advocated for increased transparency in certain aspects of research. Communication is taking its first steps toward OS as some journals have adopted OS guidelines codified by another discipline. We find this pursuit troubling as OS prioritizes openness while insufficiently addressing essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Some recommended open science practices increase the potential for harm for marginalized participants, communities, and researchers. We elaborate how OS can serve a marginalizing force within academia and the research community, as it overlooks the needs of marginalized scholars and excludes some forms of scholarship. We challenge the current instantiation of OS and propose a divergent agenda for the future of Communication research centered on ethical, inclusive research practices.

Psychophysiology, cognition, and political differences

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Mansell ◽  
Allison Harell ◽  
Elisabeth Gidengil ◽  
Patrick A. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Common Theme ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Political Differences ◽  
Science Framework

AbstractWe introduce the Politics and the Life Sciences special issue on Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences. This issue represents the second special issue funded by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that adheres to the Open Science Framework for registered reports (RR). Here pre-analysis plans (PAPs) are peer-reviewed and given in-principle acceptance (IPA) prior to data being collected and/or analyzed, and are published contingent upon the preregistration of the study being followed as proposed. Bound by a common theme of the importance of incorporating psychophysiological perspectives into the study of politics, broadly defined, the articles in this special issue feature a unique set of research questions and methodologies. In the following, we summarize the findings, discuss the innovations produced by this research, and highlight the importance of open science for the future of political science research.

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 Yes! We’re open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Olalla-Soler
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Future ◽  
Academic Practices ◽  
Core Features ◽  
Publishing Practices

This article offers an overview of open science and open-science practices and their applications to translation and interpreting studies (TIS). Publications on open science in different disciplines were reviewed in order to define open science, identify academic publishing practices emerging from the core features of open science, and discuss the limitations of such practices in the humanities and the social sciences. The compiled information was then contextualised within TIS academic publishing practices based on bibliographic and bibliometric data. The results helped to identify what open-science practices have been adopted in TIS, what problems emerge from applying some of these practices, and in what ways such practices could be fostered in our discipline. This article aims to foster a debate on the future of TIS publishing and the role that open science will play in the discipline in the upcoming years.

scholarly journals Preregistration specificity & adherence: A review of preregistered gambling studies & cross-disciplinary comparison

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Heirene ◽  
Debi LaPlante ◽  
Eric R. Louderback ◽  
Brittany Keen ◽  
Marjan Bakker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Many ◽  
Practical Recommendations ◽  
Current Practices

Study preregistration is one of several “open science” practices (e.g., open data, preprints) that researchers use to improve the transparency and rigour of their research. As more researchers adopt preregistration as a regular research practice, examining the nature and content of preregistrations can help identify strengths and weaknesses of current practices. The value of preregistration, in part, relates to the specificity of the study plan and the extent to which investigators adhere to this plan. We identified 53 preregistrations from the gambling studies field meeting our predefined eligibility criteria and scored their level of specificity using a 23-item protocol developed to measure the extent to which a clear and exhaustive preregistration plan restricts various researcher degrees of freedom (RDoF; i.e., the many methodological choices available to researchers when collecting and analysing data, and when reporting their findings). We also scored studies on a 32-item protocol that measured adherence to the preregistered plan in the study manuscript. We found that gambling preregistrations had low specificity levels on most RDoF. However, a comparison with a sample of cross-disciplinary preregistrations (N = 52; Bakker et al., 2020) indicated that gambling preregistrations scored higher on 12 (of 29) items. Thirteen (65%) of the 20 associated published articles or preprints deviated from the protocol without declaring as much (the mean number of undeclared deviations per article was 2.25, SD = 2.34). Overall, while we found improvements in specificity and adherence over time (2017-2020), our findings suggest the purported benefits of preregistration—including increasing transparency and reducing RDoF—are not fully achieved by current practices. Using our findings, we provide 10 practical recommendations that can be used to support and refine preregistration practices.

scholarly journals Enhancing scientific credibility: An open science strategy for the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Llewellyn E. Van Zyl
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Industrial Psychology ◽  
South African Journal ◽  
The South ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
General Overview ◽  
The Future ◽  
African Journal

Orientation: The purpose of this editorial was to provide an introduction and a general overview of the special issue on Open Science Practices: A Vision for the Future of SAJIP, as hosted in the 45th edition of the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP). Specifically, the aim was to provide a viable, practical and implementable strategy for enhancing the scientific credibility, transparency and international stature of SAJIP.

scholarly journals Does Sociology Need Open Science?

Societies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Nate Breznau
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The State ◽  
General Overview ◽  
Current Practices ◽  
Science Disciplines

Reliability, transparency, and ethical crises pushed many social science disciplines toward dramatic changes, in particular psychology and more recently political science. This paper discusses why sociology should also change. It reviews sociology as a discipline through the lens of current practices, definitions of sociology, positions of sociological associations, and a brief consideration of the arguments of three highly influential yet epistemologically diverse sociologists: Weber, Merton, and Habermas. It is a general overview for students and sociologists to quickly familiarize themselves with the state of sociology or explore the idea of open science and its relevance to their discipline.

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