1. EMBO J. 2018 Dec 14;37(24):e101215. doi: 10.15252/embj.2018101215. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
Open Access-or Open Science?
Author information: (1)European Molecular Biology Organization, Heidelberg, Germany.
Open Access mandates in Europe raise the question if the priority is to reduce publishing costs, or the overdue conversion to Open Science communication. At risk are not only high‐quality journals, but also community institutions and international research collaboration.
DOI: 10.15252/embj.2018101215 PMCID: PMC6293272 PMID: 30509971 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
2. Neuron. 2017 Dec 20;96(6):1219-1222. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.11.015. Epub 2017 Dec 7.
Social Media, Open Science, and Data Science Are Inextricably Linked.
Author information: (1)Department of Cognitive Science, Neurosciences Graduate Program, Halicioglu Institute for Data Science, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093-0515, USA. Electronic address: email@example.com.
Should scientists use social media? Why practice open science? What is data science? Ten years ago, these phrases hardly existed. Now they are ubiquitous. Here I argue that these phenomena are inextricably linked and reflect similar underlying social and technological transformations.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.11.015 PMID: 29224728 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
3. Am Psychol. 2018 Feb-Mar;73(2):126-137. doi: 10.1037/amp0000197.
Can psychology walk the walk of open science?
Author information: (1)National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.
An “open science movement” is gaining traction across many disciplines within the research enterprise but is also precipitating consternation among those who worry that too much disruption may be hampering professional productivity. Despite this disruption, proponents of open data collaboration have argued that some of the biggest problems of the 21st century need to be solved with the help of many people and that data sharing will be the necessary engine to make that happen. In the United States, a national strategic plan for data sharing encouraged the federally funded scientific agencies to (a) publish open data for community use in discoverable, machine-readable, and useful ways; (b) work with public and civil society organizations to set priorities for data to be shared; (c) support innovation and feedback on open data solutions; and (d) continue efforts to release and enhance high-priority data sets funded by taxpayer dollars. One of the more visible open data projects in the psychological sciences is the presidentially announced “Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies” (BRAIN) initiative. Lessons learned from initiatives such as these are instructive both from the perspective of open science within psychology and from the perspective of understanding the psychology of open science. Recommendations for creating better pathways to “walk the walk” in open science include (a) nurturing innovation and agile learning, (b) thinking outside the paradigm, (c) creating simplicity from complexity, and (d) participating in continuous learning evidence platforms. (PsycINFO Database Record.
(c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
DOI: 10.1037/amp0000197 PMID: 29481106 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
4. Health Psychol. 2020 Sep;39(9):841-845. doi: 10.1037/hea0000924.
Toward an open mechanistic science of behavior change.
Hekler E(1), King AC(2).
Author information: (1)Center for Wireless & Population Health Systems, Qualcomm Institute. (2)Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine.
The Science of Behavior Change Network (SOBC) offers a pragmatic “experimental medicine” approach for advancing mechanisms of change regarding behavior. The key promise of the SOBC is to facilitate more effective knowledge accumulation about not only whether behavior change occurs in response to an intervention, but also how and why behavior change occurs. This work is being advanced during a time of rapid evolution on scientific best practices, particularly “open science” practices, which at their core, seek to increase the trustworthiness of science. The purpose of this commentary is to facilitate a broader discussion on opportunities and challenges involved with conducting mechanistic science related to behavior change (i.e., SOBC) via open science practices. The 10 studies published in this special issue highlight the considerable complexity involved in a mechanistic science of behavior change. Conducting this type of science will require a rich, multifaceted “team science” approach that can match that level of complexity, while constantly striving toward being as straightforward or as simple as possible, no simpler. Effective open science practices, which involve the sharing of resources whenever possible, can facilitate this type of team science. Moving to this new future would benefit from careful shifts in our scientific culture and financial models toward better supporting team and open science. In addition, there is also need for continued advancements in methods and infrastructure that can support the inherent complexities involved in advancing a mechanistic science of behavior change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
DOI: 10.1037/hea0000924 PMID: 32833485 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Sep 29;117(39):24154-24164. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1921320117. Epub 2020 Sep 14.
Open science, communal culture, and women’s participation in the movement to improve science.
Murphy MC(1), Mejia AF(2), Mejia J(3), Yan X(4), Cheryan S(5), Dasgupta N(6), Destin M(7)(8)(9), Fryberg SA(10), Garcia JA(11), Haines EL(12), Harackiewicz JM(13), Ledgerwood A(14), Moss-Racusin CA(15), Park LE(16), Perry SP(7)(8)(17), Ratliff KA(18), Rattan A(19), Sanchez DT(20), Savani K(21), Sekaquaptewa D(10), Smith JL(22)(23), Taylor VJ(24)(25), Thoman DB(26), Wout DA(27), Mabry PL(28), Ressl S(29)(30), Diekman AB(31), Pestilli F(31)(32).
Author information: (1)Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405; firstname.lastname@example.org. (2)Department of Statistics, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47408. (3)Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405. (4)Network Science Institute, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47408. (5)Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. (6)Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003. (7)Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. (8)Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. (9)School of Education & Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. (10)Department of Psychology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. (11)Department of Psychology and Child Development, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407. (12)Department of Psychology, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ 07470. (13)Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706. (14)Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. (15)Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866. (16)Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. (17)Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northeastern University, Evanston, IL 60208. (18)Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. (19)Organisational Behaviour, London Business School, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom. (20)Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854. (21)Leadership, Management & Organisation, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798. (22)Office of Research, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80918. (23)Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80918. (24)Department of Psychology, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015. (25)Africana Studies, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015. (26)Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182. (27)Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, NY 10019. (28)Research Division, HealthPartners Institute, Bloomington, MN 55425. (29)Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405. (30)Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. (31)Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405. (32)Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change-in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices-provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.
Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1921320117 PMCID: PMC7533847 PMID: 32929006 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no competing interest.
6. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;13(4):439-447. doi: 10.1177/1745691618767878.
Open Science Is Liberating and Can Foster Creativity.
Frankenhuis WE(1), Nettle D(2).
Author information: (1)1 Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University. (2)2 Centre for Behaviour and Evolution and Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University.
Some scholars think that Open Science practices constrain researchers in ways that reduce their creativity, arguing, for instance, that preregistration discourages data exploration and so stifles discovery. In this article, we argue the opposite: Open Science practices are liberating and can foster creativity. Open Science practices are liberating because they (a) enable us to explore data transparently and comfortably; (b) reward quality, which is under our control, rather than outcomes, which are not; and (c) reduce the choke hold of needing to find “positive” results for career advancement. Open Science practices can foster creativity because they cultivate an open and flexible mind-set, create a more collaborative and constructive climate, and generate more accurate information and make it more accessible. In sum, Open Science liberates researchers more than it constrains them.
DOI: 10.1177/1745691618767878 PMCID: PMC6041740 PMID: 29961408 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
Conflict of interest statement: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.