Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Jan 13;3(1):150547.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.150547. eCollection 2016 Jan.

The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review

Richard D Morey  1 , Christopher D Chambers  1 , Peter J Etchells  2 , Christine R Harris  3 , Rink Hoekstra  4 , Daniël Lakens  5 , Stephan Lewandowsky  6 , Candice Coker Morey  7 , Daniel P Newman  8 , Felix D Schönbrodt  9 , Wolf Vanpaemel  10 , Eric-Jan Wagenmakers  11 , Rolf A Zwaan  12
Affiliations
Review

The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review

Richard D Morey et al. R Soc Open Sci. .

Abstract

Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism-reviewers withholding comprehensive review-to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle.

Keywords: open research; peer review; science; transparency.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Merton RK. 1942. A note on science and democracy. J. Legal Political Sociol. 1, 115–126.
    1. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2009. On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd edn Washington, DC: National Academies Press. - PubMed
    1. The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. 2012. Science as an open enterprise. London, UK: Royal Society.
    1. Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences, National Research Council. 2003. Sharing publication-related data and materials: responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. - PubMed
    1. Wicherts JM. 2013. Science revolves around the data. J. Open Psychol. Data 1, 1–4. (doi:10.5334/jopd.e1) - DOI

LinkOut - more resources