A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
Patrick Dunleavy argues that there have already been three false starts in open science: focusing only on isolated bits of the open agenda in ways that don’t connect and so are not meaningful; loading researchers with off-putting, external bureaucratic requirements; and risking reopening ‘sectarian’ divides between quantitative and qualitative social scientists.
Starting on Jan. 25, 2023, many of the 2,500 institutions and 300,000 researchers that the U.S. National Institutes of Health supports will need to provide a formal, detailed plan for publicly sharing the data generated by their research.
The Association of Research Libraries has named North Carolina State open knowledge librarian to head a pilot program, Accelerating the Social Impact of Research.
Join the American Psychological Association for a free webinar on April 26, 2021. Improvements in the openness, rigor, and reproducibility […]
A new article in PS: Political Science & Politics analyses psychological science in the aftermath of a “replication crisis” and “credibility revolution” and explicitly examines “what social scientists can learn from this story.”
By looking at the evolving history of the open government data movement, scientists can see both limitations to current approaches and identify ways to move forward from them.
While the dominant model of open access using article processing charges lowers financial barriers for readers, it has erected a new paywall at the other end of the pipeline, blocking access to publication for less-privileged authors.
Calls to align incentives in academia to promote open research practices are not new. However, in recent years research funders are increasingly implementing policies and schemes designed to promote open science practices amongst researchers. In this post, Maria Cruz and Hans de Jonge outline details of the Dutch Research Council’s (NWO) new Open Science Fund, which they suggest is the natural next step towards a culture of open science in Dutch research.
A key political driver of open access and open science policies has been the potential economic benefits that they could deliver to public and private knowledge users. However, the empirical evidence for these claims is rarely substantiated. In this post Michael Fell, discusses how open research can lead to economic benefits and suggests that if these benefits are to be more widely realized, future open research policies should focus on developing research discovery, translation and the capacity for research utilization outside of the academy.
The ‘replication crisis’ certainly is uncomfortable for many scientists whose work gets undercut, and the rate of failures may currently be unacceptably high. But psychologist and statistician Eric Loken argues that confronting the replication crisis is good for science as a whole.
Elie Diner presents arguments for and against sharing research presentations online, arguing that sharing research presentations should be seen as part of the mainstream of open scholarship and is a natural way for academics to present their preliminary findings.
Making data available for other researchers to find, use, reuse, ultimately makes research more efficient and effective. Yet despite policies that encourage and require data sharing, researchers in the UK and US report lower percentages of data sharing than average. Grace Baynes suggests researchers be given incentives, expert support, and training to make it easy to share data.
