Tag Archives: transparency

Getting the idea of transparency all wrong

Following an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which portrayed scientists who re-use data as parasites, we now hear more on this from Nature. Apparently, data transparency is a menace to the public. The Nature comment “Don’t let transparency damage science” claims that the research community must protect authors from harassment by replicators. The piece further infects the discussion about openness with more absurd ideas that don’t reflect reality, and it leads the discussion backwards, not forward. 
Continue reading

Tagged , ,

Don’t review articles that withhold data

Screen Shot 2016-01-16 at 19.55.22Journal editors can enforce replication policies. Authors can decide to work transparently. Most initiatives for open science and reproducibility agree that editors and authors are  are the key actors to enforce the gold standard of research integrity. However, peer-reviewers can use their leverage as well: just say you will only review an article once the author provides the data.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,

Reproducible Research in Biomedical Science – We’re not there yet

Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 11.16.38A new PLoS Biol aper on reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature examines if authors provide all data, code and funding information. The results are devastating.

Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Political Scientists Trying to Delay Research Transparency

A group of 625 political scientists signed a petition to delay the new APSA guidelines for transparency. They want to discuss the implications for qualitative data, hand-written field notes and confidential data first. I agree that practical discussions are necessary – but this should not be a reason to abandon the transparency guidelines.
Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Open peer review: What are the benefits and pitfalls?

Should journals publish review reports alongside a paper? At the meeting “The future of scholarly scientific communication” at the Royal Society it seemed that there is a general agreement: yes – we need more transparency. However, opinions were divided if reviewers’ names should be published as well.

Continue reading

Tagged , ,

Share your replication: Political Science Replication Initiative

Screen Shot 2014-08-29 at 5.56.57 PMEarlier this year, we sent out a survey on replication in political science to the Political Methodology (PolMeth) mailing list. Our survey results, which we wrote up in a post on the Monkey Cage blog, indicated quite a bit of interest in a site to share replication studies.
Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Against publication bias: Politics journal invites pre-registered papers

After fields like Psychology have explored pre-registration of studies, now Political Science follows the trend for more transparency in research. A high ranking journal, Comparative Political Studies, plans a special issue in which all papers have to be pre-registered and are submitted without the results section. I asked Michael Findley, one of the editors behind the initative, about publication bias and transparency in the field. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , ,