A manifesto for reproducible science

Munafò, Marcus R.; Nosek, Brian A.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.; Button, Katherine S; Chambers, Christopher D.; Sert, Nathalie Percie du; Simonsohn, Uri; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan; Ware, Jennifer; Ioannidis, John P. A.

doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Cited by 2,538 publications

(2,378 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,155

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Insufficient data documentation has often been discussed as a major obstacle for replication studies (Ioannidis et al, 2009;Peters et al, 2016;Munafò et al, 2017). A way to increase the reproducibility of research could, therefore, be the implementation and adoption of data documentation and availability policies by scientific journals and funding agencies.…”

Section: Discussion and Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access to research data has been described as a driver of innovation and a potential cure for the reproducibility crisis in many academic fields. Against this backdrop, policy makers are increasingly advocating for making research data and supporting material openly available online. Despite its potential to further scientific progress, widespread data sharing in small science is still an ideal practised in moderation. In this article, we explore the question of what drives open access to research data using a survey among 1564 mainly German researchers across all disciplines. We show that, regardless of their disciplinary background, researchers recognize the benefits of open access to research data for both their own research and scientific progress as a whole. Nonetheless, most researchers share their data only selectively. We show that individual reward considerations conflict with widespread data sharing. Based on our results, we present policy implications that are in line with both individual reward considerations and scientific progress.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our story is only one potential path because there are many ways to upgrade scientific practiceswhether collaborating only with your 'future self ' or as a team-and they depend on the shared commitment of individuals, institutions and publishers 6,16,17 . We do not review the important, ongoing work regarding data management architecture and archiving 8,18 , work flows 11,[19][20][21] , sharing and publishing data [22][23][24][25] and code [25][26][27] , or how to tackle reproducibility and openness in science [28][29][30][31][32] . Instead, we focus on our experience, because it required changing the way we had always worked, which was extraordinarily intimidating.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools

Best²,

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The “Principle of Maximum Bootstrapping” outlined by Kelty et al (2008) is highly congruent with this social ideal for peer review, where new systems are based on existing communities of expertise, quality norms, and mechanisms for review. Diversifying peer review in such a manner is an intrinsic part of a system of reproducible research ( Munafò et al , 2017). Making use of persistent identifiers such as DataCite , CrossRef , and ORCID will be essential in binding the social and technical aspects of this to an interoperable, sustainable and open scholarly infrastructure ( Dappert et al , 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

A manifesto for reproducible science

Cited by 2,538 publications

References 100 publications

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data

Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About