The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review

Richard D. Morey*, Christopher D. Chambers, Peter J. Etchells, Christine R. Harris, Rink Hoekstra, Daniël Lakens, Stephan Lewandowsky, Candice Coker Morey, Daniel P. Newman, Felix D. Schönbrodt, Wolf Vanpaemel, Eric Jan Wagenmakers, Rolf A. Zwaan

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

83 Citations (Scopus)
400 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number150547
Number of pages7
JournalRoyal Society Open Science
Volume3
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Jan 2016

Structured keywords

  • Memory

Keywords

  • Open research
  • Peer review
  • Science
  • Transparency

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this