Science 357 (6348):256-257 (2017)

Authors
Carole J. Lee
University of Washington
Abstract
There is an increasing push by journals to ensure that data and products related to published papers are shared as part of a cultural move to promote transparency, reproducibility, and trust in the scientific literature. Yet few journals commit to evaluating their effectiveness in implementing reporting standards aimed at meeting those goals (1, 2). Similarly, though the vast majority of journals endorse peer review as an approach to ensure trust in the literature, few make their peer review data available to evaluate effectiveness toward achieving concrete measures of quality, including consistency and completeness in meeting reporting standards. Remedying these apparent disconnects is critical for closing the gap between guidance recommendations and actual reporting behavior. We see this as a collective action problem requiring leadership and investment by publishers, who can be incentivized through mechanisms that allow them to manage reputational risk and through continued innovation in journal assessment.
Keywords transparency  openness  reproducibility  Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,467
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Confutation of Convergent Realism.Larry Laudan - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (1):19-49.
Alief and Belief.Tamar Szabó Gendler - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (10):634-663.

View all 55 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Peering Into the Future of Peer Review.Kayhan Parsi & Nanette Elster - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (5):3-4.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
How Are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6):1801-1804.
Genomic Research Data: Open Vs. Restricted Access.David B. Resnik - 2010 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32 (1):1.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-05-02

Total views
15 ( #654,415 of 2,421,246 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #351,445 of 2,421,246 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes