Science 357 (6348):256-257 (2017)
Authors |
|
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 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents.Christian List & Philip Pettit - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
View all 55 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
The Limitations to Our Understanding of Peer Review. [REVIEW]Tony Ross-Hellauer & Jonathan P. Tennant - 2020 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1).
The Reference Class Problem for Credit Valuation in Science.Carole J. Lee - 2020 - Philosophy of Science 87:1026-36.
Peering Into the Future of Peer Review.Kayhan Parsi & Nanette Elster - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (5):3-4.
Similar books and articles
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
How Are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6):1801-1804.
Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
Genomic Research Data: Open Vs. Restricted Access.David B. Resnik - 2010 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32 (1):1.
Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers.Lei Lei & Ying Zhang - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1409-1420.
Team Virtues and Performance: An Examination of Transparency, Behavioral Integrity, and Trust. [REVIEW]Michael E. Palanski, Surinder S. Kahai & Francis J. Yammarino - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 99 (2):201 - 216.
Is Biomedical Research Protected From Predatory Reviewers?Aceil Al-Khatib & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):293-321.
Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Lemaster & Scott R. Glisson - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):189-197.
Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication.Ehsan Roohi & Omid Mahian - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):809-812.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Publication Visibility of Sensitive Public Health Data: When Scientists Bury Their Results.David A. Rier - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):597-613.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
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 )
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