The (R)evolution of Open Science
The importance of being able to reproduce findings and to replicate studies are the hallmarks of sound scientific practice. Over the past decade, the failure to replicate and reproduce famous studies in Psychology have sparked concern and calls for reform in how researchers practice science. In addition, psychologists are concerned that the practice of science has been open to too few and that the dispersion of scientific findings is too limited. Who practices science and who benefits from science also have a bearing on its credibility among the general public. Scientific practice has been considered to be too 'closed,' thereby thwarting the ability of others to confirm or contest scientific findings and to support or question scientific agendas.
In response, researchers are now promoting a series of practices collectively known as Open Science to improve the practice of science. Additionally, having recognized its potential and value in this regard, the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota has included the adoption and implementation of Open Science practices as an initiative in their strategic plan. This article is the second of three articles in our series "The (R)evolution of Open Science," which seeks to further delve into this impactful movement.
Nate Helwig, PhD explains why R is so important to the Open Science movement and the field of psychology. Read more in our featured article.
Moin Syed, PhD shares his thoughts on the Open Science scholarly movement and the importance of the core principles and behaviors of making research transparent, credible, reproducible, and accessible. Read more in our featured article.
