IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/du8tj.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible

Author

Listed:
  • Vuong, Quan-Hoang

Abstract

A growing awareness of the lack of reproducibility has undermined society’s trust and esteem in social sciences. In some cases, well-known results have been fabricated or the underlying data have turned out to have weak technical foundations.

Suggested Citation

  • Vuong, Quan-Hoang, 2017. "Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible," OSF Preprints du8tj, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:du8tj
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/du8tj
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5d67e12172151000199c5e13/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/du8tj?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Van Noorden, 2013. "Company offers portable peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7436), pages 161-161, February.
    2. Declan Butler, 2017. "Gates Foundation announces open-access publishing venture," Nature, Nature, vol. 543(7647), pages 599-599, March.
    3. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    4. repec:pal:palcom:v:2016:y:2016:i:palcomms201617:p:16017- is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Gabriele Bammer, 2016. "What constitutes appropriate peer review for interdisciplinary research?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-5, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    2. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    3. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    5. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    7. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    8. Baltussen, Guido & Swinkels, Laurens & Van Vliet, Pim, 2021. "Global factor premiums," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(3), pages 1128-1154.
    9. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    11. Fecher, Benedikt & Fräßdorf, Mathis & Hebing, Marcel & Wagner, Gert G., 2017. "Replikationen, Reputation und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 68(2-3), pages 154-158.
    12. Ádám Kun, 2018. "Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.
    13. Andrea Saltelli & Monica Fiore, 2020. "From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    14. Schweinsberg, Martin & Feldman, Michael & Staub, Nicola & van den Akker, Olmo R. & van Aert, Robbie C.M. & van Assen, Marcel A.L.M. & Liu, Yang & Althoff, Tim & Heer, Jeffrey & Kale, Alex & Mohamed, Z, 2021. "Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 228-249.
    15. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    16. Bammer, Gabriele, 2018. "Strengthening community operational research through exchange of tools and strategic alliances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1168-1177.
    17. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria, 2018. "Dissertation R.C.M. van Aert," MetaArXiv eqhjd, Center for Open Science.
    18. Francisco Rowe & Gunther Maier & Daniel Arribas-Bel & Sergio Rey, 2020. "The Potential of Notebooks for Scientific Publication, Reproducibility and Dissemination," REGION, European Regional Science Association, vol. 7, pages 1-5.
    19. Christoph Semken & David Rossell, 2022. "Specification analysis for technology use and teenager well‐being: Statistical validity and a Bayesian proposal," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1330-1355, November.
    20. Oliver Braganza, 2018. "Proxyeconomics, the inevitable corruption of proxy-based competition," Papers 1803.00345, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:du8tj. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.