IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v15y2022i4p495-515_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice

Author

Listed:
  • Guzzo, Richard A.
  • Schneider, Benjamin
  • Nalbantian, Haig R.

Abstract

This paper advocates for the value of open science in many areas of research. However, after briefly reviewing the fundamental principles underlying open science practices and their use and justification, the paper identifies four incompatibilities between those principles and scientific progress through applied research. The incompatibilities concern barriers to sharing and disclosure, limitations and deficiencies of overidentifying with hypothetico-deductive methods of inference, the paradox of replication efforts resulting in less robust findings, and changes to the professional research and publication culture such that it will narrow in favor of a specific style of research. Seven recommendations are presented to maximize the value of open science while minimizing its adverse effects on the advancement of science in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Guzzo, Richard A. & Schneider, Benjamin & Nalbantian, Haig R., 2022. "Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 495-515, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:15:y:2022:i:4:p:495-515_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S175494262200061X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:inorps:v:15:y:2022:i:4:p:495-515_1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    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.