IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency

Author

Listed:
  • Mallory C Kidwell
  • Ljiljana B Lazarević
  • Erica Baranski
  • Tom E Hardwicke
  • Sarah Piechowski
  • Lina-Sophia Falkenberg
  • Curtis Kennett
  • Agnieszka Slowik
  • Carina Sonnleitner
  • Chelsey Hess-Holden
  • Timothy M Errington
  • Susann Fiedler
  • Brian A Nosek

Abstract

Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.Badges that acknowledge open practices significantly increase sharing of reported data and materials, as well as subsequent accessibility, correctness, usability, and completeness.Author Summary: Openness is a core value of scientific practice. The sharing of research materials and data facilitates critique, extension, and application within the scientific community, yet current norms provide few incentives for researchers to share evidence underlying scientific claims. In January 2014, the journal Psychological Science adopted such an incentive by offering “badges” to acknowledge and signal open practices in publications. In this study, we evaluated the effect that two types of badges—Open Data badges and Open Materials badges—have had on reported data and material sharing, as well as on the actual availability, correctness, usability, and completeness of those data and materials both in Psychological Science and in four comparison journals. We report an increase in reported data sharing of more than an order of magnitude from baseline in Psychological Science, as well as an increase in reported materials sharing, although to a weaker degree. Moreover, we show that reportedly available data and materials were more accessible, correct, usable, and complete when badges were earned. We demonstrate that badges are effective incentives that improve the openness, accessibility, and persistence of data and materials that underlie scientific research.

Suggested Citation

  • Mallory C Kidwell & Ljiljana B Lazarević & Erica Baranski & Tom E Hardwicke & Sarah Piechowski & Lina-Sophia Falkenberg & Curtis Kennett & Agnieszka Slowik & Carina Sonnleitner & Chelsey Hess-Holden &, 2016. "Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002456
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pbio00:1002456. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.