开放科学,封闭的门:开放科学在实践中研究的危险和潜力

IF 11.5 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Richard A. Guzzo, B. Schneider, Haig R. Nalbantian
{"title":"开放科学,封闭的门:开放科学在实践中研究的危险和潜力","authors":"Richard A. Guzzo, B. Schneider, Haig R. Nalbantian","doi":"10.1017/iop.2022.61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"15 1","pages":"495 - 515"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice\",\"authors\":\"Richard A. Guzzo, B. Schneider, Haig R. Nalbantian\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/iop.2022.61\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"495 - 515\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.61\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.61","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

摘要本文倡导开放科学在许多研究领域的价值。然而,在简要回顾了开放科学实践的基本原则及其使用和理由后,本文确定了这些原则与应用研究的科学进步之间的四个不相容之处。不兼容性涉及共享和披露的障碍、过度认同假设-演绎推理方法的局限性和不足、复制努力导致研究结果不那么有力的悖论,以及专业研究和出版文化的变化,使其缩小范围,支持特定的研究风格。提出了七项建议,以最大限度地提高开放科学的价值,同时最大限度地减少其在实践中对科学进步的不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
10.10%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice is a peer-reviewed academic journal published on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The journal focuses on interactive exchanges on topics of importance to the science and practice of the field. It features articles that present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas, stimulating dialogue about important issues in the field. Additionally, the journal is indexed and abstracted in Clarivate Analytics SSCI, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS), ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Scopus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信