A Brief Reflection on Open Science

Henry Otgaar

Abstract


In the past years, the psychological community witnessed an outbreak of failures to replicate well-known psychological findings. These failures have undermined the credibility of the psychological field and have shaken the trust of practicioners and the public to psychological reseach. Some have called this period the replication crisis (e.g., Maxwell, Lau, & Howard, 2015). Others have termed this period the credibility revolution because these failures have caused psychological scientists to critically evaluate their used methodology and statistical apparatus and search for ways to improve them (e.g., Vazire, 2018). In this reflection, we give a short historical overview of important events that likely caused this credibility revolution. Furthermore, we describe a possible solution to address these failures to replicate psychological findings: Open Science. We discuss the basic idea behind Open Science and provide several recommendations for psychological scientists when designing and conducting psychological studies. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Bem, D.J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425.

Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., ... & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2019). Seven Easy Steps to Open Science. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227, 237-248. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000387

Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS One, 2, e124.

Kidwell, M.C., Lazarević, L.B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T.E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L., Kennet, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., Errington, T.M., Fiedler, S., & Nosek, B.A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biology, 14, e1002456.

Maxwell, S.E., Lau, M.Y., & Howard, G.S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487-498.

McKiernan, E.C., Bourne, P.E., Brown, C.T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B.A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C.K., Spies, J.R., Thaney, K., Updegrove, A., Woo, K.H., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800.

Nosek, B.A., Ebersole, C.R., DeHaven, A.C., & Mellor, D.T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2600-2606.

Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of science. Science, 349, aac4716.

Ritchie, S.J., Wiseman, R., & French, C.C. (2012). Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s “retroactive facilitation of recall” effect. PLoS One, 7, e33423.

Robinson, E. (2011). Not feeling the future: A failed replication of retroactive facilitation of memory recall. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 75, 142-147.

Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Pchological Science, 22, 1359-1366.

Szollosi, A., Kellen, D., Navarro, D. J., Shiffrin, R., van Rooij, I., Van Zandt, T., & Donkin, C. (2019). Is preregistration worthwhile? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,24, 94-95. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.009

Vazire, S. (2018) Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 411-417.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/proust.v3i1.85

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Henry Otgaar

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

PRoUSt secretariat:

Building B 1st Floor, Faculty of Psycology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia.

Copyright © 2019 Psychological Research on Urban Society (PRoUSt).

2615-8582 (online), 2620-3960 (print).