Blog
About

85
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Signaling the trustworthiness of science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Trust in science increases when scientists and the outlets certifying their work honor science’s norms. Scientists often fail to signal to other scientists and, perhaps more importantly, the public that these norms are being upheld. They could do so as they generate, certify, and react to each other’s findings: for example, by promoting the use and value of evidence, transparent reporting, self-correction, replication, a culture of critique, and controls for bias. A number of approaches for authors and journals would lead to more effective signals of trustworthiness at the article level. These include article badging, checklists, a more extensive withdrawal ontology, identity verification, better forward linking, and greater transparency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

          There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known.

               N L Kerr (1997)
              This article considers a practice in scientific communication termed HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one's results) in one's research report as i f it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses. Several forms of HARKing are identified and survey data are presented that suggests that at least some forms of HARKing are widely practiced and widely seen as inappropriate. I identify several reasons why scientists might HARK. Then I discuss several reasons why scientists ought not to HARK. It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing ' s costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate. To help stimulate such discussion (and for those such as myself who suspect that HARKing's costs do exceed its benefits), I conclude the article with some suggestions for deterring HARKing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                24 September 2019
                23 September 2019
                23 September 2019
                : 116
                : 39
                : 19231-19236
                Affiliations
                aAnnenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA 19104;
                bNational Academy of Sciences , Washington, DC 20001;
                cPublic Library of Science , San Francisco, CA 94111;
                dCold Spring Harbor Laboratory , Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: naspresident@ 123456nas.edu .

                Edited by Susan Hanson, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and approved August 15, 2019 (received for review July 29, 2019)

                Author contributions: K.H.J., M.M., and R.S. organized the workshop that led to the framing of the concepts presented here; K.H.J., M.M., V.K., and R.S. designed research; K.H.J. performed research; K.H.J. analyzed data; M.M. wrote the first draft, V.K. made substantial edits, and K.H.J. wrote the final, condensed version; and authorship order was determined by coin flip.

                Article
                201913039
                10.1073/pnas.1913039116
                6765233
                31548409
                Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Product
                Categories
                Perspective
                Social Sciences
                Social Sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article