60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Open Science Peer Review Oath

      research-article

      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

          One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. Future incarnations of the various national Research Excellence Frameworks (REFs) will evolve away from simple citations towards measurable societal value and impact. The proposed manifesto aspires to facilitate this goal by making transparency, reproducibility and citizen-scientist engagement (with the knowledge-creation and dissemination processes) the default parameters for performing sound research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

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

          The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science

          Open data leads to better science, but overcoming the barriers to widespread publication and availability of open scientific data requires a community effort. The Open Knowledge Foundation Open Data in Science Working Group describes their role in this movement.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Sorting out the FACS: a devil in the details.

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

              Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

              Background The purpose and effectiveness of peer review is currently a subject of hot debate, as is the need for greater openness and transparency in the conduct of clinical trials. Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality. Discussion The aims of peer review are poorly defined, with no evidence that it works and no established way to provide training. However, despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness, evidence-based medicine, which directly informs patient care, depends on the system of peer review. The current system applies the same process to all fields of research and all study designs. While the volume of available health related information is vast, there is no consistent means for the lay person to judge its quality or trustworthiness. Some types of research, such as randomized controlled trials, may lend themselves to a more specialized form of peer review where training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation is provided to individuals who peer review randomized controlled trials. Any randomized controlled trial peer reviewed by such a trained peer reviewer could then have a searchable ‘quality assurance’ symbol attached to the published articles and any published peer reviewer reports, thereby providing some guidance to the lay person seeking to inform themselves about their own health or medical treatment. Summary Specialization, training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation in peer review, coupled with a quality assurance symbol for the lay person, could address some of the current limitations of peer review for randomized controlled trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000Research
                F1000Research (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                12 November 2014
                2014
                : 3
                : 271
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1QR, UK
                [2 ]DNAdigest, Cambridge, UK
                [3 ]University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [4 ]Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [5 ]The Genome Analysis Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK
                [6 ]European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
                [7 ]Core Unit Systems Medicine, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
                [8 ]DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark, Charlottenlund 2920, Denmark
                [9 ]Software Sustainability Institute, Edinburgh, UK
                [10 ]Open Knowledge Finland - Open Science Work Group, Helsinki, Finland
                [11 ]The Sainsbury Laboratory, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK
                [12 ]F1000Research, London, UK
                [13 ]Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [14 ]Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
                [15 ]Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [16 ]School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [1 ]Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                The Sainsbury Laboratory, UK
                [1 ]Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
                The Sainsbury Laboratory, UK
                [1 ]Equipe de Neuro-Immunogénétique Moléculaire (ENIGM), Bâtiment CNRS, IPBS CNRS Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
                The Sainsbury Laboratory, UK
                [1 ]School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
                F1000Research, UK
                [1 ]Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA
                The Sainsbury Laboratory, UK
                Author notes

                Dan Maclean, Ivo Grigorov, Michael Markie, Teresa Attwood, Konrad Förstner, Jean-Karim Heriche and Neil Chue Hong conceived and designed the oath and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All the other authors in the working group were involved in the revision of the draft manuscript and have agreed to the final content.

                Competing interests: MM is currently employed by F1000Research. His role at the journal does not include any involvement in the pre-publication editorial checks, or with the refereeing process.

                Competing interests: I am a Section Editor for the Journal of Immunology

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: I am the associate publisher of F1000Research.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.5686.1
                4304228
                c00d0e92-0661-46a0-8598-d0ab2f206184
                Copyright: © 2014 Aleksic J et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

                History
                : 7 November 2014
                Funding
                Funded by: ALLBIO - Broadening the Bioinformatics Infrastructure to unicellular, animal, and plant science
                Award ID: Project reference: 289452
                Award ID: Funded under: FP7-KBBE
                Funded by: The Genome Analysis Centre (TGAC, Norwich, UK)
                Funded by: the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, UK)
                Funded by: FP7 FOSTER
                Award ID: 612 425
                ALLBIO - Broadening the Bioinformatics Infrastructure to unicellular, animal, and plant science, Project reference: 289452, Funded under: FP7-KBBE. We would also like to thank The Genome Analysis Centre (TGAC, Norwich, UK) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, UK). IG was funded by FP7 FOSTER (Grant 612 425).
                Categories
                Research Note
                Articles
                Publishing & Peer Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article