Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science
Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.02.007
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Cascio, Wayne F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aguinis, Herman;Banks, George C.;Cascio, Wayne F.
促进开放科学实践的努力在很大程度上是出于减少可疑研究实践（QRP）的需要。有充分的证据表明 QRP 具有腐蚀性，因为它们使研究变得不透明，从而挑战所产生的科学知识的可信度、可信度和有用性。基于无法复制的假阳性结果的文献不仅在科学上具有误导性，而且对于任何想要运用知识的人来说也是毫无价值的。那么，一个问题就出现了：为什么这些 QRP 仍然如此普遍，为什么科学知识的守门人，例如期刊编辑、审稿人、资助机构小组成员以及负责期刊政策的专业组织的董事会成员似乎没有对 QRP 采取果断行动？我们通过使用科学与实践差距类比来确定开放科学中科学与实践差距的存在来解决这些问题。具体来说，尽管关于如何减少 QRP 有大量研究，但许多把关者并没有在实践中采用这些知识。根据有关更普遍的科学与实践差距和 QRP 的文献，我们提供了 10 条可操作的建议，以缩小开放科学中特定的科学与实践差距。我们的建议不需要太多的努力、时间和财力。重要的是，他们明确了解了各种研究生产利益相关者（即作者和看门人）所获得的利益。通过将开放科学研究的发现转化为“研究实践者”的可行建议，我们希望鼓励更加透明、可信和可重复的研究，这些研究可以被研究的消费者信任和使用。
Efforts to promote open-science practices are, to a large extent, driven by a need to reduce questionable research practices (QRPs). There is ample evidence that QRPs are corrosive because they make research opaque and therefore challenge the credibility, trustworthiness, and usefulness of the scientific knowledge that is produced. A literature based on false-positive results that will not replicate is not only scientifically misleading but also worthless for anyone who wants to put knowledge to use. So, a question then arises: Why are these QRPs still so pervasive and why do gatekeepers of scientific knowledge such as journal editors, reviewers, funding-agency panel members, and board members of professional organizations in charge of journal policies not seem to be taking decisive actions about QRPs? We address these questions by using a science-practice gap analogy to identify the existence of a science-practice gap in open science. Specifically, although there is abundant research on how to reduce QRPs, many gatekeepers are not adopting this knowledge in their practices. Drawing upon the literatures on the more general science-practice gap and QRPs, we offer 10 actionable recommendations for narrowing the specific science-practice gap in open science. Our recommendations require little effort, time, and financial resources. Importantly, they are explicit about the resulting benefits for the various research-production stakeholders (i.e., authors and gatekeepers). By translating findings on open-science research into actionable recommendations for "practitioners of research", we hope to encourage more transparent, credible, and reproducible research that can be trusted and used by consumers of that research.