1 / 2

QRP’s prevented more easily No more excuses Mistakes discovered quickly

Open Science Framework The Pro’s and Cons of Sharing Data Muriel S. Lawerman & Jacqueline N. Zadelaar Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam. Introduction.

vincent-cabrera
Download Presentation

QRP’s prevented more easily No more excuses Mistakes discovered quickly

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Open Science FrameworkThe Pro’s and Cons of Sharing DataMuriel S. Lawerman & Jacqueline N. ZadelaarDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam Introduction Data sharing; Open Science Framework (OSF) makes it easier. OSF is an online platform for sharing, finding and updating data. This data is open for anyone to see! It supports workflow and helps increase the alignment between scientific values and practices. But is it really a good idea if ALL DATA is open for anyone? Pro Con • Ethical problems • Privacy problems • Dangerous research • Not desirable to share expensive data • Doesn’t prevent data fabrication • QRP’s prevented more easily • No more excuses • Mistakes discovered quickly • Easy and cheap replication • Data-sharing across disciplines • Brining back the trust Conclusion Open Science Framework is an innovative idea that will create an open and safe environment for scientists. Unfortunately it’s not applicable to all forms of scientific research. But overall, Open Science Framework will help science progress in an uncertain world. References:Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis) reporting of statistical results in  psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 666-678 Contract: M. S. Lawerman: muriel.lawerman@student.uva.nl; J. N. Zadelaar: jacqueline.zadelaar@student.uva.nl; Diamantbeurs, Weesperplein 4, Amsterdam

  2. References: • Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis) reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 666-678. • Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science A Crisis of Confidence?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528-530. • News.sciencemag.org. Opgehaald op 5 april 2014, http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/11/scientists-brace-media-storm-around-controversial-flu-studies • Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615-631. • Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One, 6(11), e26828. Chicago • Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7), 726.

More Related