An Open Science Peer Review Oath

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Aleksic, Jelena, Alexa, Adrian, Attwood, Teresa K, Chue Hong, Neil, Dahlö, Martin, Davey, Robert, Dinkel, Holger, Förstner, Konrad U, Grigorov, Ivo, Hériché, Jean-Karim, Lahti, Leo, MacLean, Dan, Markie, Michael L, Molloy, Jenny, Schneider, Maria Victoria, Scott, Camille, Smith-Unna, Richard, Vieira, Bruno Miguel
Format:	Online
Language:	English
Published:	F1000Research 2015
Online Access:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304228/

id	pubmed-4304228
recordtype	oai_dc
spelling	pubmed-43042282015-02-03 An Open Science Peer Review Oath Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel Research Note 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. F1000Research 2015-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4304228/ /pubmed/25653839 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Aleksic J et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ 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).
repository_type	Open Access Journal
institution_category	Foreign Institution
institution	US National Center for Biotechnology Information
building	NCBI PubMed
collection	Online Access
language	English
format	Online
author	Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel
spellingShingle	Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel An Open Science Peer Review Oath
author_facet	Aleksic, Jelena Alexa, Adrian Attwood, Teresa K Chue Hong, Neil Dahlö, Martin Davey, Robert Dinkel, Holger Förstner, Konrad U Grigorov, Ivo Hériché, Jean-Karim Lahti, Leo MacLean, Dan Markie, Michael L Molloy, Jenny Schneider, Maria Victoria Scott, Camille Smith-Unna, Richard Vieira, Bruno Miguel
author_sort	Aleksic, Jelena
title	An Open Science Peer Review Oath
title_short	An Open Science Peer Review Oath
title_full	An Open Science Peer Review Oath
title_fullStr	An Open Science Peer Review Oath
title_full_unstemmed	An Open Science Peer Review Oath
title_sort	open science peer review oath
description	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.
publisher	F1000Research
publishDate	2015
url	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304228/
_version_	1613180062078599168

An Open Science Peer Review Oath

Similar Items