An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf]
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | F1000Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v2 |
| _version_ | 1819295449922666496 |
|---|---|
| author | Jelena Aleksic Adrian Alexa Teresa K Attwood Neil Chue Hong Martin Dahlö Robert Davey Holger Dinkel Konrad U Förstner Ivo Grigorov Jean-Karim Hériché Leo Lahti Dan MacLean Michael L Markie Jenny Molloy Maria Victoria Schneider Camille Scott Richard Smith-Unna Bruno Miguel Vieira as part of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop |
| author_facet | Jelena Aleksic Adrian Alexa Teresa K Attwood Neil Chue Hong Martin Dahlö Robert Davey Holger Dinkel Konrad U Förstner Ivo Grigorov Jean-Karim Hériché Leo Lahti Dan MacLean Michael L Markie Jenny Molloy Maria Victoria Schneider Camille Scott Richard Smith-Unna Bruno Miguel Vieira as part of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop |
| author_sort | Jelena Aleksic |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T04:42:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c894218a346748488ce3d48233090bd8 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2046-1402 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T04:42:24Z |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | F1000Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-c894218a346748488ce3d48233090bd82022-12-21T17:14:47ZengF1000 Research LtdF1000Research2046-14022015-01-01310.12688/f1000research.5686.26351An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf]Jelena Aleksic0Adrian Alexa1Teresa K Attwood2Neil Chue Hong3Martin Dahlö4Robert Davey5Holger Dinkel6Konrad U Förstner7Ivo Grigorov8Jean-Karim Hériché9Leo Lahti10Dan MacLean11Michael L Markie12Jenny Molloy13Maria Victoria Schneider14Camille Scott15Richard Smith-Unna16Bruno Miguel Vieira17as part of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice WorkshopWellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1QR, UKDNAdigest, Cambridge, UKUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UKSoftware Sustainability Institute, Edinburgh, UKScience for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SwedenThe Genome Analysis Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UKEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, GermanyCore Unit Systems Medicine, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, GermanyDTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark, Charlottenlund 2920, DenmarkEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, GermanyOpen Knowledge Finland - Open Science Work Group, Helsinki, FinlandThe Sainsbury Laboratory, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UKF1000Research, London, UKDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKThe Genome Analysis Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UKMichigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USADepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UKOne 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.http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v2Publishing & Peer Review |
| spellingShingle | Jelena Aleksic Adrian Alexa Teresa K Attwood Neil Chue Hong Martin Dahlö Robert Davey Holger Dinkel Konrad U Förstner Ivo Grigorov Jean-Karim Hériché Leo Lahti Dan MacLean Michael L Markie Jenny Molloy Maria Victoria Schneider Camille Scott Richard Smith-Unna Bruno Miguel Vieira as part of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf] F1000Research Publishing & Peer Review |
| title | An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf] |
| title_full | An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf] |
| title_fullStr | An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf] |
| title_full_unstemmed | An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf] |
| title_short | An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf] |
| title_sort | open science peer review oath v2 ref status indexed http f1000r es 4wf |
| topic | Publishing & Peer Review |
| url | http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jelenaaleksic anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT adrianalexa anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT teresakattwood anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT neilchuehong anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT martindahlo anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT robertdavey anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT holgerdinkel anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT konraduforstner anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT ivogrigorov anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT jeankarimheriche anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT leolahti anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT danmaclean anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT michaellmarkie anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT jennymolloy anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT mariavictoriaschneider anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT camillescott anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT richardsmithunna anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT brunomiguelvieira anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT aspartoftheallbioopensciencereproducibilitybestpracticeworkshop anopensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT jelenaaleksic opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT adrianalexa opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT teresakattwood opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT neilchuehong opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT martindahlo opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT robertdavey opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT holgerdinkel opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT konraduforstner opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT ivogrigorov opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT jeankarimheriche opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT leolahti opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT danmaclean opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT michaellmarkie opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT jennymolloy opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT mariavictoriaschneider opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT camillescott opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT richardsmithunna opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT brunomiguelvieira opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf AT aspartoftheallbioopensciencereproducibilitybestpracticeworkshop opensciencepeerreviewoathv2refstatusindexedhttpf1000res4wf |