Letting the daylight in

Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science

J.M. Wicherts, R.A. Kievit, M. Bakker, D. Borsboom

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

202 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses.
Original languageEnglish
Article number20
JournalFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience
Volume6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Cite this

@article{5564a19344d54d138d437373d4d331bd,
title = "Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science",
abstract = "With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses.",
author = "J.M. Wicherts and R.A. Kievit and M. Bakker and D. Borsboom",
note = ">2000 woorden",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.3389/fncom.2012.00020",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience",
issn = "1662-5188",
publisher = "Frontiers Media S.A.",

}

Letting the daylight in : Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. / Wicherts, J.M.; Kievit, R.A.; Bakker, M.; Borsboom, D.

In: Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Vol. 6, 20, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Letting the daylight in

T2 - Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science

AU - Wicherts, J.M.

AU - Kievit, R.A.

AU - Bakker, M.

AU - Borsboom, D.

N1 - >2000 woorden

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses.

AB - With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses.

U2 - 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020

DO - 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

JF - Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

SN - 1662-5188

M1 - 20

ER -