Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorD. V. M. Bishopen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-04T03:49:04Z
dc.date.available2016-07-04T03:49:04Z
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.identifier.otherHPU4160390en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://lib.hpu.edu.vn/handle/123456789/21907
dc.description.abstractThe Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative (PROI) is a move to enlist reviewers in the promotion of data-sharing. In this commentary, I discuss objections that can be raised, first to the specific proposals in the PROI, and second to data-sharing in general. I argue that although many objections have strong counter-arguments, others merit more serious consideration. Regarding the PROI, I suggest that it could backfire if editors and authors feel coerced into data-sharing and so may not be the most pragmatic way of encouraging greater openness. More generally, while promoting data-sharing, we need to be sensitive to cases where sharing of data from human participants could create ethical problems. Furthermore, those interested in promoting reproducible science need to defend against an increased risk of data-dredging when large, multivariable datasets are shared. I end with some suggestions to avoid these unintended consequences.en_US
dc.format.extent6 p.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectPsychologyen_US
dc.subjectCognitive neuroscienceen_US
dc.subjectNeuroscienceen_US
dc.subjectPsychologyen_US
dc.subjectHealthen_US
dc.subjectDiseaseen_US
dc.subjectEpidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectData-sharingen_US
dc.subjectReproducibilityen_US
dc.subjectData-dredging, Ethicsen_US
dc.titleOpen research practicesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.size417KBen_US
dc.departmentEducationen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record