Can the peer-review code of conduct be an effective mechanism to boost uptake of best practices in Reproducibility & Transparency of research results?
Reviewers are rarely asked to push research authors for greater access to primary research data, secondary data products and model code that underpins the findings (as long as they adhere to minimum rigor of the scientific interpretation and argument).
Journal editors and publishers are concerned that such extra responsibilities will create a burden for reviewers, and the latter will not assist in the process of publishing quality research.
Is this, however a false economy in the long-run? The cost being loss of reproducibility, re-use of data and code, less than optimal engagement of citizen science and crowd sourcing collective intelligence.
To facilitate the change of attitudes, "The Open Science Peer-Reviewers' Oath" was drafted and published in F1000Research, and covered by The Economist online edition.
Aleksic et al., (2014). The Open Science Peer Review Oath. F1000Research
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21642363-quality-control-process-science-publishing-evolving-code-ethics-hot-pursuit-oath
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2
Royal Society has launched the Peer-Reviewers' Openness (PRO) Initiative https://opennessinitiative.org/ outlining the synergies between Open Science and peer-review: " openness and transparency are core values of science... and the power to create that change lies in the peer-review process".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioscience