Writing the introduction to the text

[JohnEpisteme]

Hi all,

Wanted to post this issue since 1. I intended to do this anyway and 2. I might not be available for all of today's meeting.

I am interested in writing a compelling introduction to the guide which really emphasizes the importance of OpenScience and motivates people to learn and engage more deeply. This introduction might draw on some of the material I've written elsewhere, such as this encyclopedia entry on reproducibility.

For example, these could be the introductory remarks:

"Science is commonly regarded as society’s authority about what is true. To this extent, scientists–possibly yourself included–are often interested in making credible research claims about what is true or false, probable or improbable, possible or impossible, and so on. Over the past decade or so, however, failures to replicate past results have been observed in various sciences, including psychology (OSC 2015), biology (Errington et al. 2014), medicine (Begley and Ellis, 2012) and others. Furthermore, studies have revealed various questionable research practices and incentive structures which are potentially present in all publication-based sciences (John, Loewenstein, & Prelec 2012; Agnoli 2017 et al. 2017; Fraser et al. 2018).

To a significant extent, these findings have eroded confidence in the credibility of research claims across these disciplines, at least for many scientists and lay-persons.

Open Science, then, is about restoring and sustaining this credibility. In short, Open Science aims to be good science–that is, science that is rigorous, reproducible and credible.

This guide provides an accessible introduction to prominent Open Science practices, explaining both their rationale and the means by which they can be implemented in your own research.

The hope is that, ultimately, these practices can support the reproducibility and credibility of your own research endeavors, thereby benefiting your research, your scientific career and the scientific community and society as a whole."

Does that seem appropriate to people? If so, is anyone interested in collaborating on this? If it seems over-the-top or unhelpful, I'm happy to reconsider and to instead work on something else. In any case, I will be happy to read over sections from others to provide comments in case they are helpful.

[MarioMalicki]

I second that and am willing to help. My suggestion would be to back up statements as much as we can with citations - for example you stated above: these findings have eroded confidence in the credibility of research claims across these disciplines - we should point to some surveys of this. And also we should showcases instances in which open science practices have lead to more transparent reporting, or more polite communication (i.e. in open peer review). Another question is do we want to touch upon copyright and patents, e.g. money making aspect of scientific discoveries and how that relates to open science. Finally, current version of the guide seems to imply that our is the correct definition of open science. I believe we need to emprise more that that is not the case, point to papers on this - and focus on the guides we will provide - rather than giving a strong definition of it. See for example the FOSTER aspects of open science and intro my colleagues wrote in this paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244529

[poldrack]

this all sounds good. re: commercialization, I think there is a fine line here. We definitely don't want to suggest that technology transfer is inherently in conflict with open science. in fact, one can make the argument that open/reproducible science can enhance the effectiveness of tech transfer - since companies will often have to make a large investment to commercialize a basic research finding, the use of open/reproducible practices can actually provide greater confidence in the basic science results and thus encourage commercialization efforts.

[JohnEpisteme]

Okay. That all sounds good, Mario and Russ. Mario, how about we work on the chapter at this link here? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TmjL2roZC5txT9GBiUtdvfGAfcyvw1nhmG9DJZ8lXdY/edit?usp=sharing