Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.
Journal
Psychosomatic medicine
ISSN: 1534-7796
Titre abrégé: Psychosom Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376505
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2023
01 05 2023
Historique:
medline:
4
5
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37010234
doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000001186
pii: 00006842-202305000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
298-307Informations de copyright
Copyright © American Psychological Association, the Society of Behavioral Medicine, and the American Psychosomatic Society.
Références
Yong E. Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature . 2012; 485:298–2.
Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, et al. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science . 2016;351:1433–3.
Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov . 2011;10:712–0.
Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Underreporting in psychology experiments: Evidence from a study registry. Soc Psychol Personal Sci . 2016;7:8–4.
Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science . 2014;345:1502–3.
Scheel AM, Schijen MRMJ, Lakens D. An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci . 2021;4.
Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science . 2015;349:aac4716.
Nosek BA, Hardwicke TE, Moshontz H, et al. Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. 2021;73:719–29.
Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature . 2014;505:612–1.
Chambers CD, Tzavella L. The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nat Hum Behav . 2022;6:29–13.
Norris E, He Y, Loh R, West R, Michie S. Assessing markers of reproducibility and transparency in smoking behaviour change intervention evaluations. J Smok Cessat . 2021;2021:e6694386.
McVay MA, Cooper KB, Carrera Seoane M, Donahue ML, Scherer LD. Transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine research: An audit of publications in 2018 and 2008. Health Psychol Behav Med . 2021;9:285–12.
Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science . 2015;348:1422–3.
Freedland KE. Health psychology adopts transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines. Health Psychol . 2021;40:227–2.
McVay MA, Conroy DE. Transparency and openness in behavioral medicine research. Transl Behav Med . 2021;11:287–3.
Segerstrom SC. Psychosomatic Medicine: looking forward. Psychosom Med . 2022;84:265–1.
Revenson TA, Zoccola PM. New instructions to authors emphasize open science, transparency, full reporting of sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, and avoidance of piecemeal publication. Ann Behav Med . 2022;56:415–2.
Hardwicke TE, Thibault RT, Kosie JE, Wallach JD, Kidwell MC, Ioannidis JPA. Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspect Psychol Sci . 2022;17:239–12.
Gagliardi D, Cox D, Li Y. Institutional inertia and barriers to the adoption of open science. In: The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill;2015.
Houtkoop BL, Chambers C, Macleod M, Bishop DVM, Nichols TE, Wagenmakers EJ. Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci . 2018;1:70–15.
O’Connor DB. Leonardo da Vinci, preregistration and the architecture of science: Towards a more open and transparent research culture. Health Psychol Bull . 2021;5:39–6.
Kaplan RM, Irvin VL. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLOS One . 2015;10:e0132382.
John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci . 2012;23:524–8.
de Winter JC, Dodou D. A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too). PeerJ . 2015;3:e733.
Kerr NL. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2:196–21.
Bosnjak M, Fiebach CJ, Mellor D, et al. A template for preregistration of quantitative research in psychology: Report of the joint psychological societies preregistration task force. Am Psychol. 2022;77:602–13.
Fife DA, Rodgers JL. Understanding the exploratory/confirmatory data analysis continuum: Moving beyond the “Replication Crisis.” Am Psychol . 2022;77:453–13.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav . 2017;1:1–8.
Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP. P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. J Exp Psychol Gen . 2014;143:534–13.
Soderberg CK, Errington TM, Schiavone SR, et al. Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nat Hum Behav . 2021;5:990–7.
Norris E, O’Connor DB. Science as behaviour: Using a behaviour change approach to increase uptake of open science. Psychol Health . 2019;34:1397–9.
Harnad S. Electronic preprints and postprints. In: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science . New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003.
Serghiou S, Ioannidis JPA. Altmetric scores, citations, and publication of studies posted as preprints. JAMA . 2018;319:402.
Berg JM, Bhalla N, Bourne PE, et al. Preprints for the life sciences. Science . 2016;352:899–2.
Elmore SA. Preprints: What role do these have in communicating scientific results? Toxicol Pathol . 2018;46:364–1.
Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biol . 2019;17:e3000151.
Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol . 2021;19:e3000959.
Vlasschaert C, Topf JM, Hiremath S. Proliferation of papers and preprints during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Progress or problems with peer review? Adv Chronic Kidney Dis . 2020;27:418–8.
Soderberg CK, Errington TM, Nosek BA. Credibility of preprints: An interdisciplinary survey of researchers. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7:201520.
Martone ME, Garcia-Castro A, VandenBos GR. Data sharing in psychology. Am Psychol . 2018;73:111–14.
Hesse BW, Conroy DE, Kwaśnicka D, et al. We’re all in this together: Recommendations from the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s Open Science Working Group. Transl Behav Med . 2021;11:693–5.
Lindsay DS. Sharing data and materials in psychological science. Psychol Sci . 2017;28:699–3.
Schönbrodt FD, Maier M, Heene M, Bühner M. Forschungstransparenz als hohes wissenschaftliches Gut stärken. Psychol Rundsch . 2018;69:37–7.
Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IjJ, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data . 2016;3:160018.
Trisovic A, Lau MK, Pasquier T, Crosas M. A large-scale study on research code quality and execution. arXiv:210312793 Cs . 2021. Doi:10.48550/arXiv.2103.12793 .
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.12793
Obels P, Lakens D, Coles NA, Gottfried J, Green SA. Analysis of open data and computational reproducibility in registered reports in psychology. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci . 2020;3:229–8.
Abele-Brehm AE, Gollwitzer M, Steinberg U, Schönbrodt FD. Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing: A survey among members of the German Psychological Society. Soc Psychol . 2019;50:252–8.
Lui PP, Gobrial S, Pham S, Giadolor W, Adams N, Rollock D. Open science and multicultural research: Some data, considerations, and recommendations. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol (Online ahead of print April 112022). Doi:10.1037/cdp0000541 .
doi: 10.1037/cdp0000541
Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: Rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ . 2010;340:c221.
McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. ELife . 2016;5:e16800.
Lakens D, Hilgard J, Staaks J. On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychol . 2016;4:24.
Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CHJ, van Assen MALM, Epskamp S, Wicherts JM. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behav Res Methods . 2016;48:1205–21.
Hardwicke TE, Bohn M, MacDonald K, et al. Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science : An observational study. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8:201494.
Kathawalla U-K, Silverstein P, Syed M. Easing into open science: A guide for graduate students and their advisors. Collabra Psychol . 2021;7:18684.
Walsh CG, Xia W, Li M, Denny JC, Harris PA, Malin BA. Enabling open-science initiatives in clinical psychology and psychiatry without sacrificing patients’ privacy: Current practices and future challenges. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci . 2018;1:104–10.
Meyer MN. Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci . 2018;1:131–13.
Cummings JA, Zagrodney JM, Day TE. Impact of open data policies on consent to participate in human subjects research: Discrepancies between participant action and reported concerns. PLoS One . 2015;10:e0125208.
McGuire AL, Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, et al. To share or not to share: A randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet Med . 2011;13:948–7.
Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Informed consent in genome-scale research: What do prospective participants think? AJOB Prim Res . 2012;3:3–8.
Lui PP, Skewes M, Gobrial S, Rollock D. Advancing transparency and impact of research: Initiating crosstalk between indigenous research and mainstream “Open Science.” J Indig Res. 2021;9.
Health and Human Services. Methods for De-identification of PHI . Washington, DC: HHS.gov;2015.
Quintana DS. A synthetic dataset primer for the biobehavioural sciences to promote reproducibility and hypothesis generation. ELife . 2020;9:e53275.
Reiner Benaim A, Almog R, Gorelik Y, et al. Analyzing medical research results based on synthetic data and their relation to real data results: Systematic comparison from five observational studies. JMIR Med Inform . 2020;8:e16492.
Syed M, Kathawalla UK. Cultural psychology, diversity, and representation in open science. In: Cultural Methods in Psychology: Describing and Transforming Cultures . New York: Oxford University Press;2022:427–27.
Tackett JL, Brandes CM, Reardon KW. Leveraging the Open Science Framework in clinical psychological assessment research. Psychol Assess . 2019;31:1386–8.
Seltzer R. Open Access Comes to Selective Journal . Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed; 2020.
Williamson T, Goodwin CR, Ubel PA. Minority tax reform—avoiding overtaxing minorities when we need them most. N Engl J Med . 2021;384:1877–2.
Bilimoria D, Singer LT. Institutions Developing Excellence in Academic Leadership (IDEAL): A partnership to advance gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic STEM. Equal Divers Incl Int J. 2019;38:362–19.
NIH Guide. NIH Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research ;2000. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm .
Vaughan R. Oversampling in health surveys: Why, when, and how? Am J Public Health . 2017;107:1214–1.
Derksen M, Field SM. The tone debate: Knowledge, self, and social order. Rev Gen Psychol . 2022;26:172–11.
DeHaven A. Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison . Charlottesville, VA: Center for Open Science; 2017.
Nosek BA, Hardwicke TE, Moshontz H, et al. Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annu Rev Psychol . 2022;73:719–29.