Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business and Psychology
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology 3/2019

23.05.2018 | Original Paper

Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices

verfasst von: George C. Banks, James G. Field, Frederick L. Oswald, Ernest H. O’Boyle, Ronald S. Landis, Deborah E. Rupp, Steven G. Rogelberg

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Open science refers to an array of practices that promote openness, integrity, and reproducibility in research; the merits of which are being vigorously debated and developed across academic journals, listservs, conference sessions, and professional associations. The current paper identifies and clarifies major issues related to the use of open science practices (e.g., data sharing, study pre-registration, open access journals). We begin with a useful general description of what open science in organizational research represents and adopt a question-and-answer format. Through this format, we then focus on the application of specific open science practices and explore future directions of open science. All of this builds up to a series of specific actionable recommendations provided in conclusion, to help individual researchers, reviewers, journal editors, and other stakeholders develop a more open research environment and culture.
Nächster Artikel Is Holding Two Jobs Too Much? An Examination of Dual Jobholders

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2, 3–14.CrossRefPubMed
Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 5–21.CrossRef
Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? A nature survey lifts the lid on how researchers view the crisis rocking science and what they think will help. Nature, 533, 452–455.CrossRefPubMed
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Outlier removal and the relation with reporting errors and quality of psychological research. PLos One.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefPubMed
Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Publication bias: Understanding the myths concerning threats to the advancement of science. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in organizational and social sciences (pp. 36–64). New York: Routledge.
Banks, G. C., & O’Boyle Jr., E. H. (2013). Why we need I-O psychology to fix I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 291–294.CrossRef
Banks, G. C., O’Boyle Jr., E., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., Abston, K. A., Bennett, A. A., & Adkins, C. L. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42, 5–20.CrossRef
Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2016). Management’s science practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1–27.CrossRef
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 323–338.CrossRef
Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 715–725.
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., … Camerer, C. (2017). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013). The mind of a con man. The New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from http://​www.​nytimes.​com/​2013/​04/​28/​magazine/​diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.​html?​pagewanted=​all&​_​r=​0.​
Biemann, T. (2013). What if we were Texas sharpshooters? Predictor reporting bias in regression analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 335–363.CrossRef
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. (2016). HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 69, 709–750.CrossRef
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431–449.CrossRefPubMed
Bosco, F. A., Steel, P., Oswald, F. L., Uggerslev, K., & Field, J. G. (2015). Cloud-based meta-analysis to bridge science and practice: Welcome to metaBUS. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 1, 3–17.CrossRef
Butler, D. (2016). Dutch lead European push to flip journals to open access. Nature News, 529(7584), 13.CrossRef
Carpenter, N. C., Son, J., Harris, T. B., Alexander, A. L., & Horner, M. T. (2016). Don’t forget the items: Item-level meta-analytic and substantive validity techniques for reexamining scale validation. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 616–650.CrossRef
Cashen, L. H., & Geiger, S. W. (2004). Statistical power and the testing of null hypotheses: A review of contemporary management research and recommendations for future studies. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 151–167.CrossRef
Caulfield, T., Harmon, S. H., & Joly, Y. (2012). Open science versus commercialization: A modern research conflict? Genome Medicine, 4, 1.CrossRef
Cortina, J. M. (2015). A revolution with a solution. Philadelphia, PA: Opening plenary presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology.
Cortina, J. M., Green, J. P., Keeler, K. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test? Organizational Research Methods, 20, 350–378.CrossRef
Derksen, M., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2013). Surveillance is not the answer, and replication is not a test: Comment on Kepes and McDaniel,“How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I–O psychology?”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 295–298.CrossRef
Donnellan, M. B., Lucas, R. E., & Cesario, J. (2015). On the association between loneliness and bathing habits: Nine replications of Bargh and Shalev (2012) Study 1. Emotion, 15, 109–119.CrossRefPubMed
Ethiraj, S. K., Gambardella, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2016). Replication in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2191–2192.CrossRef
Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2015). Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity: IAI. 02939–02914.
Findley, M. G., Jensen, N. M., Malesky, E. J., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2016). Can results-free review reduce publication bias? The results and implications of a pilot study. Comparative Political Studies, 1–37.
Friesike, S., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O., & Schildhauer, T. (2015). Opening science: Towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 581–601.CrossRef
Gabriel, A. S., & Wessel, J. L. (2013). A step too far? Why publishing raw datasets may hinder data collection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 287–290.CrossRef
Grahe, J. E. (2014). Announcing open science badges and reaching for the sky. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 1–3.CrossRefPubMed
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., Tonidandel, S., Truxillo, D. M. (2017). A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 1–39.
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Banks, G. C., Landis, R. S., & Tonidandel, S. (in press). From outcome to process focus: Fostering a more robust psychological science through registered reports and results-blind reviewing. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43, 5–18.CrossRef
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29, 258–268.CrossRef
Jebb, A. T., Parrigon, S., & Woo, S. (in press). Exploratory data analysis as a foundation of inductive research. Human Resource Management Review.
Jones, J. W., & Dages, K. D. (2013). A new era of large-scale data sharing: A test publisher’s perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 309–312.CrossRef
Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I-O psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 252–268.CrossRef
Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., Anvari, F., Apps, M. A. J., Argamon, S. E., … Zwaan, R. A. (2017, September 18). Justify your alpha: A response to “redefine statistical significance”. Retrieved from psyarxiv.​com/​9s3y6
Leavitt, K. (2013). Publication bias might make us untrustworthy, but the solutions may be worse. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 290–295.CrossRef
LeBreton, J. M. (2016). Editorial. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 3–7.CrossRef
Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33, 867–890.CrossRef
Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.CrossRefPubMed
Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147–163.CrossRefPubMed
McCook, A. (2016). Duke fraud case highlights financial risks for universities. Science, 353, 977–978.CrossRefPubMed
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., et al. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021.CrossRef
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S., Buck, S., Chambers, C., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Heese, B., Humphreys, M., Ishiyama, J., Karlan, D., Kraut, A., Lupia, A., Marbry, P., Madon, T., Malhotra, N., Wilson, E. M., McNutt, M., Miguel, E., Paluck, E. L., Simonsohn, U., Soderberg, C., Spellman, B. A., Tornow, J., Turitto, J., VandenBos, G. R., Vazire, S., Wagenmakers, E. J., Wilson, R., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture: Author guidelines for journals to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Science, 348, 1422–1425.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243.CrossRef
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.CrossRefPubMed
Nuzzo, R. (2015). How scientists fool themselves-and how they can stop. Nature, 526, 182–185.CrossRefPubMed
O'Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mule, E. (2017). The Chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43, 400–425.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal research misconduct policy. Federal Register., 65(235), 76260–76264.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.CrossRef
Pordes, R., Petravick, D., Kramer, B., Olson, D., Livny, M., Roy, A., Avery, P., Blackburn, K., Wenaus, T., & Würthwein, F. (2007). The open science grid. Journal of Physics: Conference Series IOP Publishing, 12057, 140–146.
Rowhani-Farid, A., & Barnett, A. G. (2016). Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study. BMJ Open, 6, e011784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRef
Schmidt, F. L., & Oh, I.-S. (2016). The crisis of confidence in research findings in psychology: Is lack of replication the real problem? Or is it something else? Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), 32.
Schwab, A., & Starbuck, W. (2017). A call for openness in research reporting: How to turn covert practices into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16, 125–141.CrossRef
Spector, P. E., Rogelberg, S. G., Ryan, A. M., Schmitt, N., & Zedeck, S. (2014). Moving the pendulum back to the middle: Reflections on and introduction to the inductive research special issue of Journal of Business and Psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 499–502.CrossRef
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossRefPubMed
Sliter, M., Yuan, Z., & Boyd, E. M. (2013). Let’s be honest: Evidence for why industrial–organizational psychology research is trustworthy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 273–276.CrossRef
Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49, 108–112.
Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., Manoff, M., & Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLoS One, 6, e21101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Vermeulen, F. (2005). On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 978–982.CrossRef
Wagenmakers, E.-J. & Dutilh, G. (2016). Seven selfish-reasons for pre-registration. Association for Psychological Science, 1–6.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638.CrossRefPubMed
Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t-tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291–298.CrossRefPubMed
Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Data re-analysis and open data. In J. Plucker & M. Makel (Eds.), Doing good social science: Trust, accuracy, transparency. American Psychological Association: Washington.
Wicherts, J. M., & Bakker, M. (2012). Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence, 40, 73–76.CrossRef
Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One, 6, e26828.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726–728.CrossRefPubMed
Woo, S. E., O'Boyle, E. H., & Spector, P. E. (in press). Best practices in developing, conducting, and evaluating inductive research. Human Resource Management Review.
Metadaten
Titel
Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices
verfasst von
George C. Banks
James G. Field
Frederick L. Oswald
Ernest H. O’Boyle
Ronald S. Landis
Deborah E. Rupp
Steven G. Rogelberg
Publikationsdatum
23.05.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Journal of Business and Psychology 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Is Holding Two Jobs Too Much? An Examination of Dual Jobholders

Original Paper

Laughter Is (Powerful) Medicine: the Effects of Humor Exposure on the Well-being of Victims of Aggression

Original Paper

Raising Doubt in Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Gender Differences and Their Impact

Original Paper

Meaning-Based Job-Related Well-being: Exploring a Meaningful Work Conceptualization of Job Satisfaction

Original Paper

The Curvilinear Relationship between Self-efficacy and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Supervisor Close Monitoring

Original Paper

A Social Exchange Perspective of Abusive Supervision and Knowledge Sharing: Investigating the Moderating Effects of Psychological Contract Fulfillment and Self-Enhancement Motive