nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

12.04.2022

The Open Science Challenge: Adopt One Practice that Enacts Widely Shared Values

verfasst von: Christopher M. Castille, Liana M. Kreamer, Betsy H. Albritton, George C. Banks, Steven G. Rogelberg

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 3/2022

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The open science movement introduced many research practices intended to enhance the rigor and trustworthiness of our science. While these practices are enticing, the breadth of tactics can be overwhelming and imply an all-or-nothing approach to open science that can discourage getting started. We cast the adoption of open science practices metaphorically: selecting which practice to use in a specific study is like visiting a buffet filled with an assortment of cuisines. The buffet will be best experienced over multiple visits where different cuisines are sampled (rather than selecting an overwhelming amount). We suggest that reflecting on widely shared core values of science—such as objectivity, honesty, openness, accountability, fairness, and stewardship—can help a scholar find their entry point in the buffet. We then share this buffet of open science practices, highlight exemplar cases in the literature where an open science practice has been enacted, and also bring attention to guidance for getting started. We close by challenging our readers to find one small win in open science to make our research more transparent, open, cumulative, and robust.

Nächster Artikel The Interactive Effects of Coworker and Supervisor Support on Prenatal Stress and Postpartum Health: a Time-Lagged Investigation

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

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., Sarafoglou, A., Kekecs, Z., Kucharský, Š., Benjamin, D., Chambers, C. D., Fisher, A., Gelman, A., Gernsbacher, M. A., Ioannidis, J. P., Johnson, E., Jonas, K., Kousta, S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Lindsay, D. S., Morey, C. C., Munafò, M., Newell, B. R., … Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6

Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. (2019). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 678–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119836485CrossRef

Aguinis, H., Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., & Cascio, W. F. (2020). Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.02.007CrossRef

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011CrossRef

Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of U.S. scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3

Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006CrossRef

Arslan, R. C. (2019). How to automatically document data with the codebook package to facilitate data reuse. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919838783CrossRef

Ballard, T., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2018). On the pursuit of multiple goals with different deadlines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(11). https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000304

Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016a). Editorial: Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7CrossRef

Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., Abston, K. A., Bennett, A. A., & Adkins, C. L. (2016b). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315619011CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2016c). Management’s science–practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2205–2231. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0728CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Field, J. G., Oswald, F. L., O’Boyle, E. H., Landis, R. S., Rupp, D. E., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2018). Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8

Bierer, B. E., Crosas, M., & Pierce, H. H. (2017). Data authorship as an incentive to data sharing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(17), 1684–1687. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb1616595CrossRefPubMed

Bliese, P. D., & Wang, M. (2020). Results provide information about cumulative probabilities of finding significance: Let’s report this information. Journal of Management, 46(7), 1275–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319886909CrossRef

Bosnjak, M., Fiebach, C. J., Mellor, D., Mueller, S., O’Connor, D. B., Oswald, F. L., & Sokol-Chang, R. I. (2021). A template for preregistration of quantitative research in psychology: report of the joint psychological societies preregistration task force. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000879

Bonett, D. G. (2021). Design and analysis of replication studies. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120911088CrossRef

Buchanan, E. M., Crain, S. E., Cunningham, A. L., Johnson, H. R., Stash, H., Papadatou-Pastou, M., Isager, P. M., Carlsson, R., & Aczel, B. (2021). Getting started creating data dictionaries: how to create a shareable data set. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920928007

Caesens, G., Nguyen, N., & Stinglhamber, F. (2018). Abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(5), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9592-3CrossRef

Corker, K. S. (2018). Open science is a behavior. https://cos.io/blog/open-science-is-a-behavior/

Danner, D., Lechner, C. M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). Modelling the incremental value of personality facets: the domains‐incremental facets‐acquiescence bifactor model. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2268

DeCelles, K. A., Howard-Grenville, J., & Tihanyi, L. (2021). From the editors—improving the transparency of empirical research published in AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1009–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.4004CrossRef

Eby, L. T. (2022). Reflections on the Journal of Applied Psychology in times of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001000CrossRefPubMed

Eby, L. T., Shockley, K. M., Bauer, T. N., Edwards, B., Homan, A. C., Johnson, R., Lang, J. W. B., Morris, S. B., & Oswald, F. L. (2020). Methodological checklists for improving research quality and reporting consistency. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.14CrossRef

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

Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Banks, G. C., Landis, R. S., & Tonidandel, S. (2018). From outcome to process focus: Fostering a more robust psychological science through registered reports and results-blind reviewing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618767883CrossRefPubMed

Guzzo, R. A., Schnieder, B., & Nalbantian, H. R. (in press). Open science, closed doors: the perils and potential of open science for research-in-practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Henle, C. A., Shore, T. H., Murphy, K. R., & Marshall, A. D. (2022). Visible tattoos as a source of employment discrimination among female applicants for a supervisory position. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09731-wCrossRef

Hensel, P. G. (2021). Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals. Accountability in Research, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1981870

Kathawalla, U. K., Silverstein, P., & Syed, M. (2019). Easing into open science: A tutorial for graduate students. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/vzjdp/

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., & Oh, I.-S. (2014). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of “null” findings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0CrossRef

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.5465/255378CrossRefPubMed

Köbis, N. C., Soraperra, I., & Shalvi, S. (2021). The consequences of participating in the sharing economy: A transparency-based sharing framework. Journal of Management, 47(1), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320967740CrossRef

Landis, R. S., James, L. R., Lance, C. E., Pierce, C. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2014). When is nothing something? Editorial for the null results special issue of Journal of Business and Psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9347-8CrossRef

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

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151CrossRefPubMed

Motro, D., Comer, D. R., & Lenaghan, J. A. (2021). Examining the effects of negative performance feedback: the roles of sadness, feedback self-efficacy, and grit. Journal of Business & Psychology, 36(3).

Murphy, K. R. (2021). In praise of Table 1: The importance of making better use of descriptive statistics. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(4), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.90CrossRef

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK475953/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK475953.pdf

Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I Opening Scientific Communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215CrossRef

Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192CrossRef

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374

Nuijten, M. B. (2019). Practical tools and strategies for researchers to increase replicability. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 61(5), 535–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14054CrossRef

O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., Carter, K., Walter, S., & Yuan, Z. (2019). A 20-year review of outcome reporting bias in moderated multiple regression. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 19–37.CrossRef

Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663CrossRef

Robert, V., & Vandenberghe, C. (2020). Laissez-faire leadership and affective commitment: The roles of leader-member exchange and subordinate relational self-concept. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(4), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09700-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rouder, J. N. (2016). The what, why, and how of born-open data. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0630-zCrossRefPubMed

Rosseel, J., & Anseel, F. (2021). When reflection hinders creative problem-solving: a test of alternative reflection strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09741-8

Toth, A. A., Banks, G. C., Mellor, D., O’Boyle, E. H., Dickson, A., Davis, D. J., DeHaven, A., Bochantin, J., & Borns, J. (2020). Study preregistration: an evaluation of a method for transparent reporting. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09695-3

van der Zee, T., & Reich, J. (2018). Open education science. AERA Open, 4(3), 233285841878746. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418787466

Van Lissa, C. J., Brandmaier, A. M., Brinkman, L., Lamprecht, A.-L., Peikert, A., Struiksma, M. E., & Vreede, B. M. I. (2021). WORCS: A workflow for open reproducible code in science. Data Science, 4(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-210031CrossRef

Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40CrossRef

Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: a checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832

Woznyj, H. M., Grenier, K., Ross, R., Banks, G. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2018). Results-blind review: A masked crusader for science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1496081CrossRef

Zipay, K. P., Mitchell, M. S., Baer, M. D., Sessions, H., & Bies, R. J. (2021). Lenient reactions to misconduct: Examining the self-conscious process of being lenient to others at work. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0123CrossRef

Titel: The Open Science Challenge: Adopt One Practice that Enacts Widely Shared Values
verfasst von: Christopher M. Castille
Liana M. Kreamer
Betsy H. Albritton
George C. Banks
Steven G. Rogelberg
Publikationsdatum: 12.04.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09806-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2022

Correction to: Measuring Guanxi quality in the workplace

Correction to: Does Leader Same‑sex Sexual Orientation Matter to Leadership Effectiveness? A Four‑study Model‑testing Investigation

Transformational Leadership and Voice: When Does Felt Obligation to the Leader Matter?

The Interactive Effects of Coworker and Supervisor Support on Prenatal Stress and Postpartum Health: a Time-Lagged Investigation

Organizational Benefits of Onboarding Contingent Workers: an Anchoring Model Approach

The Impacts of Distinct Motives on Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: The Differential Moderating Role of Perceived Voice Level