Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science

被引:16
作者
Haddaway, Neal R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Stockholm Environm Inst, Linnegatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Univ Johannesburg, Africa Ctr Evidence, Johannesburg, South Africa
关键词
Open research; Openness; Transparent; Reproducibility crisis; Reliability;
D O I
10.1186/s13750-018-0140-4
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The Open Science movement can be broadly summarised as aiming to promote integrity, repeatability and transparency across all aspects of research, from data collection to publication. Systematic reviews and systematic maps aim to provide a reliable synthesis of the evidence on a particular topic, making use of methods that seek to maximise repeatability and comprehensives whilst minimising subjectivity and bias. The central tenet of repeatability is operationalised by transparently reporting methodological activities in detail, such that all actions could be replicated and verified. To date, evidence synthesis has only partially embraced Open Science, typically striving for Open Methodology and Open Access, and occasionally providing sufficient information to be considered to have Open Data for some published reviews. Evidence synthesis communities needs to better embrace Open Science not only to balance knowledge access and increase efficiency, but also to increase reliability, trust and reuse of information collected and synthesised within a review: concepts fundamental to systematic reviews and maps. All aspects of Open Science should be embraced: Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source and Open Access. In doing so, evidence synthesis can be made more equal, more efficient and more trustworthy. I provide concrete recommendations of how CEE and others can fully embrace Open Synthesis.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Opening up science for a sustainable world: An expansive normative structure of open science in the digital era
    Vicente-Saez, Ruben
    Gustafsson, Robin
    Martinez-Fuentes, Clara
    SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2021, 48 (06) : 799 - 813
  • [32] Implicit open-mindedness: Evidence for and limits on stereotype malleability
    Santos, Ana Sofia
    Garcia-Marques, Leone
    Mackie, Diane M.
    Ferreira, Mario B.
    Payne, B. Keith
    Moreira, Sergio
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 48 (06) : 1257 - 1266
  • [33] When open data is a Trojan Horse: The weaponization of transparency in science and governance
    Levy, Karen E. C.
    Johns, David Merritt
    BIG DATA & SOCIETY, 2016, 3 (01): : 1 - 6
  • [34] The Application of Open Science Potentials in Research Processes: A Comprehensive Literature Review
    Zarghani, Maryam
    Nemati-Anaraki, Leila
    Sedghi, Shahram
    Chakoli, Abdolreza Noroozi
    Rowhani-Farid, Anisa
    LIBRI-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION STUDIES, 2023, 73 (02): : 167 - 186
  • [35] Tackling the Challenges of 21st-Century Open Science and Beyond: A Data Science Lab Approach
    Hollaway, Michael J.
    Dean, Graham
    Blair, Gordon S.
    Brown, Mike
    Henrys, Peter A.
    Watkins, John
    PATTERNS, 2020, 1 (07):
  • [36] Changing Lanes Toward Open Science: Openness and Transparency in Automotive User Research
    Ebel, Patrick
    Bazilinskyy, Pavlo
    Colley, Mark
    Goodridge, Courtney
    Hock, Philipp
    Janssen, Christian P.
    Sandhaus, Hauke
    Srinivasan, Aravinda Ramakrishnan
    Wintersberger, Philipp
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 16TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AUTOMOTIVE USER INTERFACES AND INTERACTIVE VEHICULAR APPLICATIONS, AUTOMOTIVEUI 2024, 2024, : 94 - 105
  • [37] Lessons learned: A neuroimaging research center's transition to open and reproducible science
    Bush, Keith A.
    Calvert, Maegan L.
    Kilts, Clinton D.
    FRONTIERS IN BIG DATA, 2022, 5
  • [38] Gambling researchers' use and views of open science principles and practices: a brief report
    LaPlante, Debi A.
    Louderback, Eric R.
    Abarbanel, Brett
    INTERNATIONAL GAMBLING STUDIES, 2021, 21 (03) : 381 - 394
  • [39] Open science for responsible innovation in Australia: understanding the expectations and priorities of scientists and researchers
    Lacey, Justine
    Coates, Rebecca
    Herington, Matthew
    JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, 2020, 7 (03) : 427 - 449
  • [40] The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers
    Konno, Ko
    Cheng, Samantha H.
    Eales, Jacqualyn
    Frampton, Geoff
    Kohl, Christian
    Livoreil, Barbara
    Macura, Biljana
    O'Leary, Bethan C.
    Randall, Nicola P.
    Taylor, Jessica J.
    Woodcock, Paul
    Pullin, Andrew S.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2020, 114 : 256 - 262