An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf]

F1000Research

as part of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop¹  Konrad U Förstner²  Adrian Alexa³  Ivo Grigorov⁴  Richard Smith-Unna⁵  Jenny Molloy⁶  Holger Dinkel⁷  Jean-Karim Hériché⁷  Michael L Markie⁸  Camille Scott⁹  Leo Lahti^1,10  Bruno Miguel Vieira^1,11  Martin Dahlö^1,12  Neil Chue Hong^1,13  Robert Davey^1,14  Maria Victoria Schneider^1,14  Dan MacLean^1,15  Teresa K Attwood^1,16  Jelena Aleksic^1,17 

[1]

[2]Core Unit Systems Medicine, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

[3]DNAdigest, Cambridge, UK

[4]DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark, Charlottenlund 2920, Denmark

[5]Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

[6]Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

[7]European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany

[8]F1000Research, London, UK

[9]Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

[10]Open Knowledge Finland - Open Science Work Group, Helsinki, Finland

[11]School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

[12]Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

[13]Software Sustainability Institute, Edinburgh, UK

[14]The Genome Analysis Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK

[15]The Sainsbury Laboratory, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK

[16]University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

[17]Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1QR, UK

关键词: Publishing & Peer Review;   

DOI  :  10.12688/f1000research.5686.2

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions.

【 授权许可】

Unknown