Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T08:18:13.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open Science Is Robust Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Samuel T. McAbee ,
Joshua B. Grubbs  and
Michael J. Zickar
Samuel T. McAbee*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University
Joshua B. Grubbs
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University
Michael J. Zickar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samuel T. McAbee, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. E-mail: smcabee@bgsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Grand et al. (2018) provide a critical treatment of the need for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to take active steps to ensure that ours is a robust and reliable science of organizations, the spirit of which the present authors wholeheartedly agree. One path toward ensuring that I-O psychology is rightly recognized as a robust science is by embracing the principles of Open Science. We argue that the move toward Open Science is beneficial for all six of the defining principles outlined by Grand et al. Open Science increases transparency, facilitates replication, and contributes to the accumulation and integration of research by increasing accessibility. Each of these factors helps to foster systematic, rigorous scientific practices, which, in turn, can lead to greater insights and understanding of organizational phenomenon through deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches to theory generation and refinement, ensuring that our field remains relevant for the foreseeable future. In this commentary, we highlight several initiatives that already exist to promote Open Science and explore others only alluded to by Grand et al.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 54 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). APA journals program collaborates with Center for Open Science to advance open science practices in psychological research [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/open-science.aspx Google Scholar
Association for Psychological Science. (2016). Open science and methodology [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/open-science Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature, 533, 452–454.Google Scholar
Banks, G. C., O'Boyle, E. H. Jr., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., . . . Adkins, C. L. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42, 5–20.Google Scholar
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). Editorial: Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., . . . & Truxillo, D. M. (2018). A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (1), 4–42.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L., . . . Nosek, B. A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biology, 14 (5), e1002456.Google Scholar
LeBel, E. P., Campbell, L., & Loving, T. J. (2017). Benefits of open and high-powered research outweigh costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 230–243.Google Scholar
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., . . . Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., . . . Contestabile, M. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348 (6242), 1422–1425.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (6251), aac4716.Google Scholar
Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175.Google Scholar
Tackett, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Johnson, S. L., Krueger, R. F., Miller, J. D., . . . Shrout, P. E. (2017). It's time to broaden the replicability conversation: Thoughts for and from clinical psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 742–756.Google Scholar
Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dotsch, R. (2016). Encourage playing with data and discourage questionable reporting practices. Psychometrika, 81, 27–32.Google Scholar
Woo, S. E., O'Boyle, E. H., & Spector, P. E. (2017). Best practices in developing, conducting, and evaluating inductive research. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 255–264.Google Scholar