Volume 50 - Article 43 | Pages 1265–1280
Open science practices in demographic research: An appraisal
References
Alexander, M. (2022). Reproducibility in demography. Paper presented at the 2022 Toronto Workshop on Reproducibility.
Bem, D.J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(3): 407.
Bijak, J. (2019). P-values, theory, replicability, and rigour. Demographic Research 41(32): 949–952.
Christensen, G., Freese, J., and Miguel, E. (2019). Transparent and reproducible social science research: How to do open science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Crüwell, S., Apthorp, D., Baker, B.J., Colling, L., Elson, M., Geiger, S.J., Lobentanzer, S., Monéger, J., Patterson, A., Schwarzkopf, D.S., Zaneva, M., and Brown, N.J.L. (2023). What’s in a badge? A computational reproducibility investigation of the open data badge policy in one issue of Psychological Science. Psychological Science 34(4): 512–522.
Dickersin, K. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10): 1385.
Else, H. and Van Noorden, R. (2021). The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature 591(7851): 516–520.
European Commission (2015). Open innovation, open science, open to the world – A vision for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fišar, M., Greiner, B., Huber, C., Katok, E., and Ozkes, A.I. (2024). Reproducibility in Management Science. Management Science 70(3): 1343–1356.
Freese, J. and Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social science. Annual Review of Sociology 43: 147–165.
Hanson, M.A., Barreiro, P.G., Crosetto, P., and Brockington, D. (2023). The strain on scientific publishing. Cornell University.
Hardwicke, T.E., Bohn, M., MacDonald, K., Hembacher, E., Nuijten, M.B., Peloquin, B.N., deMayo, B.E., Long, B., Yoon, E.J., and Frank, M.C. (2021). Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science: An observational study. Royal Society Open Science 8(1).
Ioannidis, J.P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8): 124.
Kerr, N.L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2(3): 196–217.
Kidwell, M.C., Lazarević, L.B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T.E., Piechowski, S., Falken-berg, L.S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., Errington, T.M., Fiedler, S., and Nosek, B.A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biology 14(5): e1002456.
Krähmer, D., Schächtele, L., and Schneck, A. (2023). Care to share? Experimental evidence on code sharing behavior in the social sciences. PLoS ONE 18(8): 0289380.
McKiernan, E.C., Bourne, P.E., Brown, C.T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B.A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C.K., Spies, J.R., Thaney, K., Updegrove, A., Woo, K.H., and Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5.
Merli, M.G., Moody, J., Verdery, A., and Yacoub, M. (2023). Demography’s changing intellectual landscape: A bibliometric analysis of the leading anglophone journals, 1950–2020. Demography 60(3): 865–890.
Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science 48(2): 171–203.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (2018). Open science by design: Realizing a vision for 21st century research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (2019). Reproducibility and replicability in science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nosek, B.A., Hardwicke, T.E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K.S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., Nuijten, M.B., Rohrer, J.M., Romero, F., Scheel, A.M., Scherer, L.D., Schönbrodt, F.D., and Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology 73: 719–748.
Ooms, J. (2023). pdftools: Text extraction, rendering and converting of PDF documents.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251): aac4716.
Piwowar, H.A. and Vision, T.J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1: 175.
Prike, T. (2022). Open science, replicability, and transparency in modelling. In: Bijak, J. (ed.). Towards Bayesian model-based demography: Agency, complexity and uncertainty in migration studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing: 175–183.
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rahal, R.M., Hamann, H., Brohmer, H., and Pethig, F. (2022). Sharing the recipe: Reproducibility and replicability in research across disciplines. Research Ideas and Outcomes 8.
Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., and Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.
Tedersoo, L., Küungas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä, Pedaste, M., Raju, M., Astapova, A., and Lukner, H. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific Data 8(1): 192.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. SC-PCB-SPP/2021/OS/UROS.
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023: A new record. Nature 624(7992): 479–481.
Vandewalle, P. (2012). Code sharing is associated with research impact in image processing. Computing in Science and Engineering 14(4): 42–47.
Vicente-Saez, R. and Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research 88: 428–436.
Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., and Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics 103(2): 555–564.
Wasserstein, R.L. and Lazar, N.A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician 70(2): 129–133.