Restricted access

Research article

First published online March 8, 2019

Request permissions

Open Science in Data-Intensive Psychology and Cognitive Science

Alexandra Paxton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-015X [email protected] and Alexa TullettView all authors and affiliations

Volume 6, Issue 1

https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218790283

Abstract
References

Abstract

Today, researchers can collect, analyze, and share more data than ever before. Not only does increasing technological capacity open the door to new data-intensive perspectives in cognitive science and psychology (i.e., research that takes advantage of complex or large-scale data to understand human cognition and behavior), but increasing connectedness has sparked exponential increases in the ease and practice of scientific transparency. The growing open science movement encourages researchers to share data, materials, methods, and publications with other scientists and the wider public. Open science benefits data-intensive psychological science, the public, and public policy, and we present recommendations to improve the adoption of open science practices by changing the academic incentive structure and by improving the education pipeline. Despite ongoing questions about implementing open science guidelines, policy makers have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the next frontier of scientific discovery.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Alexander A., Barnett-Cowan M., Bartmess E., Bosco F. A., Brandt M., Carp J., Vianello M. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657-660.

Boulton G., Campbell P., Collins B., Elias P., Hall W., Laurie G., Walport M. (2012). Science as an open enterprise. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/sape/2012-06-20-saoe.pdf

David P. A. (1998). Common agency contracting and the emergence of open science institutions. The American Economic Review, 88(2), 15-21.

Eshach H., Fried M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 315-336.

Fessakis G., Gouli E., Mavroudi E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97.

Fiske S. T., Dupree C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593-13597.

Gelman A., Loken E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf

Gomez-Cabrero D., Abugessaisa I., Maier D., Teschendorff A., Merkenschlager M., Gisel A., Tegnér J. (2014). Data integration in the era of omics: Current and future challenges. BMC Systems Biology, 8(Suppl. 2), Article I1.

Grahe J. (2018). Another step towards scientific transparency: Requiring research materials for publication Another step towards scientific transparency: Requiring research materials for publication. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 1-6.

Guest O., Rougier N. P. (Eds.). (2016). What is computational reproducibility? [Dialogue]. IEEE CIS CDS Newsletter, 13(2), 4-12.

Hench C. L. (2017). Resonances in Middle High German: New methodologies in prosody. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt13c6h2z2/qt13c6h2z2.pdf

Hey T., Tansley S., Tolle K. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery (1.1). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.

Kidwell M. C., Lazarević L. B., Baranski E., Hardwicke T. E., Piechowski S., Falkenberg L.-S., . . . Nosek B. A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLOS Biology, 14(5), e1002456.

Luck S. J., Gaspelin N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology, 54, 146-157.

Manches A., Plowman L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 191-201.

Narayanan A., Shmatikov V. (2008). Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In 2008 Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 111-125). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

National Institutes of Health. (n.d.). NIH sharing policies and related guidance on NIH-funded research resources. Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/policy/sharing.htm

National Science Foundation. (2017). Proposal & award policies & procedures guide: Chapter XI—Other post award requirements and considerations. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappg17_1/pappg_11.jsp#XID4

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Dissemination and sharing of research results. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp

Nisbet E. C., Cooper K. E., Kelly Garrett R. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36-66.

Nosek B. A., Alter G., Banks G. C., Borsboom D., Bowman S. D., Breckler S. J., Yarkoni T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422-1425.

Nosek B. A., Bar-Anan Y. (2012). Scientific Utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 217-243.

Nosek B. A., Lakens D. (2014). Ignoring replications and negative results is bad for science registered reports are a partial solution. Social Psychology, 45, 137-141.

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.

Oakes J., Ormseth T., Bell R., Camp P. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Paxton A., Griffiths T. L. (2017). Finding the traces of behavioral and cognitive processes in big data and naturally occurring datasets. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1630-1638.

Pitt J. H., Hill H. (2016). Statistical analysis of numerical preclinical radiobiological data. ScienceOpen Research. Retrieved from https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=8aa0f248-2bad-44c6-adfd-42816c14c272

Pitt M. A., Tang Y. (2013). What should be the data sharing policy of cognitive science? Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 214-221.

Portelance D. J., Strawhacker A. L., Bers M. U. (2016). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 489-504.

Raytheon Company, & National Cyber Security Alliance. (2016). Securing our future: Closing the cybersecurity talent gap. Sterling, VA: Raytheon Intelligence, Information and Services. Retrieved from https://www.raytheon.com/cyber/rtnwcm/groups/corporate/documents/content/rtn_335212.pdf

Ritchie S. J., Weston S. J., Przybylski A. K., Rohrer J. M. (2017). Preregistration commitments for pre-existing data. Retrieved from https://osf.io/cgw86/

Sherkat D. E. (2017). Religion, politics, and Americans’ confidence in science. Politics and Religion, 10, 137-160.

Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D., Simonsohn U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.

Simons D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76-80.

Stark P. B. (2016). Syllabus for Statistics 215A, Fall 2016: Applied statistics. Retrieved from https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Teach/S215a/syllabus16.pdf

Tai R. H., Liu C. Q., Maltese A. V., Fan X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144.

Tennant J. (2017). A post-publication peer review success story. Retrieved from http://blog.scienceopen.com/2017/02/a-post-publication-peer-review-success-story/

Towns J., Cockerill T., Dahan M., Foster I., Gaither K., Grimshaw A., Wilkens-Diehr N. (2014). XSEDE: Accelerating scientific discovery. Computing in Science & Engineering, 16(5), 62-74.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Office for human research protections: 45 CFR 46. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html

Vanpaemel W., Vermorgen M., Deriemaecker L., Storms G. (2015). Are we wasting a good crisis? The availability of psychological research data after the storm. Collabra, 1(1), Art. 3. Retrieved from https://www.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.13/

Vazire S. (2017). Quality uncertainty erodes trust in science. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 1.

Vicentini F., Nasta L. (2018). Team and time within project-based organizations: Insights from creative industries. In Learning and innovation in hybrid organizations (pp. 33-49), Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Vul E., Harris C., Winkielman P., Pashler H. (2017). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274-290.

Wagner C. S., Whetsell T. A., Leydesdorff L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110, 1633-1652.

Wang X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Education Research Journal, 50, 1081-1121.

Weintrop D., Beheshti E., Horn M., Orton K., Jona K., Trouille L., Wilensky U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127-147.

Wicherts J. M., Bakker M., Molenaar D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e26828.

Zeldin A. L., Pajares F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal Spring, 37, 215-246.

Zwaan R. A., Etz A., Lucas R. E., Donnellan M. B. (in press). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

|

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.