About Ethics and Open Science

About Ethics and Open Science

Beyza Gokcen Ciftci -
Number of replies: 2

My question is that, as I know you can make one PREBO application for several experiments. This makes me wonder how much information you provide is enough when you are defining your methods in general instead of experiment-specific.

Also, for open science, as I know preregistered studies started to become common in recent years. This is quite surprising to me. Why are steps for open science progressing that slowly, why it is not a requirement for publication in general (or is it), and still there are no definite rules about transparency? 

In reply to Beyza Gokcen Ciftci

Re: About Ethics and Open Science

Christophe Heintz -
PREBO for several unspecified experiments:
This is not the favoured options for the PREBO committee. Just try to specify as much as possible; however, small variations that obviously make not change to the welfare of participants are acceptable.
The PREBO committee has exceptionally given approval for a *type* of experiments, if the type is sufficiently well specified.
In general, try to be as precise as possible, and one you make a change that is relatively minor, you can submit a PREBO and ask for an *expedited procedure*.

How fast do scientific practices evolve? Well, for an old guy like me, pretty fast. But I understand that for young impatient enthusiast, that is pretty slow ;)
I don't know what you have in mind about "rules about transparency".
In reply to Christophe Heintz

Re: About Ethics and Open Science

Shubhamkar Ayare -
> How fast do scientific practices evolve?

Do you (or anyone) have any comments on why and how it differs across the fields? My perception is that some fields like computer science, mathematics, and physics have been much more quicker to adopt open science practices than other fields. I wonder if my sample is biased, or if that is actually the case. In the latter, I wonder about the reasons. For computer science or rather software development, it makes sense, because people are more familiar with working with software technology. For mathematics and physics, to me, it felt a bit surprising.

There's still another concept of open reviews, and also post-publication comments, that has been still slower to be adopted! Even though the softwares already seem to be in place.