Open Science
Foundation · Bằng chứng và paraphrase khá trực tiếp.
A Knowledge of open science accumulated unevenly across universities, journals and data repositories. A striking report could establish that a pattern existed, yet it could not show whether research transparency operated elsewhere. Researchers examining open science therefore moved toward shared definitions and planned comparisons based on policy evaluation rather than discarding the earlier record. B For the present account of open science, open science practices make parts of research such as plans, data, code or papers more accessible and inspectable. In research methodology, the term preregistration refers to a time-stamped record of research questions and analysis plans made before results are known. The definition gives researchers a common starting point for discussing open science, but it does not identify a cause by itself. Two observations of open science can share the label preregistration while differing in scale, timing or origin. C Researchers rely chiefly on policy evaluation to investigate open science. Research on open science has found that researchers compare adoption, reuse, error detection and workload before and after specific open practices. They decide their comparison, exclusions and outcome measures for open science in advance. A result about open science is treated as stronger when it survives more than one source of evidence, not simply when one instrument measuring open science reports many decimal places. D The evidence about open science is informative but conditional. One point relevant to open science is that openness can support verification and reuse, but benefits depend on documentation, infrastructure and ethical limits. Researchers test research transparency as an explanation. Evidence reviewed for open science shows that clear records allow others to understand how evidence was produced and which decisions were made. Confidence in research transparency rises when independent measures of open science agree and rival explanations fail, rather than when a single comparison happens to be statistically precise. E Interpretation of open science must stop short of a universal claim. For the present account of open science, medical, Indigenous or personal data cannot simply be made public, and poorly documented files may be technically open but unusable. Future work on open science is organised around responsible openness. For future research on open science, responsible openness will match access to consent, community rights, privacy and realistic support. This use of responsible openness targets a specific uncertainty about open science rather than merely increasing the volume of data. F Practical programmes translate evidence about open science into action. The discussion of open science notes that institutions support repositories, data stewardship, open methods and fair recognition for shared work. Their stated focus is evidence reuse. Teams working on open science compare later outcomes with conditions before implementation and record unintended effects. This evaluation of open science determines whether the original explanation involving research transparency remains useful outside the research setting.