We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Open science is good for both epistemic and social reasons, but in nonobvious ways, it can have detrimental epistemic side effects. Drawing on case studies and the social epistemology of science, I show how practices intended to increase transparency, communication, and information sharing in science can backfire. We should not reject Open Science, just implement it carefully. I argue that we can do so by treating openness as a governing value in science, and thus, that our pursuit of openness needs to be balanced against our pursuit of the whole scheme of values that govern science.
Recent research endeavors have demonstrated the immense promise of team science to move the field of social and personality psychology forward. In this chapter, we introduce readers to the concept of team science as a model in which diverse teams collaborate on larger-scale research projects. These teams can bring people together from multiple labs, academic disciplines, or sectors to answer a shared question. Working in teams offers a number of benefits, allowing us to increase access and representation in our research, implement different methods and tools, answer more complex questions, and have greater social impact. We offer an overview of different models of team science and how researchers can expand their own teams, adhering to the principles of open communication, commitment to diversity and inclusion, clear roles and expectations, and cooperative decision-making. We also address some of the challenges inherent to team science and how to overcome them in order to make our science as efficient, fair, and impactful as possible.
The scientific community fundamentally requires the conduct of research to meet ethical standards. Bureaucracy and regulation may enforce these requirements, but they ultimately reflect the underlying values of science and the social norms that translate these values into practice. In creating knowledge, scientists must protect research participants, and they are also obliged to treat their data and communications in accordance with honesty, transparency, and a commitment to the benefit of society. We review the history and current state of human participant protection; make a case that many of the changes in standards of data handling and publication reporting over the past ten years themselves have ethical dimensions; and briefly list a number of pending ethics issues in research and publishing that do not as yet have a clear, consensual resolution in the field of psychology.
The use of programming languages in archaeological research has witnessed a notable surge in the last decade, particularly with R, a versatile statistical computing language that fosters the development of specialized packages. This article introduces the tesselle project (https://www.tesselle.org/), a comprehensive collection of R packages tailored for archaeological research and education. The tesselle packages are centered on quantitative analysis methods specifically crafted for archaeology. They are designed to complement both general-purpose and other specialized statistical packages. These packages serve as a versatile toolbox, facilitating the exploration and analysis of common data types in archaeology—such as count data, compositional data, or chronological data—and enabling the construction of reproducible workflows. Complementary packages for visualization, data preparation, and educational resources augment the tesselle ecosystem. This article outlines the project's inception, its objectives, design principles, and key components, along with reflections on future directions.
Community biology labs are locally organized spaces for research, tinkering, and innovation, which are important for improving the accessibility of biological research and the transferability of scientific knowledge. These labs promote citizen science by providing resources and education to community members. For community labs to deliver consistent and reliable results, they would ideally be based on an adaptive and robust foundation: an Enterprise Systems Thinking (EST) framework. This paper follows a descriptive methodology to apply EST to conceptualize the optimal functioning of community biology labs. EST approaches can increase the overall understanding of the community lab system’s context and performance. This supportive tool can aid in successful stakeholder engagement and communications within the lab’s complex structure. It is also adaptive and can be adjusted as Community Bio labs expand in scale and are newly introduced to local communities. The result of this paper is the development of a framework that may help enhance existing community laboratory organizational approaches so that they may provide consistent accessibility, innovation, and education to local communities.
Adults undertaking the endeavor of learning a new language can attest to the difficulty involved with producing the sounds and prosody of the target language. A principal aim of research on adult speech production is to comprehend the mechanisms and processes that differentiate adult bilingual speech development from bilingual speech that develops earlier in life. It is clear that individuals who learn an additional language in adulthood typically encounter some difficulties that early learners do not. In particular, these difficulties arise at the segmental level when acquiring novel sound categories and novel sound contrasts, as well as at the suprasegmental level when learning to produce non-native prosodic structures related to intonation, stress, rhythm, tone, and tempo. The present chapter provides a selective overview of the current state-of-the-art in adult bilingual speech production. Furthermore, this chapter considers theoretical and methodological areas for improvement, as well as avenues for future research.
Al-Hoorie et al. (2024: Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–23) illuminate a validation crisis within the second language (L2) Motivational Self System (L2MSS), revealing empirical flaws in its current measurement. Their analysis indicates a persistent lack of discriminant validity among the system’s constructs, issuing a fundamental challenge in distinguishing the concepts. These findings, echoing previous concerns, underscore a pressing need for theoretical refinement and methodological rigor within the field, leading the authors to advocate for a temporary halt in L2 self-studies to address these issues comprehensively. This commentary discusses the call for a substantive moratorium presented by Al-Hoorie et al. (2024: Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–23) as a necessary step toward resolving persistent challenges in the field. By highlighting historical issues and suggesting pathways for theoretical diversification and methodological advancement, I aim to foster a productive dialogue on motivational psychology in language learning while ensuring empirical robustness.
One of the goals of open science is to promote the transparency and accessibility of research. Sharing data and materials used in network research is critical to these goals. In this paper, we present recommendations for whether, what, when, and where network data and materials should be shared. We recommend that network data and materials should be shared, but access to or use of shared data and materials may be restricted if necessary to avoid harm or comply with regulations. Researchers should share the network data and materials necessary to reproduce reported results via a publicly accessible repository when an associated manuscript is published. To ensure the adoption of these recommendations, network journals should require sharing, and network associations and academic institutions should reward sharing.
Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.
The point has repeatedly been made that validation is a crucial success factor in demonstrating the scientific contribution and ensuring the adoption of results. Still, researchers in design science validate their research findings too infrequently. We must all evaluate our claimed contributions on open benchmarks to improve validation quality and foster cumulative research. In this paper, we propose a meta-model to standardise and operationalise the concept of open scientific benchmarks in design science and to guide communities of researchers in the co-development of scientific benchmarks.
Edited by
Jeremy Koster, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig,Brooke Scelza, University of California, Los Angeles,Mary K. Shenk, Pennsylvania State University
Scientific disciplines are characterized by cultures of practice that shape how research is conducted. The conventional research designs of studies by human behavioral ecologists entail both pros and cons. This chapter considers alternatives that would allow human behavioral ecologists to marshal the empirical evidence that is needed for convincing answers to long-standing debates. In particular, the chapter advocates for greater emphasis on long-term, individual-based field research. Data acquired via prospective panel studies can be used to examine the dynamic processes that unfold over long periods of time, including life span and intergenerational processes. Remedies are needed to the structural obstacles that limit the implementation of prospective panel studies, including logistical and funding constraints. The chapter also addresses the disadvantageous academic research culture that incentivizes scientists to pursue status and prestige instead of research objectives with greater long-term value. Methods to support longitudinal research are discussed, including approaches to data management and data analysis. The chapter concludes by highlighting opportunities for rising generations of human behavioral ecologists to reshape the culture of research practice in order to advance principled, ethical, and compelling approaches to the comparative study of human behavior.
Chapter 1 provides philosophical foundations for the arguments of this book in discussing the issue of scientific objectivity in economics. It criticizes a closed science, “view from nowhere” conception of economics, and defends an open science, “view from somewhere” conception of economics as an objective science. The first conception is ascribed to current mainstream economics, is associated with its principle practices – reductionist modeling, formalization, limited interdisciplinarity, and value neutrality – and has as its foundation the abstract Homo economicus conception. Two problematic consequences of these practices are value blindness regarding the range and complexity of human values; fatalism regarding human behavior in employing a tenseless rather than tensed representation of time. In contrast, the principle practices of an open science, “view from somewhere” conception of economics as a science – complexity modeling, mixed methods, strong relationships to other disciplines, and value diversity – provide the foundations of a socially and historically embedded individual conception. The chapter closes with discussion of the question: Might mainstream economics be a science bubble?
PEPAdb (Prehistoric Europe's Personal Adornment Database) is a long-term, open-ended project that aims to improve access to archaeological data online. Its website (https://pepadb.us.es) publishes and analyses datasets about prehistoric personal adornment, drawing on the results of various research projects and bibliographic references.
Data compilations expand the scope of research; however, data citation practice lags behind advances in data use. It remains uncommon for data users to credit data producers in professionally meaningful ways. In paleontology, databases like the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) enable assessment of patterns and processes spanning millions of years, up to global scale. The status quo for data citation creates an imbalance wherein publications drawing data from the PBDB receive significantly more citations (median: 4.3 ± 3.5 citations/year) than the publications producing the data (1.4 ± 1.3 citations/year). By accounting for data reuse where citations were neglected, the projected citation rate for data-provisioning publications approached parity (4.2 ± 2.2 citations/year) and the impact factor of paleontological journals (n = 55) increased by an average of 13.4% (maximum increase = 57.8%) in 2019. Without rebalancing the distribution of scientific credit, emerging “big data” research in paleontology—and science in general—is at risk of undercutting itself through a systematic devaluation of the work that is foundational to the discipline.
In the concluding chapter, the author investigates whether it is possible to move beyond the inevitability of metrics, and what doing so might imply. The author shows that the greatest challenge lies in individualized thinking about science and the focus on the accumulation of economically conceived value by institutions. This is because the problem does not lie in metrics. Rather, the problem is an underlying logic of economization, and it is only by uprooting it that one could change today’s academia. Still, any new logic would also be legitimized by new metrics. Therefore, this book’s conclusion is neither a proposal for a ‘responsible use of metrics,’ nor a call to abandon the use of all metrics in academia. A third way is needed. Thus the book’s key contribution is its call for a rejection of these two potential responses and its insistence on the necessity that we set out now on a course that can offer hope of charting such a third response. In this spirit, the author sketch out seven principles that should be kept in mind when rebuilding not only a new system of scholarly communication but, more importantly, an academia that is not driven by metrics.
Most societies witness an ever increasing prevalence of both obesity and dementia, a scenario related to often underestimated individual and public health burden. Overnutrition and weight gain have been linked with abnormal functionality of homoeostasis brain networks and changes in higher cognitive functions such as reward evaluation, executive functions and learning and memory. In parallel, evidence has accumulated that modifiable factors such as obesity and diet impact the gut–brain axis and modulate brain health and cognition through various pathways. Using neuroimaging data from epidemiological studies and randomised clinical trials, we aim to shed light on the underlying mechanisms and to determine both determinants and consequences of obesity and diet at the level of human brain structure and function. We analysed multimodal 3T MRI of about 2600 randomly selected adults (47 % female, 18–80 years of age, BMI 18–47 kg/m2) of the LIFE-Adult study, a deeply phenotyped population-based cohort. In addition, brain MRI data of controlled intervention studies on weight loss and healthy diets acquired in lean, overweight and obese participants may help to understand the role of the gut–brain axis in food craving and cognitive ageing. We find that higher BMI and visceral fat accumulation correlate with accelerated brain age, microstructure of the hypothalamus, lower thickness and connectivity in default mode- and reward-related areas, as well as with subtle grey matter atrophy and white matter lesion load in non-demented individuals. Mediation analyses indicated that higher visceral fat affects brain tissue through systemic low-grade inflammation, and that obesity-related regional changes translate into cognitive disadvantages. Considering longitudinal studies, some, but not all data indicate beneficial effects of weight loss and healthy diets such as plant-based nutrients and dietary patterns on brain ageing and cognition. Confounding effects of concurrent changes in other lifestyle factors or false positives might help to explain these findings. Therefore a more holistic intervention approach, along with open science tools such as data and code sharing, in-depth pre-registration and pooling of data could help to overcome these limitations. In addition, as higher BMI relates to increased head micro-movements during MRI, and as head motion in turn systematically induces image artefacts, future studies need to rigorously control for head motion during MRI to enable valid neuroimaging results. In sum, our results support the view that overweight and obesity are intertwined with markers of brain health in the general population, and that weight loss and plant-based diets may help to promote brain plasticity. Meta-analyses and longitudinal cohort studies are underway to further differentiate causation from correlation in obesity- and nutrition-brain research.
The transition to open data practices is straightforward albeit surprisingly challenging to implement largely due to cultural and policy issues. A general data sharing framework is presented along with two case studies that highlight these challenges and offer practical solutions that can be adjusted depending on the type of data collected, the country in which the study is initiated, and the prevailing research culture. Embracing the constraints imposed by data privacy considerations, especially for biomedical data, must be emphasized for data outside of the United States until data privacy law(s) are established at the Federal and/or State level.
Traditionally, primate cognition research has been conducted by independent teams on small populations of a few species. Such limited variation and small sample sizes pose problems that prevent us from reconstructing the evolutionary history of primate cognition. In this chapter, we discuss how large-scale collaboration, a research model successfully implemented in other fields, makes it possible to obtain the large and diverse datasets needed to conduct robust comparative analysis of primate cognitive abilities. We discuss the advantages and challenges of large-scale collaborations and argue for the need for more open science practices in the field. We describe these collaborative projects in psychology and primatology and introduce ManyPrimates as the first, successful collaboration that has established an infrastructure for large-scale, inclusive research in primate cognition. Considering examples of large-scale collaborations both in primatology and psychology, we conclude that this type of research model is feasible and has the potential to address otherwise unattainable questions in primate cognition.
Part of what distinguishes science from other ways of knowing is that scientists show their work. Yet when probed, it turns out that much of the process of research is hidden away: in personal files, in undocumented conversations, in point-and-click menus, and so on. In recent years, a movement toward more open science has arisen in psychology. Open science practices capture a broad swath of activities designed to take parts of the research process that were previously known only to a research team and make them more broadly accessible (e.g., open data, open analysis code, pre-registration, open research materials). Such practices increase the value of research by increasing transparency, which may in turn facilitate higher research quality. Plus, open science practices are now required at many journals. This chapter will introduce open science practices and provide plentiful resources for researchers seeking to integrate these practices into their workflow.