Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science

Jelte M Wicherts,Rogier A Kievit,Marjan Bakker,Denny Borsboom

doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00020

Abstract

With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses.

Highlights

It has been argued, most famously by Karl Popper, that the openness of the scientific system is what makes it such a successful epistemic project, compared to other methods of gathering knowledge
We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication
We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Most famously by Karl Popper, that the openness of the scientific system is what makes it such a successful epistemic project, compared to other methods of gathering knowledge. We will suggest a simple improvement that may go a long way toward solving the current problems; namely, to open up the peer review system itself In this context, we will propose a new system that is based on three pillars: (1) the publication of reviews, (2) the public assessment of the quality of those reviews, and (3) mandatory publication of data together with a published paper. As the variety of examples above show, this particular case is not of great importance We chose it because (a) we are familiar with its content and the context in which it appeared, (b) we feel confident in judging the merits of the paper and the problems that should have been picked up by reviewers, and (c) its problems could have been solved in a more open system of peer review. If we succeed in our goal, readers will be able to substitute our particular case study with a relevant example from their field

A CASE STUDY

CONCLUSION

Disclose reviews

Open up the editorial hierarchy