Preserving privacy in the era of openness: Commentary on open science requirements for identifiable data in psychological science journals.

Abstract

Psychological science journals are increasingly adopting open science (OS) policies (e.g., Transparency and Openness Promotion) requiring researchers to make all data and materials publicly available in an effort to drive research toward greater transparency and accessibility. These policies certainly have many benefits to the scientific community and public in helping ensure the quality of published research. However, the Center for Open Science has not offered any explicit guidelines regarding when exceptions to OS policies should be made, with only vague guidelines offered such as "when ethical or legal constraints prevent it." We argue that these ambiguous policies may create bias in decisions made by journal editors as to whom and what type of research is granted exceptions. When journals are too rigid in their exception policies, this may unintentionally contradict OS's goals to create a more valid and ethical science. We argue that journals should never mandate identifiable data to be posted publicly as a publication prerequisite. Maintaining participant anonymity should always come before OS policies to (a) align with psychologists' primary obligation of maintaining participant confidentiality, (b) encourage participation from the broader population and more specifically from marginalized communities, and (c) maintain unbiased, representative, and valid data. From empirical and ethical insights, we offer several solutions to ease the tensions between OS and participant privacy during the data collection and publication process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).