Edinburgh Research Explorer

An Open Science Peer Review Oath

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • Jelena Aleksic
  • Adrian Alexa
  • Teresa K Attwood
  • Neil Chue Hong
  • Martin Dahlo
  • Robert Davey
  • Holger Dinkel
  • Konrad U Forstner
  • Ivo Grigorov
  • Jean-Karim Heriche
  • Leo Lahti
  • Dan MacLean
  • Michael L Markie
  • Jenny Molloy
  • Maria Victoria Schneider
  • Camille Scott
  • Richard Smith-Unna
  • Bruno Miguel Viera

Related Edinburgh Organisations

Open Access permissions

Open

Documents

  • Download as Adobe PDF

    Rights statement: Copyright: © 2015 Aleksic J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

    Final published version, 931 KB, PDF-document

    Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/
Original languageEnglish
Journal F1000Research
Volume3
Issue number271
Early online date12 Nov 2014
DOIs
StatePublished - 9 Jan 2015

Abstract

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions.

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 17699894