Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:05:50.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Principles of Open Science

from Section 1 - Principles of Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2025

Dawn N. Albertson
Affiliation:
University of New Hampshire
Derek K. Tracy
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Dan W. Joyce
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Sukhwinder S. Shergill
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway Medical School
Get access

Summary

Recently, there has been growing awareness of the so-called ‘reproducibility crisis’ which refers to the failure to replicate the findings of many scientific studies. This may arise from the employment of questionable research practices, such as ‘p-hacking’ (conducting many statistical tests, and only reporting significant results), HARKING (hypothesising after the results are known), and outcome switching (promoting secondary outcomes to primary outcomes to fit unexpected results). Open Science practices, which encourage open methodology (including pre-registration of hypotheses and outcomes), open data (in a publicly accessible repository), and open access to publication (including pre-prints), are vital to combatting these. This chapter sets out how Open Science practices can be applied to psychiatric research, including consideration of challenges which can arise, such as how to share data safely and appropriately. The chapter includes an explanation of key principles and constructs, and explains how Open Science practises can be embedded throughout the life-cycle of a project, with practical how-to guides and sign-posting to further resources.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Research Methods in Mental Health
A Comprehensive Guide
, pp. 15 - 31
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Further Reading

Merton, RK (ed.). (1973) [1942]. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–78. ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754.Google Scholar

References

Khaleeli, H. A body language lesson gone wrong: why is George Osborne standing like Beyoncé? The Guardian 2015, 7 October.Google Scholar
Carney, DR, Cuddy, AJC, Yap, AJ. Power posing: brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science 2010;21[10]:1363–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranehill, E, Dreber, A, Johannesson, M, et al. Assessing the robustness of power posing: no effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large sample of men and women. Psychological Science 2015;26[5]:653–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkjær, E, Mikkelsen, MB, Michalak, J, Mennin, DS, O’Toole, MS. Expansive and contractive postures and movement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of motor displays on affective and behavioral responses. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2020;17[1]:276304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munafò, MR, Nosek, BA, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 2017;1[1].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2005;2[8]:e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collaboration, OS. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 2015;349[6251]:aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 2016;533[7604]:452–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, CH, Siah, KW, Lo, AW. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2018;20[2]:273–86.Google Scholar
Freedman, LP, Cockburn, IM, Simcoe, TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLOS Biology 2015;13[6]:e1002165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macleod, MR, Michie, S, Roberts, I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet 2014;383[9912]:101–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakefield, AJ, Murch, SH, Anthony, A, et al. RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet 1998;351[9103]:637–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozek, LS, Jones, P, Menon, A, et al. Understanding vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19: the role of trust and confidence in a seventeen-country survey. International Journal of Public Health 2021;66:636255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggertson, L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne 2010;182[4]:E199200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suelzer, EM, Deal, J, Hanus, KL, et al. Assessment of citations of the retracted article by Wakefield et al with fraudulent claims of an association between vaccination and autism. JAMA Network Open 2019;2[11]:e1915552-e.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-Ilan, J, Halevi, G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics 2017;113[1]:547–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, LK, Loewenstein, G, Prelec, D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 2012;23[5]:524–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, JP, Nelson, LD, Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 2011;22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A, Loken, E. The garden of forking paths: why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. 2013. https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdfGoogle Scholar
Silberzahn, R, Uhlmann, EL, Martin, DP, et al. Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2018;1[3]:337–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munafò, MR, Chambers, CD, Collins, AM, Fortunato, L, Macleod, MR. Research culture and reproducibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2020;24[2]:91–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crüwell, S, van Doorn, J, Etz, A, et al. Seven easy steps to open science: an annotated reading list. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2019;227[4]:237–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathawalla, U-K, Silverstein, P, Syed, M. Easing into open science: a guide for graduate students and their advisors. Collabra: Psychology 2021;7[1].Google Scholar
Markowetz, F. Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly. Genome Biology 2015;16[1]:274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colavizza, G, Hrynaszkiewicz, I, Staden, I, Whitaker, K, McGillivray, B. The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. PLoS One 2020;15[4]:e0230416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tennant, JP, Waldner, F, Jacques, DC, et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review [version 3; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2016;5:632.Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, N, Momeni, F, Mayr, P, Peters, I. The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics. Quantitative Science Studies 2020;1[2]:618–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalczyk, O, Lautarescu, A, Blok, E, Dall’Aglio, L, Westwood, S. What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide 2020. https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-022-05999-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Framework. Available from: www.osf.ioGoogle Scholar
AsPredicted. Available from: https://AsPredicted.orgGoogle Scholar
ClinicalTrials.gov. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/Google Scholar
ISRCTN Registry. Available from: https://www.isrctn.com/Google Scholar
PROSPERO Database. Available from: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prosperoGoogle Scholar
R analysis software. Available from: www.r-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Sherpa Romeo Database. Available from: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/Google Scholar
Hrynaszkiewicz, I, Norton, ML, Vickers, AJ, Altman, DG. Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers. Trials 2010;11[1]:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keerie, C, Tuck, C, Milne, G, et al. Data sharing in clinical trials – practical guidance on anonymising trial datasets. Trials 2018;19[1]:25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, K, Branson, J, Dilleen, M, et al. Protecting patient privacy when sharing patient-level data from clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2016;16[1]:77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haven, TL, Van Grootel, DL. Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research 2019;26[3]:229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, AC, Kohrt, BA, Matthews, LT, et al. Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Sciences & Medicine 2016;169:191–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moseley, P, Aleman, A, Allen, P, et al. Correlates of hallucinatory experiences in the general population: an international multisite replication study. Psychological Science 2021;32[7]:1024–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, O, Hardwicke, TE, Aust, F, et al. A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology 2018;4[1].Google Scholar
Bell, V. Open science in mental health research. Lancet Psychiatry 2017;4[7]:525–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UKRN primers. Available from: www.ukrn.org/primersGoogle Scholar
Open Science MOOC. Available from: https://opensciencemooc.eu/Google Scholar
R for Data Science. Available from: https://r4ds.had.co.nz/Google Scholar
YaRrr! The Pirate’s Guide to R. Available from: https://bookdown.org/ndphillips/YaRrr/Google Scholar
Field, A, Miles, J, Field, Z. Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE; 2012.Google Scholar
Coursera. Available from: https://www.coursera.org/Google Scholar
Open Research Calendar. Available from: https://openresearchcalendar.org/Google Scholar
ReproducibiliTea Journal Club. Available from: https://reproducibilitea.org/Google Scholar
RIOT Science Club. Available from: http://riotscience.co.uk/Google Scholar
Bishop, D. Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility. Nature 2019;568[7753]:435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
When soes HARKing hurt?, Rubin M. Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. Review of General Psychology 2017;21[4]:308–20.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D.Positive’ results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One 2010;5[4]:e10068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumas-Mallet, E, Button, KS, Boraud, T, Gonon, F, Munafo, MR. Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains. Royal Society Open Science 2017;4[2]:160254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, BA, Errington, TM. What is replication? PLoS Biology 2020;18[3]:e3000691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, LL, Mazar, N, Gino, F, Ariely, D, Bazerman, MH. Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2012;109[38]:15197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, U. Fast lane to slow science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2020;24[1]:12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book 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.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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 Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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 Google Drive.

Available formats
×