Abstract

We are on the precipice of a sea change in how research is conducted. Funder mandates and changing expectations around scientific reproducibility have resulted in a new set of open science best practices (OSBP) for research. These practices include, but are not limited to, data and code sharing, hypothesis preregistration, registered reports, and open peer review. With these changes come challenges and potentially unanticipated side-effects. In particular, here I will highlight what I see as the biggest mismatches between the career incentives of the field of neuroscience and OSBP, from the perspective of an early career researcher.

Keywords: Open science, research ethics, reproducibility, open review, registered reports, preregistration

References

https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170911095932.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/alzheimers-amyloid-hypothesis/517185/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/one-five-genetics-papers-contains-errors-thanks-microsoft-excel

https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4234136/excel-calculation-error-infamous-economic-study

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa1409364

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33220-9/fulltext

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/06/nobel-prize-winner-demonstrates-best-way-apologize-chemist-frances-arnold

https://laskowskilab.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2020/01/29/retractions/