IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v28y2017i2p348-354..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists

Author

Listed:
  • Malika Ihle
  • Isabel S. Winney
  • Anna Krystalli
  • Michael Croucher

Abstract

Lay Summary Doubts over the credibility of science can be lifted by open research practices. Low reliability (absence of biases) and reproducibility (transparent workflow) result in a low probability of independent studies reaching the same outcome (lack of replicability). To circumvent these issues, we discuss how the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines, proposed by the Center for Open Science, along with a software engineering toolkit allow researchers to embrace the open science process.

Suggested Citation

  • Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:28:y:2017:i:2:p:348-354.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arx003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E. B Kruuk, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well are We Doing?," Working Papers id:7811, eSocialSciences.
    2. Barry G Hall & Stephen J Salipante, 2007. "Measures of Clade Confidence Do Not Correlate with Accuracy of Phylogenetic Trees," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Shakti Lamba & Vivek Nityananda, 2014. "Self-Deceived Individuals Are Better at Deceiving Others," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-6, August.
    4. Aurelie Seguin & Wolfgang Forstmeier, 2012. "No Band Color Effects on Male Courtship Rate or Body Mass in the Zebra Finch: Four Experiments and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E B Kruuk & Robert Lanfear & Sandra A Binning, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Heather Piwowar, 2013. "Value all research products," Nature, Nature, vol. 493(7431), pages 159-159, January.
    7. Nick Barnes, 2010. "Publish your computer code: it is good enough," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7317), pages 753-753, October.
    8. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    9. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    10. Martin Bulla & Will Cresswell & Anne L. Rutten & Mihai Valcu & Bart Kempenaers, 2015. "Biparental incubation-scheduling: no experimental evidence for major energetic constraints," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 30-37.
    11. Luke Holman & Megan L Head & Robert Lanfear & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    2. Walter D. Koenig, 2017. "Striving for science that is transparent, credible—and enjoyable: a comment on Ihle et al," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 358-358.
    3. Isabel S. Winney & Malika Ihle, 2017. "Transparent and credible practices under the microscope: a response to comments on Ihle et al," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 360-361.
    4. Qianjin Zong & Zhihong Huang & Jiaru Huang, 2023. "Do open science badges work? Estimating the effects of open science badges on an article’s social media attention and research impacts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3627-3648, June.
    5. Shinichi Nakagawa & Malgorzata Lagisz, 2019. "How good does our map of knowledge have to be?: a comment on Berger-Tal et al," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 13-14.
    6. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    3. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    4. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Joshua D. Carrell & Edward Hammill & Thomas C. Edwards, 2022. "Balancing Rare Species Conservation with Extractive Industries," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Marcus Munafò & Amalia Mas-Bleda & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Verena Weigert & Chris Keene & Nushrat Khan & Katie Drax & Kayvan Kousha, 2020. "Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    7. Lloyd W. Morrison & Craig C. Young, 2016. "Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species," Data, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Michaël Bikard, 2018. "Made in Academia: The Effect of Institutional Origin on Inventors’ Attention to Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 818-836, October.
    9. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    10. Brian Jackson, 2021. "Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, June.
    11. Josip Strcic & Antonia Civljak & Terezija Glozinic & Rafael Leite Pacheco & Tonci Brkovic & Livia Puljak, 2022. "Open data and data sharing in articles about COVID-19 published in preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2791-2802, May.
    12. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Joanna Chataway & Sarah Parks & Elta Smith, 2017. "How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 44-53.
    14. Michaël Bikard & Matt Marx, 2020. "Bridging Academia and Industry: How Geographic Hubs Connect University Science and Corporate Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3425-3443, August.
    15. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    17. Jonathan F Schulz & Christian Thöni, 2016. "Overconfidence and Career Choice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    18. Cristina López-Duarte & Jane F. Maley & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez, 2021. "Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8957-8980, November.
    19. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    20. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2019. "Standing on the Shoulders of Science," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 215, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:28:y:2017:i:2:p:348-354.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.