Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

From Nature Ecology & Evolution

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Matters Arising to this article was published on 31 July 2023

The Original Article was published on 15 September 2022

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1: Pre-publication and post-publication error correction potential of mandatory open data policies.

References

  1. Berberi, I. & Roche, D. G. No evidence that mandatory open data policies increase error correction. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1630–1633 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Veltri, G. A. Digital Social Research (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).

  3. Fernández-Juricic, E. Why sharing data and code during peer review can enhance behavioral ecology research. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 75, 103 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K. & Winfield, A. F. T. Open science: a new ‘trust technology’? Sci. Commun. 34, 679–689 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J. & Heycke, T. Open science and public trust in science: results from two studies. Public Underst. Sci. 31, 1046–1062 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheah, P. Y. & Piasecki, J. Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers? Lancet 399, 1601 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Humphreys, H. Payment and progress in peer review. Lancet 400, 159 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dance, A. Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off. Nature 614, 581–583 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baker, M. Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17711 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Salazar, D. Meuthen and R. Nagel for commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript. This contribution was inspired by discussions in the Stats Club of Bielefeld University’s Evolutionary Biology Group. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grants HO 5122/14–1, project number 454606304 (R.S.C.), TRR 212/2 2022, project number 396774617 (A.L.B) and HO 5122/18-1, project number 680350 (E.B.L.) awarded to J.I. Hoffman. M.C.S. was supported by the German Research Foundation through grant number WI1816/18-2 (FOR2432/2).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Rebecca Shuhua Chen, Ane Liv Berthelsen.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Behaviour, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Rebecca Shuhua Chen, Ane Liv Berthelsen & Etienne Brejon Lamartinière

  2. Department of Ecosystem Modelling, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Matthias Christian Spangenberg

  3. Evolutionary Biology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Tim Schmoll

Authors
  1. Rebecca Shuhua Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ane Liv Berthelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Etienne Brejon Lamartinière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Christian Spangenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tim Schmoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.S.C. and A.L.B. conceived the original idea. R.S.C. and A.L.B. took the lead in writing the first draft of the manuscript with substantial contributions from all authors (R.S.C., A.L.B., E.B.L., M.C.S. and T.S.). All authors (R.S.C., A.L.B., E.B.L., M.C.S. and T.S.) discussed the ideas and provided critical feedback on draft versions of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rebecca Shuhua Chen or Ane Liv Berthelsen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, R.S., Berthelsen, A.L., Lamartinière, E.B. et al. Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 1597–1599 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02152-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02152-3

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation