Trusting on the shoulders of open giants? Open science increases trust in science for the public and academics

Author:

Song Hyunjin1ORCID,Markowitz David M2ORCID,Taylor Samuel Hardman3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Communication, Yonsei University , Seoul, South Korea

2. School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon , Eugene, OR, USA

3. Department of Communication, University of Illinois Chicago , Chicago, IL, USA

Abstract

Abstract Researchers often focus on the benefits of adopting open science, yet questions remain whether the general public, as well as academics, value and trust studies consistent with open science compared to studies without open science. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,691), we find that the general public perceived open science research and researchers as more credible and trustworthy than non-open science counterparts (Studies 1 and 2). We also explored if open science practices compensated for negative perceptions of privately-funded research versus publicly-funded research (Study 2), although the evidence did not support this hypothesis. Finally, Study 3 examined how communication scholars perceive researchers and their work as a function of open science adoption, along with publication outlet (e.g., high-prestige vs. low-prestige journals). We observed open science research was perceived more favorably than non-open science research by academics. We discuss implications for the open science movement and public trust in science.

Funder

Yonsei University

Yonsei New Faculty Research Seed Funding Grant

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics,Communication

Reference69 articles.

1. Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing;Abele-Brehm;Social Psychology,2019

2. Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: Could the latter ever be preferable?;Abramo;Scientometrics,2010

3. The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science;Anvari;Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology,2018

4. A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check;Aronow;Political Analysis,2019

5. Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?;Baguley;British Journal of psychology (London, England : 1953),2009

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3