方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 数据共享与开放科学× | 审稿流程× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 出版伦理 | 出版伦理 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 2010 | 1665 |
| 提出者≠ | Open science movement; Center for Open Science; funding agencies (NIH, EU, NSF) | Scientific publishing community; formalized by journals and COPE |
| 类型≠ | Framework | Process |
| 开创性文献≠ | Open Science Framework (2023). OSF. Center for Open Science. link ↗ | Committee on Publication Ethics (2023). COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE. link ↗ |
| 别名 | Open Data, Research Data Sharing, Research Reproducibility | Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Evaluation, Scholarly Review |
| 相关 | 4 | 4 |
| 摘要≠ | Data sharing and open science are practices that maximize research transparency and reproducibility by making raw data, analysis code, and methods publicly available alongside publications. The replication crisis (widespread failure to reproduce published findings in psychology, medicine, and other fields) revealed that traditional publication—focusing on novel results—incentivizes selective reporting and p-hacking. Open science practices (preregistration, data sharing, code sharing, open materials) aim to reduce bias and enable independent verification. Major funders (NIH, NSF, EU) now mandate open science practices, and many journals require data availability statements or code repositories. | Peer review is the process by which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the same field before publication in academic journals. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. Established in 1665 with the first scientific journal (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), peer review remains the gold standard for quality control in academic publishing. Despite ongoing criticism and proposals for alternatives, peer review continues to filter low-quality and unethical work, though it is imperfect and sometimes slow. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|