Open science, communal culture, and women’s participation in the movement to improve science

Abstract

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive

“…This paper considers the central question: How do we reimagine our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive? The term "open science" has been used over the past decade to characterize a reform movement comprising a number of different practices and policies, including sharing data, materials, and code, making scientific papers freely and publicly accessible, preregistering study designs and/or analysis plans, freely sharing teaching tools and educational resources, making the review process and other decision-making more transparent, and fostering post-publication peer review (e.g., McKiernan et al, 2016;Murphy et al, 2020;Tenney et al, 2020;Wolfram et al, 2020). But for the purposes of this paper, we wish to focus not on specific open science behaviors or initiatives, but rather on several of the essential goals that motivate many scientists (including many of us) to pursue these practices: Enabling anyone who would like to participate in science to do so, making scientific process and output transparent to all, and dismantling the hierarchy and entrenched power structures that privilege seniority and "insider status.…”

Versioning Biological Cells for Trustworthy Cell Engineering

“…Through transparency, "bugs in the bugs" would be more readily discovered and corrected. Furthermore, as recently argued (39), there are two growing trends in science. One seeks to make science more open and the other more reproducible, but the adherents of these two trends do not always works concurrently towards openness and reproducibility.…”

“Why MANtoring is not the solution. A Rebuttal to ‘The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance.’”

“…Second, like much of the literature on gender in science, the gender analysis by AlShebli et al engages in "Trans erasure" by failing to measure or thoughtfully acknowledge gender alternatives to cis men and cis women. These authors are not the first or only ones that fail to approach gender analyses in an inclusive way, which we and others have noted as a problem elsewhere 18,19 . We encourage scholars to both acknowledge the limitations of existing gender classification algorithms and strive to develop new measures, analyses, algorithms, and methods to include rather than erase trans and non-binary people.…”