Three Persistent Myths about Open Science

Abstract

Knowledge and implementation of open science principles and behaviors remains uneven across the sciences, despite over 10 years of intensive education and advocacy. One reason for the slow and uneven progress of the open science movement is a set of closely held myths about the implications of open science practices, bolstered by recurring objections and arguments that have long been addressed. This paper covers three of these major recurring myths: 1) that open science conflicts with prioritizing diversity, 2) that “open data” is a binary choice between fully open and accessible and completely closed off, and 3) that preregistration is only appropriate for certain types of research designs. Putting these myths to rest is necessary as we work towards improving our scientific practice.