What Second Graders Can Teach Us About Open Science

January 17th, 2017, Rusty Speidel


2nd grade 700


Science seems hard.  Scientists use fancy words and fancy equipment and study things that few people understand.  But, how scientists are supposed to learn things is not so hard to understand. A second grader’s textbook might describe science this way:

"Science is a way to learn about how the world works. Scientists ask questions, and then try to find answers.  They make observations in the world and use those observations to make a guess about what they think will happen next.  Those guesses are called hypotheses. Scientists test those hypotheses by setting up an experiment to see what happens and then make new hypotheses about what they think will happen.  By making guesses and then testing them, scientists learn new things. By doing experiments more than once, scientists learn what usually happens.  Scientists show how they did their experiment and what they found so that others can repeat the experiment and change it to test new hypotheses.  With many scientists sharing what they are doing, everyone learns about how the world works."

To a second grader, the description is consistent with things that they have learned already--observe, test, show your work, and share.  To a practicing scientist, the description is cute, idealistic, and naive.  A practicing scientist might introduce science this way:

"Science is a way to learn about how the world works. Scientists do experiments and observe what they found. Some of those findings are more interesting than others. An interesting finding is very useful for scientists because they can publish them and obtain money, called grants, to do more experiments.  Publishing and grants are important because they are how scientists keep their job and advance in their career. This is important because science is very competitive - there are many more scientists than there are jobs. Scientists who obtain more interesting findings will usually get the better jobs and earn more awards.  With many scientists working to find interesting things, they learn about how the world works."

The values of science are the same as the second grader’s--show your work and share.  But, the realities of doing science--the incentives and rewards--get in the way of scientists living by those values. COS exists to help science, and scholarship more generally, live up to the second grader’s conception of how it works.

In our current scholarly culture, openness and reproducibility are goals but not standard practice, because incentives driving researchers and service providers do not promote these values.  For researchers, the currency of reward is publication.  Publishing frequently in the most prestigious outlets possible is the gateway to jobs, promotion, tenure, grants, and awards.  Whether the research is open or reproducible is rarely relevant to publication success.  Instead, publication depends on achieving novel, positive, clean outcomes.  In a competitive marketplace, researchers may make choices--even unwittingly--that increase the likelihood of outcomes getting published, even at the cost of their accuracy.  Without transparency or efforts to evaluate reproducibility this loss of accuracy may go undetected, decreasing the credibility of the published literature.

For publishers, the dominant business strategy is to provide access to the research process, content, and outcomes via subscription or purchase models.  Since they are for-profit entities, this model makes sense but it reduces openness of the research. Subscription and purchase models limit access to research to those who can afford it, preventing it from being a public good.  Those without the advantage of resources have limited access to research and greater barriers to becoming contributors or applying the research to solve problems.

So what can we do about it? Think like a second grader - show your work and share.

If we improve access to the content and visibility into the process of producing research, we can increase reproducibility of the evidence and facilitate new discoveries.  Dead ends will be discarded more quickly and true paths forward will be found more efficiently. Increasing access to research outcomes will encourage all individuals with motivation, skill, and insight to contribute new knowledge and apply that knowledge towards solving humanity’s most pressing problems.

Join us!

Recent Blogs

The Content of Open Science

What Second Graders Can Teach Us About Open Science

What's Going on With Reproducibility?

Open Science and the Marketplace of Ideas

3 Things Societies Can Do to Promote Research Integrity

How to Manage and Share Your Open Data

Interview with Prereg Challenge Award Winner Dr. Allison Skinner

Next Steps for Promoting Transparency in Science

Public Goods Infrastructure for Preprints and Innovation in Scholarly Communication

A How-To Guide to Improving the Clarity and Continuity of Your Preregistration

Building a Central Service for Preprints

Three More Reasons to Take the Preregistration Challenge

The Center for Open Science is a Culture Change Technology Company

Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison

How can we improve diversity and inclusion in the open science movement?

OSF Fedora Integration, Aussie style!

Replicating a challenging study: it's all about sharing the details.

How Preregistration Helped Improve Our Research: An Interview with Preregistration Challenge Awardees

Some Examples of Publishing the Research That Actually Happened

Are reproducibility and open science starting to matter in tenure and promotion review?

The IRIS Replication Award and Collaboration in the Second Language Research Community

We Should Redefine Statistical Significance

Some Cool New OSF Features

How Open Source Research Tools Can Help Institutions Keep it Simple

OSF Add-ons Help You Maximize Research Data Storage and Accessibility

10 Tips for Making a Great Preregistration

Community-Driven Science: An Interview With EarthArXiv Founders Chris Jackson, Tom Narock and Bruce Caron

A Preregistration Coaching Network

Why are we working so hard to open up science? A personal story.

One Preregistration to Rule Them All?

Using the wiki just got better.

Transparent Definitions and Community Signals: Growth in the Open Science Community

We're Committed to GDPR. Here's How.

Preprints: The What, The Why, The How.

The Prereg Challenge Is Ending. What's Next?

We are Now Registering Preprint DOIs with Crossref

Using OSF in the Lab

Psychology's New Normal

How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv

The Landscape of Open Data Policies

Open Science is a Behavior.

Why pre-registration might be better for your career and well-being

Interview: Randy McCarthy discusses his experiences with publishing his first Registered Report

Towards minimal reporting standards for life scientists

Looking Back on the Prereg Challenge and Forward To More Credible Research

OSF: Origin, growth, and what’s next

A Critique of the Many Labs Projects

The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, A Preliminary Report

Strategy for Culture Change

New OSF Registries Enhancements Improve Efficiency and Quality of Registrations

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.