This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative | |
|---|---|
| Name | Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative |
| Formation | 2014 |
| Type | Research transparency campaign |
| Location | International |
| Headquarters | N/A |
| Methods | Advocacy, policy proposals |
| Website | N/A |
Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative
The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative is an international campaign advocating that reviewers encourage or require sharing of research materials, data, and code during manuscript review. Founded by researchers engaged with reproducibility debates in psychology and biomedical sciences, the Initiative connects to reform efforts within scholarly publishing and intersects with debates involving funders, universities, and learned societies.
The Initiative arose amid high-profile replication discussions involving Psychology, Biomedical research, Open science, Reproducibility Project: Psychology, Nature (journal), and Science (journal). Key antecedents include controversies linked to prominent figures such as Diederik Stapel, Brian Wansink, Pieter Cohen, and responses by institutions like National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, European Research Council, and Harvard University. It parallels movements exemplified by advocates including John Ioannidis, Brian Nosek, Richard Horton, Tracey Whitwell, and organizations such as Center for Open Science, Open Knowledge Foundation, Committee on Publication Ethics, and Society for Neuroscience.
The Initiative promotes transparency norms aiming to improve reproducibility, accountability, and cumulative knowledge. Its principles align with recommendations from Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, endorsements by Royal Society, and policy shifts at publishers like PLOS, Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, and Taylor & Francis. It urges reviewers to consider data sharing consistent with funder mandates from National Science Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), and with institutional policies at organizations such as Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Oxford, and University of California.
Practically, the Initiative recommends that peer reviewers request access to raw data, analysis code, and materials when manuscripts report empirical results, following procedures used by journals such as PLOS ONE, Royal Society Open Science, BMJ, The Lancet, and Frontiers. Reviewers may use repositories like Dryad (repository), Figshare, Zenodo, GitHub, and Open Science Framework to verify results, mirroring workflows promoted by editors at eLife, Cell Press, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and American Psychological Association. The Initiative’s guidance interacts with legal and ethical frameworks involving General Data Protection Regulation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and institutional review boards at universities including Columbia University, Yale University, and University of Toronto.
The Initiative has influenced editorial policies across publishers and journals, contributing to increased data availability statements and code-sharing requirements at outlets like Nature Communications, Scientific Reports, Lancet Global Health, and JAMA. It fed into broader conversations involving metrics agencies such as Crossref, ORCID, Scopus (Elsevier), and Clarivate, and affected practices at research funders including Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Horizon 2020. Its effects are visible in debates within communities like cognitive neuroscience, social psychology, epidemiology, and genomics about replication efforts exemplified by projects associated with Many Labs and replication networks linked to Open Science Collaboration.
Critics argue that mandatory disclosure can conflict with privacy, intellectual property, and competitive concerns raised by stakeholders including biotech firms such as Genentech, Amgen, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Legal and ethical objections cite precedents from litigation involving universities like University of Pennsylvania and companies represented in cases before courts such as United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Some editors and researchers at institutions including Princeton University, University of Chicago, and Imperial College London have warned about administrative burdens, potential misuse of shared data, and risks for early-career researchers highlighted by commentators such as Paul Ginsparg and Stephen Curry.
Endorsements of the Initiative’s aims have come from individuals and organizations active in reform, including members of Center for Open Science leadership, editorial boards of PLOS, and signatories among researchers affiliated with Harvard University, University College London, Johns Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Melbourne. National and international funders and consortia such as NIH, Wellcome Trust, European Research Council, and Research Councils UK have adopted complementary mandates that amplify the Initiative’s objectives. Professional societies including American Association for the Advancement of Science, Royal Society of Medicine, and American Psychological Association have enacted related transparency policies.
The Initiative links to other reform efforts including the TOP Guidelines, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Budapest Open Access Initiative, and standards promoted by FAIR data principles organizations, while intersecting with publisher-led platforms like CrossMark and DataCite. It complements community projects such as OpenTrials, AllTrials, Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, and repository ecosystems like PubMed Central and Europe PMC that together reshape norms for research reporting and verification.
Category:Open science