This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Berberi, I. & Roche, D. G. No evidence that mandatory open data policies increase error correction. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1630–1633 (2022).
Veltri, G. A. Digital Social Research (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).
Fernández-Juricic, E. Why sharing data and code during peer review can enhance behavioral ecology research. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 75, 103 (2021).
Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K. & Winfield, A. F. T. Open science: a new ‘trust technology’? Sci. Commun. 34, 679–689 (2012).
Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J. & Heycke, T. Open science and public trust in science: results from two studies. Public Underst. Sci. 31, 1046–1062 (2022).
Cheah, P. Y. & Piasecki, J. Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers? Lancet 399, 1601 (2022).
Humphreys, H. Payment and progress in peer review. Lancet 400, 159 (2022).
Dance, A. Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off. Nature 614, 581–583 (2023).
Baker, M. Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17711 (2015).
Acknowledgements
We thank S. Salazar, D. Meuthen and R. Nagel for commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript. This contribution was inspired by discussions in the Stats Club of Bielefeld University’s Evolutionary Biology Group. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grants HO 5122/14–1, project number 454606304 (R.S.C.), TRR 212/2 2022, project number 396774617 (A.L.B) and HO 5122/18-1, project number 680350 (E.B.L.) awarded to J.I. Hoffman. M.C.S. was supported by the German Research Foundation through grant number WI1816/18-2 (FOR2432/2).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.S.C. and A.L.B. conceived the original idea. R.S.C. and A.L.B. took the lead in writing the first draft of the manuscript with substantial contributions from all authors (R.S.C., A.L.B., E.B.L., M.C.S. and T.S.). All authors (R.S.C., A.L.B., E.B.L., M.C.S. and T.S.) discussed the ideas and provided critical feedback on draft versions of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, R.S., Berthelsen, A.L., Lamartinière, E.B. et al. Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 1597–1599 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02152-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02152-3
This article is cited by
-
Reply to: Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2023)