When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.
Open Science is trusted science.
Practicing inclusion and transparency in research communication and the peer review process demonstrates credibility, reduces bias, and builds trust—both in individual studies and scientific research more generally.
From the very beginning of the investigatory process, Open Science helps create an environment where high-quality research can flourish, the impact of bias is limited, and everyone has the opportunity to verify and validate the work.
Open science is trusted science
A conversation covering how Open Science practices increase trust in science, and how we can best ensure such practices are seen as core values, habits, and norms rather than obstacles or administrative burdens.
Speakers
Veronique Kiermer, Chief Scientific Officer, PLOS
Yung En Chee, Senior Research Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne
Simine Vazire Professor, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
Also available
Promoting Open Science in COVID times: An Opportunity to build Trust among Researchers and the Public in Global Health
Read our blog
Wellcome Trust awards PLOS a grant to test ways to increase sharing and discovery of research data
Read our blog
Open Science Poll
Join the #FutureofOpenScience discussion on Twitter!
Resources to help you practice Trust
Whatever your approach, making methods publicly accessible inspires trust, facilitates reproducibility and reuse, and helps to keep your work relevant. Discover your options for communicating methods with PLOS.
A statistical analysis forms the heart of both the methods and results sections of a manuscript. Learn how to report statistical analyses, and what other context is important for publication success and future reproducibility.
Commit to Open Science
Commit to Open Science to advance trust and inclusion in research communication.
Take the Open Science Quiz
How Open is your research? Take our quiz to find out.
Stay in touch with PLOS
Receive regular Open Science updates straight to your inbox!
I believe Africans must contribute to this program for time is essences
I am a Brazilian researcher in the field of entomology/ecology. Since the beginning of my training as a researcher, in the institutions I have attended, it is usual to rely on peer reviews. While there are certainly problems and biased or deficient studies may have been published, they are still in the minority. Unfortunately, Brazil is currently going through a very delicate situation regarding the availability of funds for science. And this practically eliminates the possibility of publishing in open access journals. Making many quality types of research to be published in subscription journals or journals with low impact and little demand by the world scientific community.
Lack of trust is a huge problem in my field, most of the “scientific information” is full of conflicts of interest. I am a clinical oncologist and the skyrocketing drug prices in the last ten years has led to the extinction of independent confirmatory trials of the last 50 FDA approved drugs. That is simply bad science: we are treating our patients with the schedule (drug and doses) selected by the producer of the drug.
As a practitioner marine ecologist, I trust the peer review process underlying published research. Although, there are instances where the methodological procedures, the survey sampling or sampling design and the conclusions draw from the data are not coherent, thus leading to conjectures instead of real data interpretation, and I wonder how those aspects were overlooked by the reviewing process. This situation results in biased conclusions, lack of inference power to draw generalizations that prevent broader societal impacts of ecological research. Open access to methodological procedures, data and peer review processes might help to improve our impact on society needs. Having said that, money issues plays an utterly important role, particularly for researchers in societies where science funding is very limited and even scarce.
I realy feel glad when I read the question. Thank you for rising this interesting question. In my opinion, most published paper can be trusted but some papers seem somewhat confusing in their writings, data analysis, and conclusion. The reason may relate with question of money.
I realy feel glad when i read the question. Thank you for risi g this interesting question. In my opnon, most published paper can be trusted but some papers seem somewhat confusing in their writings data analysis, and conclusion. The reason may be the question of money.
Thank you for very interesting conversation. I would like to know the reference of the article the Ms Yung En Chee is referring to at the beginning of the interview on data being scrutinized by 29 different teams.
Thank you
Hi Geneviève,
The article is: Crowdsourced research: Many hands make tight work. Raphael Silberzahn and Eric L. Uhlmann. doi.org/10.1038/526189a
Best,
Dora
Very good this event.
The publication of scientific research is becoming 60% money oriented and money dependent. Open science -peer review system is 50% biased and most of the noble submissions are rejected on silly and totally misleading objections. But as and when a paper is published as “Open” the utility and adequate dissemination is ensured. There should be enough funds both with a person and or his/her institution to support publication. This has been a dream for me. Thousands of research workers in many countries are deprived of publication support.