- We admitted we were powerless over our results. That our status-seeking was unmanageable.
- Came to believe that the power of truth-seeking would restore us to sanity.
- Made a decision to turn our research and our careers over to the power of truth-seeking as we understood it.
- Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our scientific conduct.
- Admitted to ourselves and to another trusted scientist and in public the exact nature of our questionable research practices (QRPs).
- Were entirely ready to let pursuit of truth remove our QRPs.
- Humbly asked truth-seeking to replace our hacking and bias.
- Made a list of all hacked results and became willing to update or retract them all.
- Made such updates and retractions, ensuring that in doing so all innocent co-authors reputations were not harmed.
- Continued to take academic-status-seeking inventory and when we engaged in QRPs promptly admitted it.
- Sought through logic and self-reflection to improve our conscious pursuit of truth, as we understood truth-seeking, praying only for the least biased research practices possible.
- Having had a scientific awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to academic-status-seekers, and practice these principles in all our affairs.
Students pursuing a bachelor or master degree develop both labor market skills for a information and computer-based career, and learn to do science. Not all go on to be scientists. It would seem that those that do not, have no impact on scientific knowledge. They took tests and wrote papers in order to earn their degree. The test results and papers are only for their instructor’s eyes and maybe an occasional parent or other student.
It could be different.
- Science is an act of knowledge production
- Bachelor and master students have and develop useful knowledge
- Teaching them to share their knowledge and collaborate in knowledge production:
- improves collective scientific knowledge
- leads to a feeling of empowerment and utility among the students
- creates ideal-type citizen scientists
Starts with teaching
In any given course in any particular discipline, students are taught to do science as a practice. This includes knowledge or ideas about the world; empirical evidence gathered through participation, observation or experimentation; and techniques to maximize the accuracy, efficacy and reliability of their knowledge and ideas. The students’ own work on assignments or theses is a form of ‘training’, and an instructor then checks or grades their learning. If they are privileged they get constructive feedback, and if they are highly self-motivated they actually read the feedback and incorporate it into their future work.
Students are generally aware that their work is for their instructor’s eyes only. At least in my experience, they cannot imagine their work shaping science or public knowledge. They thus have little extrinsic motivation to do more than what the instructor asks of them.
What if the instructor asks them to change the world outside the classroom in some way?
We, as instructors, are teaching students to produce reliable and critical knowledge. They should get a high mark if the work is deemed to be high quality. Why then does the entirety of their learning and knowledge production end as a forgotten file in a folder as a relic of some semester past? Why don’t they share some of that knowledge? I bet if they thought that their knowledge was valuable and useful beyond degree acquisition, they would be stoked.
Hampered by institutionalized beliefs and practices
A common argument against bachelor and master students trying to disseminate their work is that it is not high enough quality to compete with work from doctoral and post-doctoral researchers. In particular, they have not had enough time to dig deep into a body of literature on their topic of interest and their methodological skills may still be quite underdeveloped. They would probably be ‘wasting’ their time pursuing a journal publication or even a publicly disseminated working paper.
I agree. This points at the root of the problem. Publication-based science. Science as we know it has a rewards system where publications are treated as far more valuable than anything else scientists produce. This is particularly acute in the social sciences where scientific research rarely leads to tech or apps with private market value. When publications are the ‘currency of the trade’, academics, universities, editors, students, even policymakers prioritize publications and citations to those publications as the metric for judging the quality of scientific research. As such, scientists have maximum incentive to produce publications above all else.
Now, bachelor and maybe master students are generally unaware of the severity of this publish-or-perish plague that infects the very spirit of science. But like a fish that is unaware of the properties of the water it lives in, the students are deeply affected by the polluted nature of the academic norms in which they matriculate. How many times has a teacher told a bachelor student that they should submit their term paper to a high impact journal? How often are readings in scientific courses not from journal articles or books? A taskforce in sociology specifically recommended that students read and comment on books and journal articles because this is the ‘best’ type of academic knowledge for them to learn.
Student-citizen opportunities to shape public knowledge
With available technologies and new ideas about what constitutes meaningful knowledge, students can have a great impact on science; both now and into the future. Podcasts, blogs, vlogs, Youtube channels and many other forms of social media communication are consumed in high volumes across members of the public, and among students and scientists.
Therefore, when possible, I assign students the task of making a contribution to public knowledge and/or open science instead of writing a term paper. It seems better for all parties involved, and involves more parties because it could reach the public at large. I recently put this into practice in my course, “Open Science in Social Sciences: Crises, Controversies and Change” which I taught as an invited guest lecturer at the University of Zurich (UZH) (syllabus).
Wikipedia: knowledge now
Creating or editing a Wikipedia page where knowledge is lacking or does not exist at all, is a fantastic way to engage in public open science. Firstly, surveys report that more than a three-quarters and up to 90% of students use Wikipedia in their course research, at least in some English-speaking samples. Second, shaping knowledge immediately; seeing one’s own contributions appear on a public knowledge-platform is exciting and feels empowering. Third, knowledge is improved, in some cases much needed knowledge, like that which gives a voice, forum or contribution for underrepresented people or societies.
Three students in my course used Wikipedia to make contributions to public knowledge.
One of the students first edited and then created a Wikipedia page in Ukrainian, based on his Bachelor Thesis topic “A Theory of Generations”. He pointed out in class that most of the information on this topic, and knowledge accessed by Ukranians in general, is in Russian. Given the history of Russian hegemony in Ukraine, having more Ukranian resources promotes a Ukranian language and identity; in other words, promotes knowledge that is valuable to most Ukranians.
Additionally, this particular academic topic is contested and misunderstood in the literature according to this student. He points out that the former page focused only on one theory, when in fact there are many. Thus, he pointed out that before his edits and page renaming, “Ukrainian users of Wikipedia, by looking through the [former] article Theory of Generations, would be not informed adequately at least and misinformed at most, as Strauss-Howe generational theory is just one of the many other theories in this domain (yet one of the most controversial).”
Another student has a extracurricular passion for wild flora. There is a class of plants whose native habitats are pastures and fields. These ‘pasture flora’ (Ackerbegleitflora in German), as the student pointed out, are “often rare plants that would find suitable living conditions in pastures but are conflicted with the threat of economic means that increase productivity in agriculture. Some of the rarest plants in Central Europe are found in this class.”
At least in German-speaking Wikipedia, there was no page on this topic at the outset. In fact, Wikipedia redirected the students search to Unkraut (weeds), reinforcing the public misunderstanding of this class of wild flora as undesirable or economically-inefficient intruders in a pasture or field. He later discovered an existing page on Segetalflora which is a related class that has overlap with ‘pasture flora’. This points out that knowledge on certain topics can go by different names or be cross-classified, a problem that requires more discussion and Wikipedia users to resolve. Therefore, he elected to significantly expand the existing Segetalflora page, rather than make a new page with information about Ackerbegleitflora, so that everything was in one place, including discussions about differences, conservation and utility.
During our course in fall-winter of 2021, many exciting things related to open science were taking place at UZH. For example, the university created an explicit open science policy. Moreover, there was an open science week with speakers and, of course, our open science course. One student noticed that much information about the open science happenings was missing from the UZH Wikipedia page and decided to make it his project to add it.
A major limitation to the open science movement is simply a lack of academic awareness of the issues and their solutions. Wikipedia provides a platform to disseminate such knowledge. Thanks to this student’s research and edits to the German-language page, I was easily able to update the English-language version of in tandem. We hope users can follow our lead and update the French and Italian versions as well.
Youtube – unlimited public science possibilities
Youtube is now outpacing Wikipedia as a student’s ‘go to’ for scientific information and especially for science communication. Internet searches for ‘how to’ or ‘information about’ now seem as likely to return Youtube or other short instructional videos as they are text-based entries (depending on cookies, browser, settings, and etc of course). Videos also give a voice to research subjects that cannot easily be expressed via written language. As long as participants consent, students can interview their subjects and post a video on Youtube – an act that requires only minimal technical skill and can be done with free or cheap software.
Another student in my course elected to contribute to knowledge on the topic colorism – discrimination based on skin color. Unlike racism, the student found this topic was far less present in academic discussion, at least based on her internet searches. Her impression from a previous course and her searches, was that this topic was mostly used in reference to the United States, but less so in the German-speaking countries’ contexts. In fact, she pointed out that to here it seemed like many people did not think colorism existed in Switzerland or Germany. Therefore, for her project, she conducted an interview with a person whose parents are Asian and European, to understand if and what types of color awareness or colorism this person experienced personally or in media and marketing.
Student open science activism
The opening of science and increase in reliability and transparency of knowledge for academic and public consumption requires more than a handful of citizen scientists active on social media and Wikipedia. Many closed and un-reliable methods are taught as part of the pathology of science. Instructors and students alike are generally unaware that the science they promote is potentially unreliable. This is another way of saying that they have not yet been exposed to the core information of the open science movement. Thus, changes at the curricular and institutional level are necessary to promote this awareness and to foster change.
Three students in my course elected to develop strategies to shape curricula for university and school students so that it fosters awareness of open, ethical science practices.
One student felt that herself and her peers were generally uninformed about open science both in and outside of UZH. Her idea for changing this was to create a student led social media initiative at the University. As this is nothing that could be achieved or even approved in a few months, her project was an action plan for the creation of this service. Firstly, it would entail the creation of a Student Open Science Organization, that among other things would maintain social media accounts where they posted important open science information and resources. This would require several layers of bureaucratic approval and liaising with the Open Science Office.
Another student sought to communicate and potentially convince a primary methods professor in her area of Educational Science to incorporate open science into her courses. The idea would be that such a strategy could be deployed across other disciplines, and that her area was a test case to develop it. This required first developing persuasive reasons that could be shared in an open and friendly manner with a professor. Like many progressive universities, UZH has resources just waiting to be taken advantage of, a great realization of the student.
The professor responded to the student’s requests and agreed to add open science topics to her seminar plan, agreed with the students claims about the value of teaching open science and to specifically promote open data and FAIR principles as she teaches about qualitative data collection and evaluation; according to an exchange with the student.
Another student volunteers her time at a Zurich Community Center (Gemeinschaftszentrum). As the student points out, these centers, “offer space to work, play, learn, meet other people or participate in neighbourhood projects.” The student wanted to test if open science is a topic that adolescent children might understand or be interested in. Therefore, she first gained their interest and consent and organized a lesson at the Center. She used another resource of the UZH, the Kinderuniversität (Children’s University) as a protocol or concept for the adolescents to understand open science. The Kinderuniversität is specifically designed to support children in searching for answers and explanations of phenomena and, as the student points out, “serves as a good example to illustrate how science can be made accessible to all.”
Using this test case, the student was able to develop a curriculum for future courses for children and adolescents to discover and understand the concept of open science and why it is important. This guide includes resources that the children can directly interact with such as Wikipedia (that they can even edit this!), Blinde Kuh, Google Scholar, how to find and use a library and how to register for free at the UZH Children’s University.
Public science is often practiced in the social sciences and involves researchers engaging with a local community to help provide inputs into their own efforts to address their own identified problems and priorities as a community. At international universities, bachelor and master students are less likely to be from the local community, are only staying there temporarily, and may face ethno-linguistic barriers to engaging in public social science locally. However, they can still have dramatic impacts on knowledge affecting to their home communities or countries – remotely. That is the beauty of an internet of knowledge, it only requires online access not physical presence.
Something else to keep in mind is that replacing a traditional term paper with a project to impact public knowledge and/or open science is not realistic in all course types. For example a broad introduction to open science across disciplines, like my course, makes it relatively easy for students to chose any topic and use it to contribute to public knowledge. In a course that is very theoretical and narrow, for example critical Marxism or history of the Holy Roman Empire, student learning might be maximized if they write a conventional essay based on reading of the literature that proves they have mastered a well-rehearsed topic. If asked to make a contribution to knowledge specifically in these areas they might struggle to find things to add to Wikipedia or find that there are already seemingly unlimited public resources. “Might”, then again might not. There are often opportunities to engage technology or do things in different languages.
Ultimately, when students feel they are doing something more than just earning a credential, ticking a box, or trying to maximize their grades, they become more likely to engage the material. If they think their term paper might actually contribute to local or global communities’ knowledge base, conservation efforts, capacity to address underprivileged students and etc., they are naturally inclined to do higher quality work and develop a sense of empowerment and satisfaction. These are bases of self-knowledge and fulfillment that they will hopefully carry with them into the future and stay motivated to impact public knowledge as scientists in academic or citizen scientists working in any job.
This blogpost is an edited and abridged transcription of the talk ‘Open science is just good science’ given by Jon Tennant in 2018 at the annual meeting of DARIAH (“Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities”) a European Union based network to support digitally-enabled humanities research and teaching. This talk took place on the eve of major events in the Open Science Movement to which Jon contributed an enormous amount in a short period of time. The talk, presented here in readable format and appended with links, additional info and citations, provides an excellent primer on open science. This post is offered in honor of his memory as Jon passed away April 9th, 2020 in a motorbike accident. Any changes to the original wording of his speech are intended to focus, clarify and better communicate his message – a candid voice for open science.
Jon Tennant = open science
My story began about seven years ago… I was a master student in London at the time at Imperial College and I was talking to a friend and I was saying ‘you know I’d really like to publish my master’s thesis’. And he said ‘well, you know, just make sure that it’s open access’. I was like ‘what the hell is open access?’, and he said ‘it’s where you make your research freely available to everyone.’ And I thought ‘well doesn’t everyone have access to… oh wait…’, and I had everything sort of like “unraveled” about my academic history up to that point.
When I was a student I would hit paywalls all the time, and it just seemed like a common everyday thing. Like, ‘oh crap this one’s paywalled, guess I can’t use that, move on to my next one’. I realized that despite being in a ridiculously privileged position at a very elite institute in the UK, I still couldn’t actually access the things I needed to do my own research. The more I thought about it, the worse it became.
So what are the things that motivate me in the morning?
These are the big picture things that the open science movement is trying to solve, like the fact that the vast majority of scholarly research is still held hostage by private corporations. Around 75% of all published knowledge which should be available to humanity, is instead owned by shareholders or private companies. This disadvantages almost everyone on this planet except for those who are fortunate enough to be in a privileged position at an elite institute. These commercial giants are ruthless racketeers. They have profit margins often in excess of 35 to 40 percent, which is even bigger than Apple and all the big oil companies. The result is that as a global research community, or scholarly community, we are not communicating our results effectively, and then so many massive issues that are affecting our planet are suffering.
There are major barriers to the dissemination of scholarly knowledge. Copyright is a huge one. It is completely and utterly broken. It does not protect us as content producers; it protects the profits of scholarly publishers. Often we can’t even access our own research results and we are prohibited from sharing them due to anachronistic copyright laws. As consumers, often we don’t even know what we’re buying until after we’ve bought it. You can pay 40 bucks to access a research article and you have no idea what’s actually in it or if it will prove useful, and there’s no way in hell Elsevier is going to give you a refund for that. We have life-saving research; but most cancer and global health research is still hidden behind paywalls. And the real question is: how is any of this helping science or research, or having an impact on the global challenges that we are facing?
Consider the bigger picture, for example the sustainable development goals set by the World Health Organization includes things like economic growth, industry innovation infrastructure, reduced inequality, clean energy, and combating energy insecurity, water insecurity, and hunger. If you believe that research can help us achieve these goals and resolve these issues, then you must also acknowledge the corollary that preventing access to research stops us from achieving these goals. This is exactly the system which you’re playing in: you have an industry that thrives on preventing access to knowledge that’s how it makes its money. It’s not a bug. That’s a feature. It really is systemic and it’s parasitic as well if you want to use an ecology term.
One of the consequences of this is that public trust in research and expertise has plummeted over the last few years. We see expertise effectively dismissed especially from scholarly experts as if what we’re doing is no different than just Googling something. I’ve created a hypothetical conversation here, but this sort of conversation happens even at the highest levels. Like in Congress when researchers go to present evidence, they get rejected because politicians are like ‘you know, isn’t that research published in Science or Nature just ‘fake’ basically?’.
From Jon’s Slideshow
Academic: “This research paper has been published and therefore is scientifically valid.”
Non-academic: “But it’s paywalled. I can’t access it. How do I know it’s valid?”
Academic: “Because it has been peer reviewed.”
Non-academic: “Can you show me the peer reviews?”
Academic: “No. But it was done by two experts in the field.”
Non-academic: “Which experts?”
Academic: “We don’t know. But it’s in a top journal.”
Non-academic: “Why is it in a top journal?”
Academic: “Because it has a high impact factor, so is highly cited.”
Non-academic: “Why does that make the research better?”
Academic: “Trust me. I’m a scientist.”
If you think about it, there’s not really much reason why politicians and the public shouldn’t think that. Trust has to be earned, and trust is something that opacity does not breed. In a world where transparency breeds trust we shouldn’t actually be surprised when expertise is rejected because we’re operating within a closed system. If we step outside of that system and look at it, or empathize with those who are outside it, then actually it makes sense why we have a sort of chaotic relationship with members of the wider public at the moment. The ivory towers of academia are certainly crumbling due to the wider open movement, but is it happening fast enough and what are the consequences when it doesn’t move fast enough?
What is open science?
There is actually no universally accepted definition of this. Open science is about using science to help address the major challenges to society. Ironically if you look at the one systematic review of what open science is (published and paywalled by Elsevier) it says that ‘open science is transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks.’ So does that mean that open science excludes anything done by the individual? It’s a pretty stupid definition if you ask me. But you can’t read it anyway because its paywalled. So, when people use ‘open science’, often people will think oh they just mean you know ‘physics, biology, chemistry’, but when I talk about open science I mean in the most inclusive sense possible. ‘Open science’ is often used interchangeably with open scholarship or open research, but we just have to make sure that we include everyone; so it includes humanists, social scientists, even artists, engineers, mathematicians, medics, and citizen scientists even are included under this umbrella of what open science encapsulates.
For me as well, open science is based on core principles. I’ve got this nice little table here from Tony Ross-Hellauer.
This is a combination of practical aspects and personal aspects behind open science. For example, accessibility, equality, and rigor are practical aspects; but there also are ones you might miss like freedom, fairness, justice and truth. For me, these are principles that you should adopt anyway as a good human being; and if so, then you’re basically an open scientist, or open scholar. You can embed these practices within your everyday life, or least practices you should be doing as a researcher. But in the practical aspect, open science is bloody complicated. I don’t want to hold that fact back.
Open science includes things like discovery, analysis, writing and publication, all the way through to different tools used for assessment and evaluation. There are entire workflows here which we need to be trained at, but no one’s really teaching us how to use them. Imagine we are all aware of at least one of the above tools or practices, but integrating all of these into your everyday workflow as a researcher can be quite complicated. Another really important question I think we need to ask is:
How is open science objectively different to science?
Mick Watson, in 2015, just wrote this beautiful article ‘When will open science simply become science?’. Those principles and tools above are just good science. Mick said ‘open science describes the practice of carrying out scientific research in a completely transparent manner (good science) and making results of that research available to everyone. Isn’t that just science?’ And it’s difficult to disagree really. So when we talk about what open science is, it really is just better science; and the opposite of open science is just bad science, because if you’re not sharing in a transparent manner, then you’re basically creating anecdotes rather than research.
Is open science a movement?
A lot of people describe open science as a movement. A movement is defined as a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas. The implication of this is that a movement has a direction with shared common goals based on commonality. So if open science is a movement, then who is defining the direction? Who is defining the shared goals? What’s the strategy behind it? Who’s leading it? Is it DARIAH? Is it the Open Science Framework? What happens to those who don’t feel included in that movement? A nice example of this is one time when I had to go to the Humboldt Institute with some open science colleagues as part of an outreach workshop to teach them different methods of doing open science. When we went there, they actually ended up schooling us in doing something way better than what we were doing using virtual machine environments. And we were like ‘oh cool so you’ve basically already done open science anyway!’ and they were like, ‘yeah but we just don’t call it that.’
Is open science a process? A set of principles? A vision, a club, a political agenda, fad, a distraction, is it exclusive?
What happens when we, as a supposed movement or community, actually can’t answer any of these questions? I think that’s kind of important because it gets to the root of what open science is and how it is objectively different to what we as a scientific community are doing. Then that can help us define a strategic direction for the future of what we actually want to achieve, once we fall back upon that.
Among academics, there is this mantra publish-or-perish. But there is no publish-or-perish anymore. It’s publish-and-perish. You can publish a lot during grad school and still be told that you’re not qualified enough to get a postdoc. There’s too much competitiveness, too much is driven by funding, and too many people coming in through the pipeline being drilled into this sort of narrow ivory tower mindset of how to do academia as soon as we start. One of the first things I was told when I became a PhD student is within like your first year or so you better publish a high-impact paper. I was like ‘dude I don’t even have any data yet’. I did publish eventually, but it was a lot of strain and it’s a lot of stress to deal with that at Imperial College. Out of the 50 or so PhD students that were part of my cohort, pretty much every single one of them left with insomnia, alcoholism, depression, anxiety, or stress because they were treated like farm animals because of this publish-or-perish mentality. And we wonder why PhD students have almost twice the amount of mental health problems as people who work in emergency health services. We don’t have any sort of support framework.
These giant mega-publishers are partly to blame. We’ve heard of Springer and Elsevier et al. mentioned before. There’s a great quote from the journalist George Monbiot. He said that “academic publishers make Rupert Murdoch look like a socialist.” I think that’s a very ‘positive’ outlook. It’s also known as the industry the ‘internet could not kill.’ Back in 1995 Forbes wrote a really great editorial saying that Elsevier would be the Internet’s first victim. Elsevier went on then to basically have unbounded profit increases. It is still ongoing. It’s a twenty-five-billion-dollar-a-year industry in 2018. It’s extremely fat and bloated and 35% profit margins are fairly typical. We still talk about “papers”, I mean its 2018, and we’re still referring to “papers”, and what we have at the moment for the vast majority of our scholarly communication process is a 19th Century process of peer review applied to a 17th Century communication format around journals and articles. We still mostly use PDFs as well. I think it’s probably about time we adapted to the web of 1995 for scholarly communication because we’re seriously lagging and it’s a very strange system to be part of right now.
I’m sure we’ve all heard of Sci-Hub and ResearchGate as well. These are essentially platforms that want to provide increased access to scholarly research but are viewed as ‘pirate sites’, as if liberation of knowledge is equivalent to plundering and murdering. The American Chemical Society and Elsevier and their kin are suing them for millions of dollars and shutting them down preventing access to this research. For some reason sharing research is illegal; have a think about that one. The more you know the worse it gets. Only 25% of all scholarly research articles are open access and that comes about 20 years after the Budapest Open Access Initiative. We’re increasing our rate of free access to knowledge about 1% every year, so maybe in about 30 or 40 years we’ll finally have substantial access to research knowledge (see OS Timeline Updates at the end of this post for more info).
We have this prestige-based economy where your worth as a researcher is based on the commercial brands dictated by corporate values which you elect to publish in for whatever reason. There are various biases in this, for example if you are a minority researcher, woman or early career researcher then you are incredibly biased against from the outset. As we all know, researchers write, review, and edit the papers; so they generate around 95% of the real value behind scholarly communication. Then we (the researchers) have that content stolen away from us by publishers and then sold back to us. When you wonder how they generate 40% profit margins, it’s like going into a restaurant and bringing all of your own ingredients cooking the meal yourself and then being charged 40 bucks for a waiter to bring it out to you on a plate.
Its bullshit. The old saying is, ‘it’s smart people doing stupid things for smart reasons’ and the reason is because our careers depend upon this publish-or-perish mentality. But at the end of the day we’re basically being duped as a global research community. We are no longer researchers. We are the oil for the machine. The provider, the product, and the consumer for this mega corporate entity out there. The market itself is an incredibly dysfunctional part of a wider oligopoly, similar to a monopoly. Yeah, we have lifesaving research about cancer, Ebola and Zika for example. All hidden behind paywalls – sold off to the highest bidder at the will of Elsevier’s stakeholders. The Ebola outbreak was, what, four years ago? Just two days ago, Nature finally decided to announce they would provide open access, for a limited period only, to Ebola research. So a round of applause to Springer Nature for acting four years after they were supposed to.
If anybody’s not angry at scholarly publishers yet, then I’m clearly failing because you should be.
In Germany, you have a national library consortium who are currently revolting against the revolting practices of Elsevier and their kin. At a publishing conference I attended earlier this year in Berlin [APE 2018], Martin Grötschel was a speaker. He was in 2018 the president of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, and typically at these conferences he is supposed to get up and give a nice speech about what a great job everyone’s doing and give them a little round of applause for being who they are. But this was a conference held by Elsevier and Springer Nature and instead, he followed the vice president of External Relations of Elsevier onto the stage, and he spent about 15 minutes slamming the crap out of them in the most beautifully German way possible. He is one of the chief negotiators behind Project Deal. He is actually in the room when negotiating these big deal subscription contracts with Elsevier et al., and he was saying that he feels like he’s being bullied half the time.
He said during one of these negotiations, “we don’t want to pay Elsevier anymore because we don’t see the value in what you’re doing” and he described what followed:
“One publisher [Elsevier] stated ‘if your country stopped subscribing to our journals science in your country will be set back significantly’. I responded, ‘it is interesting to hear such a threat from a producer of envelopes who does not have any idea of the contents'”Martin Grötschel, at APE 2018
Pretty harsh. Hilarious at the same time. But whichever side you are on, however you look at this, there are these enormous rifts happening in the world of scholarly communication at this moment. It’s basically big publishers versus everyone else. They are entering the legal realm. They influence copyright, career advancement, the structure of our research institutes, and there are really deep issues happening here. In response there is an open science revolution infiltrating into many of these aspects. Project DEAL is causing quite a mess for big publishing.
In France recently, we had a similar thing between the Couperin Consortium and and Springer Nature. Couperin served up the middle finger on a silver platter and said ‘we’re not going to subscribe anymore’. They saved 12 million euros every year in subscriptions which they are reinvesting into open scholarly infrastructure. Sweden announced two or three days ago that they, the Bibsam Consortium, are doing the same thing. They cancelled all subscriptions to Elsevier journals and they’re like ‘crap, we’ve got like all of this money we’ve been wasting on journals for these last 30 years now what do we do with it?!’ It’s fantastic and if you look in Taiwan, South Korea, Argentina, and Mexico they are all gearing up to do the same thing. Oddly it is just the UK who seems to be not too fond of this.
We have so many awesome web-based technologies to open scholarly communication
Why on earth are we still communicating in PDF articles with thumbnail sized images when we have an entire web at our fingertips? I assume we all know about tools like GitHub, StackExchange and Wikipedia. Why not use something like the moderation or editing system of Wikipedia combined with the reward structure behind StackExchange combined with the version control of GitHub in order to create a fully integrated, community owned, very cheap, open scholarly communication system? And before anybody says ‘it can’t be done’, people are doing this already! I’m not sure if they are in digital humanities, but you know there are communities like computer scientists who are doing these sorts of things already, which brings me on to penguins.
What do Penguins, Cobras and Gimli have to do with open science?
Cultural inertia defines academia. It’s a crowd based physiological effect and pervades all aspects of the Academy. Have you ever met the average academic? 50% of academics are stupider than the ‘average academic’. They have this publish-or-perish mentality and they are generally terrified of new technologies. It took me about a year just to even set up a GitHub profile. We are also really bad at making predictions, like 10 years ago, people said ‘open access is never gonna happen’, eight years ago people said ‘open data is never going to happen’, three or four years ago people said ‘open peer review is never gonna happen’. Now people are saying preprints are never gonna happen. Yeah… all of these aspects of open science are happening in some sort of way in one form or another already, and it’s fantastic. But in doing so we’ve created a whole range of new technical social and language barriers around these new developments and that’s a bit of a problem.
We like to think that openness is supposed to be inclusive right? It is one of the key founding principles of the open science movement but is that actually the reality? Have we created a new system that’s open for some and not open for all? I would argue yes, and one of the reasons for this is that there are immense barriers to change within academia. We have a suite of social, cultural, technological, political, organizational things that create vast barriers, to each of us on an individual or community level, to actually progress in a way in which we think is most beneficial to our communities.
Three of the biggest stifling effects are fear, particularly for the most underprivileged, competition, because we all want to advance our careers, and the abuse of power dynamics from those at the top. All of this create inertia, which prohibits course correction. If you look at the values that are driving open science: things like how to reduce publication bias, how to increase access to knowledge, how to make research more efficient and reliable, how to make it more sustainable, and how to foster collaboration: almost every one of the barriers to these revolves around fear. For example, fearing of being scooped, or fear of information overload, fear of wasting time learning new practices or fear of poor research quality. Fear of errors and public humiliation is a big one for grad students. It’s this concept of fear, and this is where the Penguins come in. Researchers are like penguins.
Penguins spend most of their day huddled up together on an ice cap. Eventually they all start to get a little bit hungry, and they look longingly at the water. Food is out there, but so are killer whales. And no one wants to be the first one to jump into the water because they’re afraid of being eaten. Eventually one of them gets so hungry that he slides down off of the the iceberg into the water, and goes hunting for fish and he’s very happy. Then all of the others are like ‘oh, well he was safe, so maybe we can go down too’, and eventually one-by-one they all start laying down and they go off. And no one gets eaten, well sometimes someone gets eaten but that’s life, but it’s the same as academics.
There are new technologies and new processes and everyone’s terrified of being the first one to jump in. This fear is coupled with the fact that we’re almost singularly only rewarded for gaining academic capital based on the journals that we’ve published in. So we have an academic industry that relies on creating this ‘stifling effect’ over innovation and progression of a field. We are generating a lot of value for the publishing industry but we’re losing out as a global research community in the process. People talk about providing incentives to do open science or ‘sticks and carrots’ to make people do better science; but it’s kind of missing the point that we should actually be doing good science in the first place. We should not need to be incentivized to be transparent about our work, that’s the completely wrong way of looking at things in my view. That’s why the penguin analogy sort of works.
The next analogy is cobras. The cobra analogy is about key performance indicators and how having a performance-based evaluation system revolving typically around publication is damaging to academia and to global scholarly research. I call this the ‘cobra effect’, i.e., perverse incentive. There’s this really well-known anecdote about when the British ‘occupied’ India. Administrative officials were concerned that there were too many cobras in Delhi. So they created a new policy that members of the populace would be given money in exchange for any dead cobras. In return, the locals started breeding thousands and thousands of cobras, and then got a lot of money for them. So a policy designed to cull the number of cobras perversely led to a population boom in the end.
And the same thing happens in science if you look at how we are rewarded based on citations and impact factors. That’s what we what we end up aiming for. There’s another great paywalled article which came out last year that looked at this effect in Italian researchers. What it found was that within four years after the Italian Research Council’s policy saying that citation metrics were going to be used in hiring practices, it led to as much as a 179% increase in the number of self-citations. So it was a great idea executed in the wrong way, and led to an unintended consequence. It’s called Goodhart’s Law. When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure.
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”Goodhart’s Law; quoted in Jon Tennant’s slide
When high impact journals are the target for researchers they shift their priorities from scientific method to ‘how do we get into high impact journals?’. They conclude, ‘oh we have to tell a really good story, we have to get better data for our work.’ And that skews the research process, because the research process should never be about aiming for a high-impact publication. It should be about discovery of truth. Right? But we’ve skewed that.
So this is the game; and people always respond saying ‘well you know this is just a system that we’re a part of.’ But the system comprises of people, right? So anybody who is complicit in citation gaming, should be accountable for those actions. The fact that we are rewarded for high-impact journals is backwards. If you look at peer reviewed publications in the top journals it’s of typically a lower quality. The research has the highest probability of being retracted not due to more eyes but due to the probability that researchers have committed fraud or tried to cut corners in order to get into those journals.
According to this figure, ‘top journals’ mean worse research. It also demonstrates that the impact factor has perhaps nothing to do with the quality of research itself. The inverse of what we expect. One thing I tell researchers is ‘if you use the impact factor to evaluate the quality of another person’s research or of an individual researcher, then all of your papers that use any form of statistics should be retracted; because you sure as hell don’t know a thing about statistics’.
“If you use the impact factor to evaluate the quality of another person’s research or of an individual researcher, then all of your papers that use any form of statistics should be retracted; because you sure as hell don’t know a thing about statistics”Jon Tennant, ‘Open science is just good science‘.
That’s a powerful message to tell people especially in senior positions.
How does open science factor into this? Some possible ways forward.
One solution is to use altmetrics and article-level metrics so that we don’t just use one crap proxy to evaluate an incredibly complex system of research. If you haven’t signed the Declaration on Research Assesment (DORA) or looked at things like the Leiden Manifesto or NISO yet, these should be high up on your agenda. But ultimately it’s down to the individual researcher to ‘stop breeding cobras’, because that just contributes to a worse system.
Now, about Gimli. Has anybody not seen Lord of the Rings? There’s a scene there where towards the end of the movie against all hope, the last of the good guys go to march on the gates of the bad guys, and it’s a no hope situation. They’re basically all worrying themselves to death, and Gimli says, “certainty of death, small chance for success, what are we waiting for?!”, and they all march off and most don’t die; and it’s another perfect analogy for academia. We are told that you can’t do various aspects of open science because they will harm your career; and that’s due to these social internal barriers mentioned before. The effect of a divergent attitude which has been imposed upon us: that people who want to innovate and explore and create or do good science are chased out of the system. The effect is that all of us are straining in perpetuity as part of the status quo, and research suffers. Statistically less than 1-out-of-200 grad students will get a full-time professorship, according to recent research done in the UK. The question is then, why would you try and be the worst version of yourself via publish-or-perish to get a job that you’re probably not gonna get because you are going to publish-and-perish anyways? Researchers become trapped in this cycle. We feel like we’re forced to play the game because leaving academia is perceived as failure. This leads to a reinforcement of the power imbalances, cultural inertia, commercial interest and governing systems of academia, and the cycle continues.
Can we break this cycle through training?
A paper published last year showed that in 60.8% of research articles published in global health journals, the researchers did not self archive, i.e., post a preprint, even though it was free and allowed within journal policy. This is life-changing research which researchers themselves are not sharing in a field where you would think access to knowledge is important for saving people’s lives. We have to ask ‘why?’. In the UK, a study showed that 93% of researchers believe that open access is important but less than half of that number have actually published in an open access journal. Why again this massive discrepancy? It is quite shocking that researchers can expressly promote open access but not practice it, even when if you publish in an open access journal statistically you will gain an increase in citations. The same can be said if you share your data and your code openly. You make your work more reusable therefore more open to being cited. In a system where ‘dead cobras’ still count, this is a good thing for you. A lot of people will counter this by saying ‘open access is too expensive.’ If you say that, all you are saying is that you can’t Google properly, because self-archiving costs nothing. There are so many routes out there to free instantaneous sharing that help to level the playing field for everyone.
“I honestly don’t know, it just it blows my mind that researchers can promote one thing with one hand and then fail to uphold their own values with the other. And I don’t understand why, because all of the evidence points towards being open as enhancing your career”Jon Tennant, from talk
Now there are these policies and mandates saying ‘you have to publish your work open access’, and then publishers swooped in and said ‘we’ll give you open access for three thousand dollars a pop.’ Why would you pay three, four or five-thousand dollars for something that you can get for free? Preprints are amazing. Again, sharing is generally good for your career because you generate more citations faster. More importantly, you get free rapid communication for your research which could benefit society and its problems. There’s an explosion of preprint venues in the last five months. The concept here is that it’s your own work, don’t stick it behind a paywall. You do have choices to publish it where you want and the future is definitively going open, and you can already be a part of this.
On the left we have the exponential increase in the rise of preprints by platform, and on the right are preprints as a percentage of all papers by discipline. At the same time, open access mandates are appearing across the globe from funders, institutions and governments. Openness isn’t going anywhere so you might as well ride that wave.
I think it’s time to change the conversation because open science is pretty awesome. It increases the dissemination and reusability of your research and ultimately enhances your academic profile which is good for you. More importantly it helps to combat the reproducibility crisis, and makes you a better researcher both ethically and methodologically. It disseminates potentially life changing and saving knowledge freely to all.
The first step in achieving this is that we need to take responsibility and educate ourselves about open science or good science. This is one of the reasons I’m building this open science MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) to help training and support and education for researchers around the world. We are going to hopefully use this to empower the next generation to become leaders in their own research fields. There are challenges though. We need to not just act within our own little communities, but act across them to increase interdisciplinarity and community building.
[speaking to the DARIAH audience specifically] I’m honored to be here with humanists and social scientists because I don’t get to speak to you very often and I know that at the conferences I attend [paleontology] that humanists and social scientists often aren’t invited and I think that’s a real problem. We have this gulf between physical science, and humanities and social sciences. We need to be working together building bridges, not walls. Open science for me is about breaking down barriers and generating equity in science. Things that can help us to foster collaboration and increase the power of communities against the entrenched crap which we’re all trying to fight against. This means we have to work together towards a common goal, ultimately that common goal for me is pooling knowledge and resources to create a decentralized scholarly infrastructure. With communities as the actual focus, then we can actually achieve the principles of open science.
Be that penguin. Don’t hold back from trying new things; be one of those people who jumps into the water first because you’ll be remembered amongst your community as a champion. Be fearless Gimli. The career pipeline is leaky anyway so why not diversify your skill set. Go out as an awesome researcher ‘guns’ blazing, or train yourself to become an awesome researcher through open scientific practices predicting what the future of your field is going to be rather than doing what professor X tells you to do because it worked 50 years ago. Don’t be a cobra farmer. Be focused on good science and responsible evaluation and let the quality of your research speak for itself.
What open science is
It’s a tautology. Science was always open. This is where we want to get to in 10 years. We don’t want open science to exist anymore eventually, because this is going to be the period when we woke up and realized that what we were doing before wasn’t really science. It was anecdote, and we need to change that. Science without open is just anecdote, open science is just good science that’s your take-home message.
Afterword – OS timeline updates
During and after Jon’s 2018 talk and his passing in 2020, major changes took place that would reshape the science landscape. Two in particular are of centrality to Jon’s core values about free knowledge communication, and reinforce that open science is actually good science. For one, and despite many lawsuits and attempted shut downs, Sci-hub has very little apparent impact on publishers’ profits. The figure below is Elsevier’s parent corporation RELX’s revenue and earnings per share since 2016. Sci-Hub had massive usage throughout this time yet RELX’s revenues continued to climb.
What happened in 2019 was not a sudden flocking to Sci-Hub. It was that most of Germany’s institutions, the University of California and many other global institutions cancelled their Elsevier contracts. This clearly had a huge impact. At the same time, already in 2016, researchers on every continent used Sci-Hub en masse and had way more scientific knowledge in their possession than at any time prior. This was a huge achievement for scientific communication, that still continues today. Why didn’t Sci-Hub matter for corporate publishing profits?
Simple: Presumably those who use Sci-hub in the Global South and as members of less-well endowed institutions in the Global North do not have legal access to the articles they download. These institutions do not have the funding to have legal access, so whether the researchers at these institutes use Sci-hub or not, the institutes are not a current source of profit for publishers. Moreover, given the persistence of global inequality, it is unlikely that these institutes will ever afford subscriptions, thus they are not potential sources of profit either. For those who use Sci-hub at well-endowed institutions with subscriptions – maybe they are lazy, unaware of the subscription or somehow unable to access their library (e.g., a VPN or technical glitch) – they are not cutting into profits. These universities already have subscriptions for the most part so when their researchers use Sci-hub, the publishers still profit. Thus, all the noise made by publishers about Sci-hub eating their profits is greatly overstated.
The percentage of research available through legal open access channels has doubled or even tripled between 2015 and 2020, but one of the greatest achievements politically is Plan S supported by cOAlition S. This is a mandate that all funded research be open access as of 2021. This has completely shaken the for-profit megalithic publishing system and its role in Europe. Already, two of Jon’s favorite targets, Springer Nature and Elsevier, have come to the table to offer solutions for researchers to be compliant with Plan S. Its not perfect as it still calls for often large APCs on the part of the author, but it allows the authors to retain CC BY rights to their work. We cannot expect science communication to be perfect, just like human nature, but we can in perpetuity strive to do just good science and continue to push publishers to reduce their fees as we move away from print distribution.
 This is one of Jon’s more controversial claims. While there is evidence the public may have trusted science less heading into the 2010s, there is also a lot of evidence that trust has been stable for decades and of course that this varies greatly by country.
 The evidence on this is mixed.
Original post by Witold Kieńć
[Note from Nate Breznau] This post originally appeared in DeGruyter’s blog. I had assigned it as a reading in my course, but when I followed the link recently it did not appear and resolved instead to the home page of the blog. I searched within the blog but it did not turn up. Did DeGruyter remove it? I also am unnable to find the author of the post as his website seems to no longer exist (according to what I think is his OSF page). [update] I Tweeted to them initially and they were quick to respond.
@degruyter_soc, we are trying to read the blogpost "Global inequalities in science are bigger than those in the economy" in our course, which once appeared in your blog https://t.co/k3pCKU0IkE, but it no longer appears to be there. Have you removed it?— Nate Breznau (@BreznauNate) June 23, 2021
Hi Nate, the article in question was published on the "Open Science" blog, which was recently discontinued. That is why the article is not available anymore – apologies for the confusion!— De Gruyter Conversations (@DGConversations) June 24, 2021
As their blog is discontinued original blog post as recovered from the Internet Archive.
Global inequalities in science are even bigger than those in the economy. Of course, to afford food is more important than to contribute to scientific discussion. Thus results of inequalities are less dramatic in case of scientific research, however, the case of Ebola might be worth to think over here. This pathogen was detected for the first time in 1976, quite a long time ago. Would the current therapy method for the disease that it causes be the same if it had been discovered in Alaska?
The lion’s share of all scientific articles published in established academic journals comes from a small number of countries, and some of these leading countries are really small and rich, when seen from a global perspective. According to World Bank Data, there were more than 21 thousand papers indexed by the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in 2013 that were published by Swiss researchers. This means that Switzerland was able to produce 2,603 top level papers for each one million of its inhabitants. Denmark, second in this ranking, achieved the result of 2,223 papers per million people, so 15% worse. The visualization of number of papers per million inhabitants on the global map shows the indubitable hegemony of rich, northern countries in science.
A country’s scientific publishing output per million people correlates very strongly with Gross Domestic Product per capita (Spearman 0.84!). In short, you have to be rich to have a significant input to science. This might be nothing new for you, but what is quite surprising for me, is that global inequalities in science are bigger than those in the economy.
I have calculated the Gini coefficient for 4 of the “development indicators” provided by the World Bank. First is the market capitalization of listed domestic companies, so commercial value of companies registered in a country, which I expected to be the most unequal on a global scale. The second one is Gross Domestic Product, that is a well established indicator of welfare and is known to be extremely unevenly distributed globally. I have also chosen electric power consumption, which is also a good indicator of general consumption level. The fourth indicator is the number of articles indexed by Thosmon Rueters services (this data is provided by the World Bank as well). All indicators were divided by the number of country’s inhabitants and then the Gini index was calculated.
In the result, I realized that the contribution to the scientific core is even more unequally distributed among countries than GDP and values of companies. And this is the most unevenly distributed factor that I have analysed. Countries are more equal in respect of their share in the global wealth than in their impact on global scientific discussion.
A lot of work has been done to inform citizens of Europe and North America about the dramatic scale of global inequalities. However, these inequalities are so big, that average people from wealthy countries still do not fully understand what it means “to live below the absolute poverty line”. So please, now try to imagine that inequalities in science are even bigger than that. Of course, to afford food is more important than to contribute to scientific discussion. Thus, the results of inequalities are less dramatic in the case of scientific research, however, the case of Ebola might be worth thinking about here. This pathogen was detected for the first time in 1976, so quite a long time ago. Would the current therapy method for disease that it causes be the same if it had been discovered on Alaska? The Ebola virus is the extreme and rare case, a lot of science has less to do with life or death issues.
However, my comparison to the drastically uneven world of global economy may let you imagine how different the chances of researchers from the Global South are from their colleagues in the Northern Countries. And factors that support hegemony of the North are not only economical ones. There are significant cultural and social barriers that enhance the unequal status quo (have a look here).
The WHO declared a Global Pandemic on Jan 30th, 2020, based on overwhelming evidence that the highly infectious Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the deadly COVID-19 disease that it causes threatened all of human kind. Despite this clear message, public and government responses varied dramatically by country, city and even neighborhood. Controlling the spread of any global pandemic requires large-scale, cohesive public responses. As there is no global governance, national governments were crucial institutional actors in the pandemic fight.
In Germany, the national government was quick to push German states to adopt cohesive measures in February, and to then ratchet these up in March as infections exploded in places like New York City and Italy and localized regions and events within Germany. In Figure 1, the dotted line are the deaths from COVID-19 and the solid green line is the degree of government lockdown measures. At least in the first wave, Germany was highly successful at curbing the spread of the virus. This contrasts sharply with Sweden, displayed in the middle panel of Figure 1.
In Sweden, the constitution prevented lockdown measures in non-war-times. Although the Swedish government encouraged its residents to follow pandemic safety guidelines, the lockdown measures were relatively lax and the infection rate and resulting deaths were among the worst in the world at the outbreak of the pandemic. The Swedish response and even relatively ‘good’ German response paled in comparison to the swift and effective lockdown in South Korea and most East Asian countries). In the lowest panel of Figure 1, the deaths per capita stays nearly at zero and remained there until the time of writing this.
Government response is not the only factor as made clear in the second wave of infection starting in October of 2020. Germany and Sweden had similar death rates in the second wave with a slightly stronger government intervention and slightly less deaths in Germany. However, in South Korea government lockdown was similar to Germany, but they had fraction of the infections and almost no deaths.
Government response is simply a method to control public behaviors. Ultimately the public are the arbiters of infection, and their behaviors explain different outcomes where governments take similar control measures. In Wuhan Province, China the public had little control over their behaviors as they were confined to their homes, subject to biosecurity protocols and ‘policed’ by both actual police and Communist Party-led neighborhood watches for at least 76 days. The lockdown halted the infection and death rates locally, but the virus had already hopped China’s borders leading to the pandemic. By contrast, once arrived in countries like Sweden or the United States, the residents were mostly free to behave as they pleased. The fate of the virus spread was essentially in the public’s hands because their behaviors – movements, contacts and (lack of) awareness – provide the only way the SARS-CoV-2 virus can spread or not.
This means that especially in liberal democratic systems where the governments cannot easily impose lockdown measures, studying human behavior is essential to understanding how to fight a pandemic. Social scientists regularly observe a correlation between sentiments and behaviors. The public forms attitudes toward ‘the virus’ and ‘a pandemic’ from the news and word-of-mouth. Therefore, the contents of media messages play a major role in shaping behaviors indirectly through the information contained in news and editorial articles.
Figure 2 shows how daily infections closely follow the sentiment in media messages. When sentiment is more positive (thick yellow line) it is likely that the public perceive less risk and then engage in less precautionary behavior leading to increases in infections (dashed purple line). At the same time, sentiment is more positive as government restrictions ease (thin green line), thus enabling less precautionary behavior like social gatherings and in-person work; in turn leading to more infections.
What is also striking about Figure 2 is that infection rates in Germany show a weaker correlation with media sentiment than in the United States. This is most likely due to stronger government intervention in Germany, whereby individuals have less control over their decisions, or at least will face criminal punishment for not following government guidelines. The apparent association between media sentiment and infections should be caused by public behaviors, but cross-national behavioral data are scarce during the pandemic. However, during a brief window of opportunity from March 15th to April 7th, 2020, Thiemo Fetzer and colleagues fielded a survey asking about precautionary public behaviors in at least 80 countries. Figure 3 compares behaviors with average media sentiment in the last week across these countries and demonstrates a clear correlation between more positive sentiment in media contents and less precautionary behaviors.
National governments are in a tough position during pandemics. They cannot enforce lockdown measures beyond a certain ‘breaking’ point, or the public will simply rebel or ignore them in such large numbers that enforcement becomes impossible. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that at least in liberal democratic regimes, the most effective pandemic prevention measures, like those taken in Wuhan, are simply not possible. The old adage ‘give me liberty or give me death’ might therefore be reframed as ‘give me liberty and death’ in pandemic times.
Data and code available at GitHub/nbreznau/covid-liberty-death
The introduction of work-injury insurance is seen by many welfare state scholars as a pivotal moment in each country’s history. It created two new institutional features of societies.
1. Work-related risks were re-framed as affecting all of society rather than individual, familial or employer-specific risks. They were redefined as social risks – those that inevitably face all of society across time and space.
2. The state took on the role of arbiter of social risks, by developing, mandating and regulating risk-pooling in the form of social insurance – nationally mandated, regulated and/or provided insurance. A process that usually started with regulating work-related accidents.
“Accidents no longer seemed an interpersonal matter to be sorted out between workers and employers in court. Instead, they became a social problem and a target for social policy.”(Moses 2018:4)
After its late 18th Century origins in Europe, work-injury laws in the form of social insurance were written into the law books of nearly every country in the world.
Fig 1. visually demonstrates that after 1990 social insurance for work accidents covers most of the globe. Fig 1. visually understates the prominence of these laws. For example, in the U.S. where there is no national work-injury insurance, nearly all states have their own social insurance laws for work-injury.
The institutionalization of social risk in the hands of national policy appears widespread, but a careful look at coverage suggests it is perhaps not as strong or as widespread as welfare state scholars often claim.
In the Global North, the legal coverage of work-injury law is 69% of the labor force on average, whereas in the Global South it is only 37% (for those 169 countries for which data are available). There are some extreme outliers in the Global South with less than 6% coverage. As shown in Fig 2., many countries have very weak coverage as of 2010, despite having social insurance laws.
Given the prevalence of laws explicitly targeting the industrial, blue-collar workforce of so many countries, it is surprising that the coverage rates among the formal labor market are so low.
A main cause of this is lack of enforcement mechanisms. Many of these laws require extensive legal and governmental institutions. Infrastructure, bureaucracy, a system of enforcement thorough inspections, safe reporting possibilities for workers and measures that prevent corruption of funds or executions of justice tend to be weaker in the Global South.
Another reason is through clauses that all implementation on the whim of certain officials, additional laws that undermine national social insurance laws, or a lack of de facto punishments for not following laws.
Myanmar and Bangladesh are two cases that help illustrate these points. Both involve high density garment factory production. Myanmar enacted social insurance for workers in 2012, but the coverage for work accidents is less than 6% of the labor force. How is this possible when the law explicitly states “compulsory registration” in the social insurance system for employers? One possible answer is in the wording of certain clauses in the law. For example:
“The President may… exempt the regions which is not yet necessary to implement currently according to the plan to be implemented all or any part of the provisions contained in this Law or any establishment applied by this Law or any type of employer or worker.”Myanmar Social Security Law, 2012, Art. (99)
Governments regularly grant exempt legal statuses to industries that are deeply embedded in global supply chains, industries that arguably would not be located in their countries if the cost of operation were too high. This might explain why Bangladesh did not bother to implement social insurance and instead relies on outdated forms of work-injury laws such as employer liability and a provident fund.
In 1980, the Bangladesh government passed the Export Processing Zones Act which created geographic areas that were no longer under the jurisdiction of national law and instead controlled directly by the president’s office. This meant that work-injury laws did not apply to all the ‘sweatshops’ feeding the global demand for inexpensive garments. With such an exception in place, the introduction of a social insurance law would not make any difference in coverage or addressing risk, unless it overrides the exemptions granted to special regions, those that can be granted in Myanmar on the whim of the president.
There have been horrific accidents in Bangladesh, with the collapse of the Rana Plaza as one of the worst in human history. This led to new coordinated plans between the industrial stakeholders, the Bangladesh government and the ILO, but it remains to be seen if the coverage rate increased from 12.5% – where it stood in 2014. Given the capacity for corollary laws to undermine social insurance laws, it remains doubtful. This suggests that the underlying normative notion of social risk and the government’s role as insurance arbiter it has not been institutionalized in Bangladeshi society and politics the way it has among many Global North countries.
With such low rates of coverage, the idea that social risks and welfare states are institutionalized at a global level may be overstated. Yes, laws are prevalent (see Fig. 1), but, no, they do not actually address the risks affecting nearly all workers (see Fig. 2) for a variety of reasons. As such they do not address social risk and may nurture sociological and path dependent institutions where work-related risks are normatively embedded as an individual or family risk rather than a social risk.
Data sources and replication files available on GitHub.
Breznau, Nate, and Felix Lanver. 2020. “Global Work-Injury Policy Database (GWIP).” Harvard Dataverse.
Moses, Julia. 2018. The First Modern Risk: Workplace Accidents and the Origins of European Social States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fear of rejection, part I
To replicate a study, you need information. Probably information that is not fully disclosed in a 6-12,000 word journal article. Except for a recent trend, information such as data and analytical procedure are not going to be available publicly. This means you should, or must in case the data are not retrievable from some other source, contact the original author. Be prepared for rejection. One study demonstrated that among the top sociology journals, less than 30% of replication materials were available (even though as many as 75% claimed otherwise). Political science was only marginally better at around 50% as of 2015. Professors are likely to ignore emails asking for their data and code. One group of sociology students contacted 53 different authors asking for replication materials and only 15 provided them (28%). Ten never responded to the requests at all, despite several follow up emails. So don’t take it personally, social scientists are not known for their forthcomingness in this area.
Verification is not affirmation
Imagine being a student who tries to verify the results of a prolific, senior scholar and cannot. If it were me, I would be anxious that I made a mistake. But the only real mistake would be to assume my lack of verification is a refutation of my own skills. Of course, it’s good to double check everything. Have a colleague look at your work if you are unsure, a teacher or supervisor if you are a student. Un-verifiable results are common, no need for self-doubt. Things like reverse coding biological sex so that women appear less supportive of welfare state policies or accidentally analyzing values of 88 (a missing code) as a relevant value of coital frequency leading to a surprising rate for older persons are actually a normal part of social science.
When replicating a study just assume there will be at least one mistake. Like a treasure hunt.
Verification comes down to the availability of the materials. If the data and code are not fully available, it really is a treasure hunt because you will be unsure what you are going to find or learn. On the other hand, if the data and code are available and in good order, then it is more like cooking than hunting. This often comes down to the difference between teaching replication – the recipe approach, where students should come to the same results every time when following the exact same steps, and replication as a form of social research – the treasure hunt approach, where researchers (i.e., students) may not have a coherent recipe from the original ‘chef’. But make no mistake(!) even fully transparent studies often come with mistakes in the code or data.
Fear of mistakes
If I am not making mistakes, I am not doing research. You will make mistakes and there is nothing to fear. There are all kinds of reasons that replication results will diverge, not all of them are mistakes. Recently a well-known and well-respected sociologist retracted his own paper after someone trying to replicate the study identified coding errors. One journal started checking that data and code produced results in accepted papers, and almost none were verifiable on the first attempt. In a crowdsourced replication, mostly PhD students, postdocs and a few professors came to an exact verification of the original study only 82% of the time, despite having the original code!
Fear of the unknown
Designing statistical models using a software is like learning a new language. Student replications often involve methods unfamiliar to the them. This is a great didactic tool – learning by doing. There is nothing to fear here. Professors’ original studies often involve methods that they are not experts in. One extremely famous scholar and his colleague ran a regression with an interaction term in it and botched the interpretation of the effects, the results were basically the opposite of what they reported.
Science is a process of exploring the unknown. Replications use what is known as a tool for finding what is unknown.
Fear of rejection, Part II
Students may be interested in publishing their replications, they should be, because how else will others put their knowledge into practical use? Get prepared again for rejection. Journals and reviewers across the social sciences are not very excited about replications. A pair of researchers studied the instructions and aims of 1,151 psychology journals in 2016 and discovered that only 3% explicitly accepted replications. One sociologist pointed out not so long ago that replication is just not the norm in sociology, and another one recently came to the same conclusion. The good news is that we don’t need journals anymore to make useful science, at least in theory. Students can immediately publish their results as preprints and share data and code in a public repository. If a student elects to use Open Science Framework preprint servers, their work will be immediately found in scholarly search engines.
Fear of ego
Scientists tend to overestimate the impact of a negative replication on their reputations. Ego-alert. Assume a scientist worried about a replication is a professor. This is a person who is most like tenured, certainly the highly cited professors are. This is also a person who “professes” knowledge on a topic, meaning that they should be an expert and engage in teaching students, policymakers, the public and really anyone interested about this topic. If any of this professor’s results were shown to be unreliable or false, this would be a critical piece of information if that professor’s goal was to actually profess knowledge on that topic. Unfortunately, professors regularly suffer from some kind of ‘rock-star syndrome’ or ego-mania where they are doing science as a means to get recognition and fame. This leads them to react aggressively against anything that contradicts them. This is very bad for science. If a student replicator can help deplete a runaway professor ego through replication, then that student is doing a great service to science.
Fear of not addressing fear
In a typical primary or secondary school chemistry class, students repeat the basic experiments of chemical reactions that have been done for hundreds of years. These students are learning through replication. They are gaining knowledge in a way that cannot be simply taught in a lecture or by reading a book. They are also affirming the act of science, thus developing a faith that science works. In social science especially, we face a reliability crisis if not a public image crisis. Students should be reassured that there is a repetitive and reliable nature to doing social science, whether they will continue as a social scientist or (in the most likely case) not. Part of this reliability can be a lack of reliability. Science is simply a process of trying to understand the unknown, and even quantify this unknown. I fear that without more student replications, we are diminishing the value of social science and contributing to the perception that social science is unreliable.
Good social science should be reliably able to identify unreliability, and this is best taught through conducting replications.
By now you’ve heard the term “open science”. Although it has no global definition, its advocates tend toward certain agreements. Most definitions focus on the practical aspects of accessibility.
“…the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods.”
FORSTER, open science teaching resource
Some definitions enter the realm of ethics, feminism and social justice.
“…to imagine and design inclusive infrastructures, practices, and workflows for scientific practice that intentionally enable meaningful participation and redress (these new) forms of exclusion.
Others focus on the communicative interplay between scientists and the public.
“Openness in Open Science also means opening up science to society… The democratic ideal of Open Science argues for equal two-way communication with the public: one should not solely focus on the question of how to foster the uptake of science in society, but also on how to foster the uptake of societal insights in science.
Whatever the ontology, open science is inevitably something that challenges the status quo in science. Usage of term indicates there is something undesirable about science, otherwise advocates would simply advocate “science”.
The “open” part of the concept refers to any number of things depending on whom you ask. Commonly it means:
Open access – making the results of scientific techniques, research and theory accessible to everyone; as opposed to only in paywalled journals.
Transparency <open process> – making all methods, code, data and any biases or conflicts of interest known before and after the research is conducted. So long as doing this does not harm human subjects or violate any laws.
Open source – on the technology side of science, all programs, apps, algorithms, tools and scripts should be transparent and usable by others. This means that when a scientist develops a new technology, anyone else’s technologies can interact and interface with it. Moreover, anyone can modify the technology to better suit their own needs.
Open academia <open communication/democracy/feminism> – allowing anyone to participate in academia. That academia has the goal of eliminating inequalities, prejudice and domination from academia that take place in the social world. That academia embraces feminism and critical race theory in its methods and institutional practices. That everyone has the same place in scientific discussions, and no science is conducted by pressuring others or taking advantage of existing power structures. That no science takes place in secret, except for research that requires obfuscation for its completion.
Again, the definitions can cover a broad range. The above are just a snippet, although they strike me as the most common usages; except for ‘open academia’, this is reserved for certain justice motivated scholars.
Although I do not proclaim to be the arbiter or knower of right or wrong in academia (and life in general), the following facts seem wrong to me.
Double-work and the co-opting of journals
Scientists provide their work as editors and reviewers, because the peer review and publication process is the centerpiece of all of science. Peer reviewers and editors are the only consistent form of quality control in science. The academic journal was a functional response to previous forms of knowledge transmission that required direct scientist/practitioner to student interactions which were geographically limited and reached a very narrow audience.
The journal made it possible to transmit knowledge across the globe. Moreover, the journal reduced the simultaneous discovery and re-discovery problems of science, because no one could prove they discovered something first, and others worked on problems that were already solved unknowingly. It represents one of the first ‘open science’ movements because it was driven by the idea that science was at an impasse and could only move forward through transparent and open exchange of ideas arbitrated by being part of the public record through publishing.
Ironically, the journal format came full circle and began to undermine science. After over two centuries of journals run by non-profit academic associations, for-profit publishing houses began ‘offering’ their services to meet the growing global demand for journals and their content and the rising costs of editing and distribution. In many cases, these publishing houses were able to purchase the journals by offering the academic societies the exclusive right to determine what went in them. Within just 30 years, five conglomerates owned the titles, content or certain features of over 50% of all journal articles published globally.
The content, as always, is still a product of the scientists and the voluntary work of editors and peer reviewers. The publishing houses make large profits, but pay nothing to these workers. The editors and peer reviewers earn their income from universities mostly. The very universities that pay high fees to purchase the right to provide the journals in their libraries. This is a double tax on the universities – paying the producers of content to produce and then paying the distributors of that content to consume it. The content does not change at any point in between these two forms of payment, in other words, the publishers do not add any scientific value to this content.
Matters got even worse with the publishing houses over the past decades. As creative and deceitful profit seekers, some publishing houses realized they could generate even more profit by collaborating with the private sector. For example pharmaceutical companies’ profits were directly determined by the findings of studies published in journals. Pharmaceutical companies, or any companies whose profits were determined by the outcomes of scientific experiments, would be willing to invest in shaping those outcomes if they could. Enter a novel concept pioneered by Elsevier: selling journals or journal space to private companies to boost their profits. Win-win for them. Elsevier also pioneered the process of monetizing open science by purchasing SSRN, engaging in massive lawsuits designed to stop the free sharing of (their) copyrighted knowledge and tries to copyright intellectual activities such as peer review.
Other ventures create journals that prey on scholars who do not know better, or seek to get easy publications to add to their CV. These publishers are often labeled “predatory publishers” and they “publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit should not be allowed to share space with legitimate journals and publishers, whether open access or not” (predatoryjournals.com). They also sometimes mimic reputable journals by copying their styles and their names and soliciting content from scholars, a procedure known as “hijacking“.
Publish-or-perish begets questionable research practices
Thanks to the advent of the scientific journal, knowledge could be evaluated, used and further transmitted across space and time. The utility of the journal and other forms of academic publication such as books, proved so effective that they became the primary source for others to evaluate the importance of scientists and their work. This gave rise to the norm we are all familiar with, publish-or-perish.
In a survey of psychologists, John et al. (2012) found that 50% claimed they had selectively reported studies that supported their hypothesis (as in, selectively excluding those that didn’t). Moreover, 35% admitted to reporting unexpected findings as having been predicted from the start. Nearly 2% outright admitted to faking data.
Publish-or-perish and questionable research practices have a causal relationship. Except for occasional sociopathic or psychotic individuals, there is no reason for a scientist to engage in questionable research practices. No reason, except scientists’ very existence on scientists may depend on it. So many studies in reality lead to results that go in all directions, support the null or (most importantly) do not provide groundbreaking new results.
Through the peer review and editorial process, journals select studies that are path-breaking. Studies that will move knowledge forward and be of the greatest interest to readers. When faced with prospects of not getting tenured, not getting grant funding and being forced out of academia, a human’s (scientist’s) rational calculations change. Suddenly, rounding that p-value from 0.054 to < 0.05 or even adding some cases to the data becomes a cognitively defensible decision.
Like any profession, science is competitive. Those who publish more, or get more citations to their publications tend to get ahead. Those who don’t, don’t. Professional athletes use incredible tactics to gain competitive advantage. Of course steroids are well-known, but other tactics are much harder to detect. For example, endurance athletes often use blood transfusions to boost recovery and performance. This is what it means to be human, scientist or not.
One of the most radical events in the social and behavioral sciences is Diederik Stapel’s entire career faking data and results that were published in at least 54 articles that consumed millions of Euro in funding. It took almost two decades for critics and whistleblowers to finally out him. Psychology is not alone. In political science LaCour and Green published a study in Science that attitudes toward gay marriage could be changed if heterosexual people listened to a homosexual person’s story, but it turns out LaCour fabricated results of a follow up survey that never took place as uncovered by Broockman. In economics Reinhart and Rogoff published numerous studies identifying a negative impact of high debt rates on national economic growth, when in fact several points in their dataset had conspicuously missing values. When these values were added there was no longer support for their claim as identified by Herndon, Ash and Pollin.
I suspect that most questionable research practices are not intentional. The sociopathic (~psychotic) Stapel’s of the world are rare. This pressure to find a job after doing doctoral studies and then to get tenured, means a trade off between conducting science in its ideal form – so learning as much as possible about the existing literature on a subject, mastering the necessary methods to perform the research and executing the research, possibly with several iterations, and facing the prospect of null results – with science in a form that will lead to publication as fast as possible.
This ‘fast as possible’ leads to amateur science. For example, in the rush to get my first publication I attempted to use “multiple imputation”, but lacked the time to properly learn this method. Instead I simply generated several datasets and averaged them into one and re-ran the analysis on this one. This was not an intentional misuse of a method. It is a questionable research practice as a result of context. Think about matrix algebra. It is the basis of many advanced statistical techniques regularly used by social scientists. How many of us have a strong grasp of matrix mathematics? I don’t. And yet I’ve published several studies using structural equation modeling.
WHAT & WHY in SOCIOLOGY
I am aware of nothing about sociology that suggests it needs a special adaptation of open science. Most research cannot be strictly delineated as sociology or not sociology anyways. The boundaries of a discipline, especially within the social sciences, exist mostly in the institutional structure of universities. Eliason suggested that sociology is unique because it overemphasizes quantitative techniques, has needlessly long articles, lacks writing for the popular press and emphasizes research at the expense of teaching. In my experience the previous sentence perfectly describes all social and behavioral science disciplines at once. Even article length, something I thought might be peculiar to sociology, is not special. Political science and management research have very long articles. Consider that and ASR and ESR for example, limit words to 9,000 and 8,000 or less – this is relatively average if not short for social science.
Actually, I would argue the most unique thing about sociology at the moment relates to open science. Two points in particular: (A) that sociology has not had the same incredible scandals as other disciplines and (B) that sociology lags behind other social sciences in promoting open science.
A lack of scandals, not scandalousness
Could sociologists be more scientific and ethical in their research behaviors than those in other disciplines? Given identical institutional and career structures that favor productivity and innovation over replicating or checking each other’s work, I doubt it. Sociology journals and their editors, for example, rarely retract articles despite evidence of serious methodological mistakes. Carina Mood once accurately pointed out mistakes in the interpretation of odds-ratios in some American Sociological Review articles, but the editors refused to publish her comments, much less consider retractions. She shared her exchange with ASR in an email to me and discusses some of it in a working paper. An exceptional recent event was the retraction of one of Legewie’s sociological studies, but this required he himself to initiate the retraction after someone pointed out errors in his work. Until 2020, the Retraction Watch database (www.retractiondatabase.org) listed no retractions from the top sociology journals, and only two among the well-known, one in Sociology and another in Social Indicators Research.
This year, something new happened. Five articles published in Social Problems, Criminology, and Law & Society Review were retracted. These articles had the common co-author Eric Stewart. It turns out that the data he provided were faked. There is no other logical conclusion that this after exceptionally rigorous work by Pickett (a co-author of Stewart) provided evidence that the Stewart studies had consistently incorrect means and standard deviations, unverifiable surveys (sources, methods, original materials), magically changing case numbers despite identical statistical results, sometimes half the data had duplicate cases and impossible clustering structures in the data.
As an aside, one of Pickett’s findings was that the data had non-uniform terminal digit distributions. This means that the right-most digits in the reported statistics differs markedly from a uniform distribution. In particular, at the third-digit numbers should be uniformly distributed with 0-9 appearing roughly 10% of the time. In one of the papers, zeros appear less than 2% of the time. If you are considering faking data, keep in mind that it is roughly impossible to do it in a way that cannot be detected by careful investigation. Any algorithm used to generate results (even copying and pasting) leaves is statistical marks.
Perhaps we sociologists should be partly relieved, as this is just confirmation that we are as much a part of social science and its problems, as any other discipline. However, the Stewart retractions which should have been breaking news for sociology, went mostly unnoticed. The results of the investigation leading to the retractions is not published in a flagship sociology journal where it belongs. Instead it appears in Econ Journal Watch – something unlikely to be read by any sociologist. Moreover, the retraction notices from the original journals do not cite outright fraud. Stewart continues to promote his work in print claiming the main findings still hold, and several other of his studies with similar irregularities have not been retracted.
Another, extremely important event was a case of ethnomethodological research conducted by Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose in the mid 2010s. This is sociological self-examination at its best, although their backgrounds are mostly outside of the discipline of sociology. They wrote a series of 20 papers presenting fake results and making arguably unethical claims. They invented the papers to mimic the style of articles published in journals well-known for sociological research on topics of identity, hegemony and marginalization. Seven of their papers were published or had revise and resubmit recommendations before whistleblowing forced them to cancel the project. Some highlights: one paper contained sections from Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Another suggested men should be trained similar to dogs to prevent rape, and a third that white men should be forced to sit in chains on the floors of university classrooms, instead of normal desks. I am not commenting on the merit contained in these ideas, only that they all contained faked data, non-existent methods or conclusions not supported by the data. That these studies easily flew under the radar of a number of high impact journals points out how easy it is to publish without doing the necessary research work.
Lagging behind closed doors
October 6th, 2020. I entered the search terms “open science” (with quotations to search the exact phrase) and “sociology” (with quotations to only return results that contain the word) into Google Scholar. Six pages of results without a single sociology journal. On page 7, Merton’s “Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science” appears. Publication date 1957.
In 1973, Wilson, Smoke and Martin found that 80% of studies published in the top three sociology journals of that time rejected the null hypothesis, in other words they had p-values below a threshold. This suggests publication bias, if not p-hacking. Sahner (Table 5) analyzed all article submissions to the Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1972-1980. Of those that contained significance tests, 70% were significant at p < 0.05 suggesting that authors prefer to submit significant results. More recently, Gerber and Malhotra (2008) reviewed articles published in American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review and The Sociological Quarterly, and specifically looked at the boundary of t = 1,96 (i.e., p<0.05) to find that as many as 4-out-of-5 studies were ‘significant’. This suggests publication bias as well. Sociology has yet to have a systematic review of p-hacking by comparing p-values within ‘significant’ results. Meanwhile psychology and political science for example are teeming with papers on “p-hacking” and “publication bias”.
Sociology is rather intransparent. An estimated 78% of the major sociology journals have long-standing transparency policies. Unfortunately, these policies are mostly artifacts on paper without much enforcement. For example, only 37% of sociology articles published in the mainstream journals between 2012-2014 include shared data and/or materials. In 2015, a small group of sociologists tried to obtain materials from the authors of 53 prominent sociological studies. They obtained these from just 19%, and only 20% of all the authors they contacted bothered to respond despite several requests. This suggests sociologists are free to hide the data and materials that led to their findings without recourse, despite such guidelines.
Other disciplines have embraced the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines (TOP). The TOP guidelines with help of the Center for Open Science support journals to improve science. Journals can become signatories of TOP, and in doing so they either adopt and enforce new transparency guidelines, or certify that they already meet certain transparency standards. Most of the top psychology journals and several political science journals signed on. Other major journals such as the Journal of Applied Econometrics and later the American Economic Review adopted their own enforced transparency guidelines.
Until 2017, the only higher ranking sociology journals that signed TOP were Sociological Methods and Research and American Journal of Cultural Sociology. In 2017, Elsevier dictated that all its journals adopt guidelines and this added Social Science Research to the list. At the time of writing this, the flagship journals American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review neither signed TOP nor enforce their own guidelines. Of top German sociology journals, the Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie is the only signatory.
If intransparency is pervasive in sociology, then research cannot be (a) checked for errors, (b) reproduced or (c) simply critiqued. Even when exact reproducibility is not the goal, as often is the case with context-specific interpretive research, most research methods remain shrouded in mystery. This requires readers to take a giant leap to trust what others report. Part of the problem is that sociologists express little interest in reproduction or checking others’ works. There are few replications in the history of sociology, and if anything, they decreased over time until recently. For example, searching the articles in American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review reveals 22 replication studies from 1950-1980 and only 8 from 1981-2010.
Something telling about a lack of willingness to open sociology comes from sociology’s most ‘powerful’ society, the American Sociological Association. They collectively petitioned the US government to not make data transparency a requirement attached to grant funding in 2019.
What to do about it? Here are some simple steps to consider especially for sociologists. Similar to steps advocated by many others for graduate students and academic institutions, or all of us for example.
Make all the materials – research design, methodological steps, data (when legally and ethically possible), analyses, conflict of interest and any software code – available online. The practical reason is that others can follow your work and expand it in the future. Doubly practical is that you don’t need to respond to email requests for your materials. So long as you are not a deceitful sociopath, you want others interested in your work and to replicate your work. Even if a study, seems to ‘prove you wrong’, the fact that it replicated your work is evidence of how important your work is and the topic of study. You are a piece of a much larger community of knowledge construction. Constructive exchange can lead to collaboration with critics to generate better future research without personal conflicts.
The immediate value of transparency is that being transparent forces you to be careful. Knowing everything will be public information increases the value of attention to detail. Put in its converse: not sharing your workflow publicly can indirectly foster lower quality standards, in addition to creating possibilities for misconduct. All this enables rather than hinders knowledge, and increases inter-researcher trust.
Transparency should not be much extra work. During the research process you should take high quality notes for yourself. You will often return to your data and research in the future and thus need those notes. This is a best practice with or without sharing your work. When you engage in this best practice, you have a deep familiarity with your data and can draw meaningful conclusions and easily redact identifying characteristics in your data in the case of qualitative research. In case you cannot share data, you can still reveal the design and expectations; or allow controlled access to the data. Human subjects must be protected at all costs, and yes this often means data sharing is not possible .
The ‘transparency work’ of the qualitative research process can be reduced by software platforms that provide semi-automated annotation and coding. Even if you do not share data, you can build an open workflow from the beginning that allows others to understand every step of the data generating process. However, this work can also be extremely tedious and the incentives not immediately clear. More fruitful discussion if not research assistant funding is needed in this area moving forward.
If you are using quantitative methods, immediately stop hiding your work. If you ran 100 models and 99 did not support your hypothesis, then this is your finding. If a journal does not want to publish this, point the editors and reviewers to the importance of null results and the problems of publication bias. If they still refuse, consider boycotting this journal and sharing your negative experience in public.
Preregistration can drastically reduce bias and hacking prior to collecting data. When you clearly outline your plans including how you will analyze the data, before conducting the research, there is little room for hacking so long as you stick to the plan. Moreover, preregistration can be done directly with a journal although sociology journals are laggards here because they generally do not offer this option. In a preregistration, even if you just put an pre-analysis plan or research design and goals online, you must think much harder about factors such as meaning, causality, inter-subjectivity and ‘how the world probably works’. You cannot hide behind results in this process and therefore you must anticipate counterarguments and explore counterfactual logic. This improves the clarity of theory and research, creating an immense gain in efficiency and effectiveness.
Regardless of the methods you use there are many opportunities to take advantage of preregistration. Some forms of qualitative research, for example those involving grounded theory and interpretivist methods, require decisions during the research process that cannot be foreseen. This uncertainty can be outlined in a preregistration stating explicitly when flexibility is and is not admissible. Moreover, simply putting a qualitative research plan online prior to conducting the research is equivalent to a pre-analysis plan. This research design need not compromise your data collection work because you can register the plan on a platform like the Open Science Framework and then embargo it, so that it is preserved but not made public until after the research concludes. Some scholars using quantitative methods might assume that preregistration is not possible because they work with secondary survey data. But the regularity and release of these survey data are known in advance, and these scholars can preregister their studies before the next round of data are collected with the knowledge of which questions and countries will be available.
The central functions of the scientific publishing industry are printing and disseminating knowledge, which historically solved a problem of how to share knowledge across universities and countries. The business functions of publishing, however, come with harmful byproducts. Publishing firms extract profits from scientists twice. First, scientists provide free labor in the form of editing and peer reviewing, in addition to producing the results for the articles to be printed. Next, researchers, or their employers, must purchase the product of their own labor; labor not paid for by the publishers. The journal article as a product comes at a high cost, and often only in packages of journals meaning that universities have to pay for extra material their scholars do not use.
Sometimes publishing houses neglect science in favor of profits, but Elsevier has been particularly problematic. They sponsored weapon fairs, created and sold ‘fake’ journals to pharmaceutical companies to publish ‘results’ supporting their drugs, purchased the Social Science Research Network and created paywalls or removed legally shared working versions of articles, charge fees for open access articles, and actively lobbied against open access legislation (For a concise summary with links see Tal Yarkoni’s blog entry). This brought massive counter movements against Elsevier in the scientific community (for example, The Cost of Knowledge). You can take action and refuse to review for or publish with unethical publishers if you feel it is justified. Thus, you should inform yourself about the publishers. Your libraries are a source of information, because they deal with the business side of publishers.
If you are in Europe, check if your institution is a signatory of ProjektDEAL. A consortium of universities are collectively bargaining with publishers via ProjektDEAL demanding that publishers reduce fees and eliminate the double paying of universities. The primary objective is that publishers sign country-wide subscription agreements that enable access for all universities at once. Wiley agreed to such a model and this marks a paradigm change. It indicates how the publishing industry looks in the future, so long as the OS Movement proceeds. If you are not in Europe, consider starting a similar initiative, for example the entire University of California system of 10 universities, 5 medical centers and several research institutions that collectively produce roughly 10% of the world’s academic publications recently followed ProjektDEAL and boycotted Elsevier.
You can work around the publishing business. Prior to submitting an article or after it is published, you have the right to share a preprint – a draft of the paper you share publicly so long as it is not published elsewhere or sold for profit. Posting preprints reduces the power that publishing firms have over science, in addition to giving others immediate access to your work. But simply posting preprints on your academic website is not open enough. Use a preprint service, for example through the Open Science Framework, to ensure that your preprints appear in search engines such as Google Scholar. SocArXiv for example, is the go to location for sociology. This enables scholars to find and directly access research results based on the words they contain, uninhibited by paywalls – a crucial aspect to practicing sociology in the Global South. Preprint services are free and open access.
Certain hypotheses are constantly tested in social science. The impact of income inequality on health, racial bias on police brutality and public opinion on elections, just to name a few. At some point more tests of the same hypothesis stop contributing to scientific knowledge, and may even harm it by introducing more ‘noise’ into the scientific discourse.
I study social policy preferences and the impact immigration has on them. In this area there has been sustained efforts to test the hypothesis that immigration has a negative impact on support for policies of the welfare state; things related to protecting against risks of aging, unemployment and health. To justify this hypothesis, scholars construct theoretical variations of group dynamics arguments, often drawing on resource competition, nationalism and social identity. Despite claiming to test the hypothesis, the formal models applied to data suggest any number of data-generating processes. They often have little in common other than some measure of immigration and some measure of policy preferences. The results of their tests go in all directions, i.e., a positive, negative or nil effect of immigration. It would appear that the topic is at a standstill, new analyses of the same handful of cross-national survey data sink in the mire. How to break through such a scientific impasse?
In designing the Crowdsourced Replication Initiative (CRI) with co-PIs, Alexander Wuttke and Eike Mark Rinke, we asked researchers to to do research; and we gave them semi-structured tasks and observed them. Specifically they were supposed to come up with the best possible way to test the immigration hypothesis given the same International Social Survey Data source. Although we are currently meta-analyzing the hypothesis test-results (see our virtual APSA poster) to determine which modelling decisions impact the outcomes, we also have a second goal in mind: to discover what is behind the specification curve.
Each research team had to design a best possible test. This is at once a statistical question and a theoretical question. They needed to think carefully about the data-generating process and attempt to recover it in a model. We asked them to write down their research designs after doing this thought exercise, but before analyzing any data. From their researcher choices we can identify where key consensus and disagreements exist about the data-generating model, thus is not only evident in their designs but also in a structured deliberation and voting procedure. This process offers a major advantage over ‘normal’ theoretical discussion and debate among academics, because we have the results that go along with the different modeling choices; and, let’s be honest, when else do over 150 researchers get together and focus on a single hypothesis? By observing this process we can identify where data-generating theories differ and how important these differences are for the results. This will allow us to map where immigration and social policy scholars should focus their theoretical efforts in the future to reduce the most uncertainty, i.e., the largest gains in knowledge.
We have a sound piece of scientific research from Brady and Finnigan (2014) from which we draw our working hypothesis for the CRI crowdsourced researchers: That immigration undermines support for social policies. Brady and Finnigan found little or no support of this hypothesis, at least not in a generalizable macro-comparative sense. This was the launching point for the research of the 77 teams who by now managed to submit replicable results (yes there are still a few out there we are hoping will submit a final model or fix issues we identified in our replication of their models).
Although we are in the process of analyzing the ocean of data generated by this project; a sneak preview offers exciting evidence of the possibility for meta-construction of theory.
Here are two glimpses of what’s to come. One are the deliberation and voting results summarized (Figure 1). The other are differences in definitions of ‘immigration’ (Table 1). We used Kialo, an online structured deliberation platform, to allow participants to discuss the data-generating model after they proposed their own ideas for how to best test the hypothesis. Readers can observe how this deliberation unfolded as we divided the participants into two groups: here and here. Later (after they had the possibility to update their models based on the deliberation) they were given other teams’ models or our own variations on those models to vote on and rank in terms of their appropriateness for testing the hypothesis without having seen the results of those models. Figure 1 quantifies both the Kialo veracity scoring and survey-based voting into one overall scale and then plots the average score of models by their features. Each different color is a discrete set of model features with the zero (y-axis) set to the average support of models choosing an OLS estimator (among the least preferred).
In Figure 1, it becomes clear looking at the longest bars in each color category that models that incorporate all 5 waves of the ISSP data, include countries of Eastern Europe, include heterogeneous error variation by country-year and year (like a cross-classified model), and incorporate survey sampling weights are preferred over the others. Some of this runs counter to the state of the art. For example, most research follows a logic that major immigrant destination societies – the “Rich 13” and “Rich 17” advanced democracies – should be where “public opinion is likely most influential for the politics of social policy” (Brady and Finnigan 2014:24).
To summarize the motivation for looking across all possible countries, especially Eastern Europe, one crowdsourced researcher put it like this: “Either there is an effect of ‘immigration stock (increase)’ or not“.
Another followed up on this point stating: “To test the general hypothesis we should use as many countries as available and account for variations in GDP and social welfare expenditures in the models.”
These comments demonstrate the majority voice in the CRI that if immigration has a an impact on social policy preferences we should see it across all countries of the globe, not restricting our analysis to only very rich, strong welfare states.
Although Brady and Finnigan and all other research in this area comes to no consensus on whether there is a negative impact of immigration on support for social policy preferences, we should remain skeptical of results if we do not trust the data-generating model. In other words, if our tests do not match what most researchers see as the appropriate theoretical perspective, results are inconclusive and thus uninformative. The deliberation and voting offer us clues where to focus theoretical effort, namely specifying why more countries of the world should (or should not) show a causal effect of immigration on social policy preferences and whether this should (or should not) appear across several decades or only certain times. I am not aware of extensive theory that attempts to tackle these issues. Now is the time to write it!
Even more productive for the possibility of meta-construction of theory is the correspondence between the actual decisions made by the researchers and the subjective and objective outcomes of those decisions. Again, our results are in progress, but we offer a snapshot in Table 1 of different ways the researchers chose to measure immigration as their main hypothesis test variable (1 out of dozens of model decisions to compare). In the first row, 67 out of 77 teams used a “Stock of Foreign-Born” measure in at least one of their models, and 27% of their models using the “Stock” variable showed support of immigration having a negative and significant statistical impact on support for social policy at p<0.05.
In the column ‘Positive Test Result Rate’, we see that the ‘Difference’ between “Stock” models (referenced as  in Table 1) and those instead using “Flow” to measure immigration models (referenced as ) is 3.6. In other words, “Stock” models arrive at support of the hypothesis 3.6 percentage points more than “Flow” models, all else equal. “Stock” models were not more or less popular than “Flow” models, with the average vote score of 0.43 on a scale of 0 (worst) to 1 (best equipped to test the hypothesis) versus 0.45 for “Flow”.
The values in bold indicate that “Change in Flow” models (those measuring derivatives of “Flow”) were among the most popular in the voting process. So the rate of change of the flow of immigrants is seen as an important component in testing this hypothesis. Interestingly, these models were 4 percentage points more likely than “Stock” and “Flow” models to support the hypothesis. When measuring immigration as specific to certain outgroups (from Muslim-majority countries, non-Western countries or refugees), the “Flow” of these various ‘Outgroups’ was seen as more popular than “Stock” of ‘Outgroups’ by a large margin, but the results were over 10 percentage points less supportive of the hypothesis.
What can we learn from this. We argue that a full analysis of the massive range of modeling decisions will give us a guide to move this entire research area forward. Some other decisions for example were different social policy domains, whether ethnic and fractionalization is the ‘real’ cause of the ‘immigration’ effect, construction of latent social policy preference measures, whether or not GDP and unemployment are part of the data-generating assumptions just to name a few out of hundreds. We are only scratching the surface here, but it seems that observing researchers make research decisions, deliberating them, voting and making final choices, we will gain immense knowledge as to where better theory is necessary. As such we see meta-constructing of social theory as a promising avenue for social science. This would be the concept of theory designed replication writ large.
Science and religion parted ways long ago. This is a historical struggle over power. If science claims to disprove that the earth is the center of the universe or that evolution undermines creation, it might falsify religious doctrine, said to be the word of a God or Gods and thus the ultimate Truth. Religions rely on their claims to this Truth to convert people to submit to their institutions. If science undermines this Truth, it undermines religious power. And power is something that changes human behavior; they might lie, cheat, steal and kill to get or preserve it.
But science and religion followers are not that different. Actually, they are the same. They are human.
Power is another way of describing status and prestige. In science, we know all about status. Scientific status comes from recognition. From making scientific discoveries and claims that garner attention. In particular, attention in the form of citations.
The absence of market prices results in prestige becoming the main reward and high prestige becoming the measure of exceptional ability. Rent seeking in academia, therefore, produces ego-maniacs and much destructive behaviorSørensen (1996, p. 1358)
The seeking of status, what economists and Sørensen label as a form of ‘rent-seeking’, is presumably the reason scientists p-hack, and engage in other forms of malpractice. In some cases they ‘must’ p-hack in order to meet the demands of reviewers. Mostly, statistical research requires significance stars to attain publication. This is changing with the Open Science Movement in recent times, but only in the margins. Research using qualitative methods also requires its own form of statistical significance ‘p-hacking’. To be published, a paper must extract novel ideas from observational data, whether these reflect the actual data or are even based on actual data at all seems to be irrelevant as long as the story looks good to reviewers. Just like the significance stars that look all sparkly and comforting to reviewers of quantitative research.
So humans (scientists) cheat to attain status; intentionally or even unintentionally — without malicious intent because they are conditioned to play with their data until the stars appear. Therefore it should be no surprise to humans (scientists) that other humans (religious followers) also cheat.
If p-hacking in science is playing around with models so that they represent the data in a way that matches the researcher’s desire for status, rather than portray the results of scientific tests, then p-hacking in religion must be to interpret the dictates of God (or Gods) to fit one’s, or one’s group’s own status goals.
The conflict of science and religion it like p-hacking. Its a power struggle. Who has the power to make claims about the way the world is and the way it should be? Religious followers would attribute this authority to God, and then themselves as seekers and messengers of God. Science followers attribute this to factual knowledge about the world and then themselves as the testers and reducers of uncertainty to ‘uncover’ those facts. In both cases the process is corrupted by status seeking, a fundamental fallibility of humans. When acting as scientists and spiritual seekers, we are fundamentally still primates, and as such tend toward hierarchy, with many of us human-primates willing to cause harm to others in order to attain higher and higher positions.
For religious followers to gain status through p-hacking they would have to adjust the ‘word of God’ or the ultimate Truth in a way that it (a) is no longer a religious or spiritual truth so that it (b) serves their own ends. Do we have evidence of this practice? Wars fought in the name of religion do not really fit the criteria, as wars can be justified as right, as God’s (or the Gods’) will, for example Christian New Testament Revelation 19:11 about the righteous warring against the (presumably) non-righteous (i.e., ‘evil’); Christian/Jewish Old Testament Deuteronomy 20 calls Israelites to war against cities that do not accept their terms; Islam Qur’an 22:39 advocates war in self-defense and possibly 4:74 to fight in the name of God; and Buddhism taking the stance that war might be necessary in defense but not justified as an aggressor.
The point is that it is difficult to find direct evidence of p-hacking by religious followers in order to gain status for themselves or a group. The same problem lies with detecting p-hacking in scientists. Given that all sides in all wars tend to claim righteousness under God (or Gods) it seems obvious that some (or all) are misinterpreting what should be God’s will for their own gain. Given that so many p-values lay below 0.05 in published research, we can assume that not all are derived from a clean research design, method and presentation of results.
Openness is not needed because we are untrustworthy; it is needed because we are human(Nosek, Spies and Motyl 2012, p. 626)
It is not only religious and scientific institutions that are antagonistic given their seeking of power. Political institutions, who wield a monopoly on force in the modern world divided into sovereign nation states, also do not always get along with both religious and scientific institutions as they have their own p-values to guard.
Deutsche Übersetzung von Novel coronavirus pandemic and the limits of open science (8. April 2020).
Am 30. Januar 2020 erklärte die WHO einen ‚Global Health Emergency‘ basierend auf Hinweisen auf ein Virus, das sich schnell verbreitet. Das Coronavirus aus der SARS-Familie (Sars-CoV-2, und die Krankheit Covid-19). Die Beweise, mit denen die WHO diesen Notfall erklärte, stammten fast ausschließlich aus chinesischen Daten.
Die chinesischen Daten zeigten im Januar eine alarmierende Ausbreitungsrate, wie in Abbildung 1 dargestellt. Ohne die chinesischen Daten hätte die WHO wenig Anlass zur Sorge gehabt, da in allen anderen Ländern zusammen kaum 90 Fälle bekannt waren und kein einziger Todesfall.
Anfang Januar ergriff die chinesische Regierung Maßnahmen, um Nachrichten und Daten1 im Zusammenhang mit dem Virus zu blockieren. Trotzdem gelang es chinesischen Wissenschaftler*innen, offenen wissenschaftlichen Praktiken zu folgen, einschließlich des Teilens partiell-genetischer Sequenzdaten mit der Welt. Dies ermöglichte der WHO, geeignete Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, und befähigte Wissenschaftler*innen in Deutschland, Tests zur Identifizierung des ,novel Coronavirus‘ zu entwickeln. Das deutsche Team veröffentlichte seine Methoden am 13. Januar auf der WHO-Website. Technologie und globale Kommunikation haben sich zu einem Punkt entwickelt, an dem Regierungen den freien Informationsfluss verlangsamen, aber nicht stoppen können.
Die gemeinsame Nutzung aller Daten und Erkenntnisse ist die beste Form der Wissenschaft, wird aber nicht immer praktiziert. Die Open Science Movement hat das Ziel, dies zu ändern. Wenn jeder auf der Welt gleichermaßen Zugang zu Theorie, Methoden, Daten und Ergebnissen aller anderen wissenschaftlichen Forschung hat, steigen Qualität und Effizienz exponentiell an. Dies zeigt sich in den offenen wissenschaftlichen Praktiken hinter dem globalen Kampf gegen Covid-19, die Leben retten und retten werden, möglicherweise Millionen von Leben.
Abbildung 2 ist eine Simulation, die vorhersagt, wie viele Menschen in einem bestimmten Land als Ergebnis des Zeitpunkts der staatlichen Intervention an dem Virus sterben würden. Intervention heißt wann die Regierungen die von der WHO empfohlenen Vorgehensweisen befolgen, wie z. B.: Anweisungen für den Aufenthalt zu Hause, Durchführung umfassender Tests und Quarantäne für diejenigen, die positiv auf das Virus getestet wurden und die, mit denen sie in Kontakt waren. “Tag 0” in Abbildung 2 ist der Moment, in dem mindestens 3 symptomatische Fälle pro Million Menschen auftreten, normalerweise etwa 2 Monate nach dem ersten Fall in einem Land, aber natürlich viel schneller, wenn mehrere Fälle gleichzeitig auftreten.
Der Leser sollte bedenken, dass Abbildung 2 eine vereinfachte Simulation ist. Die Realität ist äußerst komplex. Insbesondere gehen die Regierungen nicht an einem Tag vom normalen Betrieb zur vollständigen Stilllegung der Gesellschaft über, dies geschieht normalerweise schrittweise. Diese Simulation basiert jedoch auf den bekanntesten Modellen der prädiktiven Epidemiologie und zeigt, wie selbst ein Tag der Unentschlossenheit Tausende von Menschenleben kosten kann.
Als Reaktion auf diesen Ausbruch in China und das rasche Auftreten von Covid-19 weltweit folgte Südkorea den standardisierten „Emergency Operating Procedures“ der WHO. Das heißt: möglichst viele Personen testen, alle Fälle isolieren, Reisen und Versammlungen beschränken, nicht notwendige Geschäfte schließen. Das Virus war eingedämmt und nur 200 Menschen starben. Natürlich haben frühere Virusausbrüche in Südkorea die Bereitschaft verbessert. Ebenso war Deutschland gut vorbereitet, weil es schnell Tests entwickelt hatte und weil es aus den Erfahrungen Italiens als Europas „Ground Zero“ gelernt hatte.
Grob gesagt hat Italien um den 15. Februar herum die Schwelle für „Tag 0“ in Abbildung 2 überschritten. Als Land war es am wenigsten vorbereitet, weil es das erste in Europa war und ein Ort ist, zu dem Menschen aus der ganzen Welt als Touristen, wenn nicht als Fußballfans, strömen. Somit ist der Fall Italiens keine Geschichte eines großen Versagens der Regierung, auch da es Gründe gab, dem chinesischen Fall misstrauisch gegenüberzustehen.
Die Schwelle für “Tag 0” lag in Deutschland um den 2. März herum, und “Tag 0” war um den 8. März herum in New York, zumindest auf dem Papier. New York begann jedoch erst am 1. März mit dem erfolgreichen Testen von Personen, da die Anfang Februar veröffentlichten CDC-eigenen Testkits fehlschlugen. ‘Tag 0’ in New York war wahrscheinlich Mitte Februar oder früher. Dennoch hätte New York aus „pandemischer Sicht“ noch viel Zeit gehabt, Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Der Rest der Welt hatte seit Ende Januar, dank des offenen Datenaustauschs auf der WHO-Website, genaue Tests durchgeführt. Dies geschah jedoch weder in New York noch in den USA als Ganzes. So wurde New York völlig unvorbereitet getroffen, aber nicht, weil das Virus überraschend aufgetaucht war.
In Kombination mit den Daten aus China, Südkorea und mehreren anderen Ländern erklärte die WHO am 12. März, dass der globale Notfall nun eine „Global Pandemic“ sei. New York hatte den Ausnahmezustand verhängt, aber erst ab dem 20. März Anordnungen für den Aufenthalt zu Hause erteilt. Erst eine Woche später wurden die meisten Schulen geschlossen und die Polizei autorisiert, diese Anweisungen durchzusetzen (der blaue Pfeil um „Tag 31“ in Abbildung 2). Trotz massiver offener wissenschaftlicher Bemühungen, die durch die WHO kanalisiert wurden, haben New York und ein Großteil der USA offensichtliche wissenschaftliche Beweise und Vorhersagen einfach nicht beachtet. Dies ist umso schockierender, als Seattle und nicht New York in den USA „Ground Zero“ war. Der gesamte Bundesstaat Washington hatte frühzeitig und erfolgreich Sofortmaßnahmen ergriffen.
Die Überprüfung des Versagens von Ländern, Staaten oder Städten, vor oder am 30. Januar (globaler Notfall) oder 12. März (Pandemie) sofort drastische Notfallmaßnahmen zu ergreifen, ist nicht Gegenstand dieses Blogposts. Dank Open Science Praktiken, der WHO und mehrerer Partnerorganisationen und Websites hatte die Welt Zugang zu denselben Daten und Kenntnissen darüber, wie man auf das Virus testet.
Die Botschaft, die ich vermitteln möchte, ist, dass Open Science nicht ausreicht. Ihre Grenzen liegen in den Regierungen. In vielen Ländern hat die Wissenschaft wenig Platz in der Entscheidungsfindung der Regierung. Dies ist vielleicht in einem dysfunktionalen autoritären Regime verständlich, in dem fast alle politischen Entscheidungen getroffen werden, um die Macht aufrechtzuerhalten und zu konzentrieren. Dies ist sicherlich ein Grund dafür, dass die schlimmsten Schrecken des Virus in Afrika südlich der Sahara und in Zentralasien noch bevorstehen. Aber es ist schockierend in Demokratien, in denen es eine Schar von Wissenschaftler*innen und Agenturen gibt, die die Regierung dabei beaufsichtigen und beraten sollen, was zu tun ist, um ihre Bevölkerung zu schützen.
Die Vereinigten Staaten hatten reichlich Informationen darüber, dass sich Covid-19 in den USA befand und sich schnell verbreitete, wie man wirksame Tests entwirft und was genau zu tun ist, um die Ausbreitung des Virus und die Zahl der Todesopfer zu verringern, Monate vor dem Ergreifen größerer Maßnahmen – dieselben Informationen, die der Staat Washington zur Eindämmung der Ausbreitung nutzte. Aber diese wissenschaftlichen Informationen, die in einem Umfang und einer Geschwindigkeit geteilt wurden, die in der Weltgeschichte noch nie zuvor gesehen wurden, reichten einfach nicht aus.
Die Open Science Movement hat ethische Grundsätze, die ihrem offenen Zugang, den offenen Daten, den offenen Methoden und Empfehlungen zum Austausch von zugrunde liegen. Es ist nicht nur so, dass offene wissenschaftliche Praktiken die Wissenschaft zuverlässiger und effektiver machen. Sie fördern soziale Gerechtigkeit oder wissenschaftliche Gerechtigkeit, wenn Sie so wollen. Wenn jede*r Wissenschaftler*in auf der Welt auf alle Informationen zugreifen kann, über die jede*r andere Wissenschaftler*in auf der Welt verfügt, besteht wissenschaftliche Gleichheit. Während reiche Universitäten Elsevier boykottieren, können sich ärmere Universitäten nicht einmal ein Abonnement leisten. Open Access würde also der Welt eine globale Nord-Süd und eine dotierte vs. nicht dotierte Universitätsgleichheit bringen. Aber es kann denjenigen, die potenzielle Virusopfer sind, keine Gerechtigkeit bringen.
Im Fall der Covid-19-Pandemie schien die offene Wissenschaft zunächst das Gezänke und die Tiraden der Regierungen zu untergraben, konnte aber nur an der Tür klingeln. Einige Regierungen weigerten sich einfach, die Tür zu öffnen und Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Dies wirft die Frage auf, ob die Open Science Bewegung politische Handlungsprinzipien verabschieden muss, die über Maßnahmen zur Förderung von Transparenz und Reproduzierbarkeit hinausgehen. Muss die Open Science Bewegung die Regierungen dazu drängen, administrative, wenn nicht verfassungsrechtliche Verfahren einzuführen, die die Regierungen bei einer Naturkatastrophe oder einem Notfall wie einem Hurrikan oder einer Pandemie den Wissenschaftler*innen gegenüber rechenschaftspflichtig machen?
Ich sage ja aus ethischer Sicht. Aber es ist nicht so einfach. Sobald wir anfangen, Dinge wie Verfahrensreformen voranzutreiben, werden tiefsitzende Sonderinteressen einbezogen und es wird hässlich. Als Wissenschaftler*innen sind wir wahrscheinlich nicht für Schlammschlachten und politisches Manövrieren geeignet. Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass wir umso weniger Zeit für die Wissenschaft haben, je mehr Zeit wir für Lobbying aufwenden. Einige von uns haben die Fähigkeit, die Bewegung zu führen und Regierungen zu beeinflussen, aber die meisten von uns sind schlecht gerüstet, um die Mächte zu bekämpfen, die hinter der Politik stehen.
Das wirft die Frage nach dem Endspiel auf: Reicht es aus, den Regierungen die richtigen Antworten zu geben, auch wenn sie sie ignorieren? Haben wir unsere Pflicht als Wissenschaftler*innen erfüllt, wenn wir nur vor der Haustür auftauchen und Regierungsbeamte entscheiden lassen, ob wir eintreten dürfen?
1 Der ursprüngliche Nachrichtenartikel wurde von der Website der chinesischen Nachrichtenagenturen gelöscht, kann aber im Internet Archive gefunden werden.
2 Quelle: Goh, Gabriel. „COVID Epidemic Calculator“. Tag 0 ist mindestens 3 symptomatische Fälle pro Million Menschen, was bedeutet, dass aufgrund der Inkubationszeit möglicherweise Hunderte infiziert sind. Für Vorhersagen verwendete Parameter: 106 mio. Bevölkerung, ein einziger Erstfall, Ansteckungsgefahr pro Person von 2,2, Übertragungsrate 0,73, Inkubationszeit 5,2 Tage und Sterblichkeitsrate 2%.
Ein Hinweis von mir: Ich habe versucht, die empirischen Beweise und den historischen Zeitplan so genau wie möglich zu erfassen, aber alle Fehler in diesem Blog-Beitrag sind meine eigenen. Ich bin dankbar für die Kommentare von Lisa Heukamp.
My family is a mixture of Democrats, Republicans and swing voters. This can make for interesting emails, calls or reunions. It seems clear to me that partisan discussions, especially involving blame, are a no go. In fact, family in-fighting is pretty much like public in-fighting. It distracts us from some of our common problems. Like the unbridled increase in income and wealth inequality in the United States since the late 1970s. Especially the top 1%. The question is how to find common ground when one or both sides are past their breaking points.
I suggest three things that would benefit almost any American, except for the ultra rich (top 1%) or relatively rich (top 10%). These are things that encroach on freedom without touching on more polarizing topics.
1. End the winner-take-all electoral system. Why should the winner take all, when the winner is rich people? Low and middle-class workers have not had a real wage increase since the 1970s on average, but wall street provided huge profits.
There is nothing wrong with profits, but shouldn’t everyone working at profiting companies profit? A similar story unfolds in politics. The upper classes control both parties. Republicans favor the ultra-rich, and Democrats favor the quite-rich in general. We do not have parties that represent all voters’ interests. If you are lower to lower-middle class, these parties are both against you, for the most part. If you support the Tea Party, Libertarian, Social Democrats, Green Party, or other parties, you have no chance to get representation in government at the national level. We need a representative democracy where parties get power that equals their vote share. If Republicans get 55% of the vote they should get 55% of the legislative and executive positions. That is real democracy, where the government reflects the preferences of the people. When parties get proportional vote shares, they are forced to work together to solve problems. More than half of those who identify as Republicans and Democrats favored having a third party in a recent Gallup poll.
The two party system is now so deeply divided that democracy itself is faltering. The abuse of power the Constitution hoped to prevent is now rampant with executive dominance, a Supreme Court of partisan judges, and deep segregation of voter districts due to gerrymandering. Adding more parties will instantly restore coalitions and cooperation.
2. End Super PACs. This is how both parties came to be dominated by rich-peoples’ interests.
Citizens United and Speechnow.org made it possible that parties and candidates can get unlimited secret funding. This raised the stakes so high that the only way to get elected is to have over 1 billion dollars, or to accept donations to equal 1 billion dollars (that is one thousand times one million dollars – a $hit ton! The only way to get such big donations is to promise things to the rich that benefit them. In more plain English, this is known as corruption, by definition. These are simply ‘legal’ bribes being paid to politicians, made legal because of Citizens United.
“for the first time since at least the 1960s, the majority of Americans were not in the middle class”– PEW Research Center
3. Overturn the 1987 repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Political conflict is an opportunity to create economic conflict.
Until 1987, news companies were legally bound to report news in a balanced manner, providing different sides of each story. Today they are allowed to say anything they want and claim it as ‘fact’ without any repercussion. All of our political and factual beliefs have been shaped by distortions of reality. For example, try this on for size at the next mixed-political gathering. Obama, what many political news agencies call the ‘socialist-Muslim’, was actually a relatively hawkish military president. He was the first president in history to have an American citizen assassinated without any trial. He also give a large pay and benefit raise to the military and made aggressive moves of the US to contain China militaristically and economically. These facts might perk the attention of even the most ‘libtard’-hating-family-members. But that is not my main point here. The media outlets are mostly owned by corporations with special interests in keeping you and I fighting over politics, so that corporations can keep paying low wages. The news in the US sows seeds of hate and misinformation so that working-class people end up in constant conflict. This conflict keeps the focus away from the ultra-wealthy making decisions that harm them, such as paying them miserable wages with low benefits. Why not end fake news?
In case you are not sure, what not to do. Abortion, gun control, racism, blame of any sort. Not gonna go over well in mixed political company. If you are not ultra wealthy, we are on the same side in the things that matter most – like getting fair wages for fair work.
Notes to the reader:
As news media companies tend to be on one side or the other, I tried to use neutral sources as much as possible in this post.
Full disclosure. I have never voted Republican. But I am no fan of the Democrats either. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not an exciting political reality to face. Especially while watching the rich get richer, and the working-class continually get the shaft.
On January 30th, 2020, the WHO declared a global health emergency based on scientific evidence of a rapidly spreading coronavirus from the SARS family (Sars-CoV-2, and the disease Covid-19). The evidence the WHO used to declare this emergency came almost entirely from Chinese data.
The Chinese data demonstrated an alarming spread rate in January, as shown in Figure 1. Without the Chinese data, there would have been little cause for alarm as all other countries combined had barely 90 known cases in that period, and not a single death.
In early January, the Chinese government took measures to block news and data1 related to the virus; however, Chinese scientists still managed to follow open science practices (updated news on this here) including sharing partial-gene sequence data with the world. This allowed the WHO to take appropriate measures and enabled scientists in Germany to develop tests to identify the novel coronavirus. The German team shared publicly their methods on the WHO website on January 13th. Technology and global communications have evolved to the point where governments can slow but not stop the free flow of information.
Sharing all data and findings is the best form of science, but not always practiced. The Open Science Movement has the goal of changing this. If everyone in the world has equal access to the theory, methods, data and results of all other scientific research, quality and efficiency increases exponentially. This is evidenced in the open science practices behind the global fight against Covid-19 that saved and will save lives, potentially millions of them.
Figure 2 is a simulation predicting how many people would die of the virus in any given country depending on when governments follow WHO recommended operating procedures, as in: issue stay-at-home orders, engage in widespread testing and quarantine both individuals with the virus and those they were in contact with. ‘Day 0’ in Figure 2 is the moment when there are at least 3 symptomatic cases per million people, usually about 2 months after the first case in a country but much faster if several cases arrive at once.
The reader should keep in mind that Figure 2 is a simplified simulation. The reality of the situation is extremely complex. In particular, governments do not go from normal operations to full lockdown of society in one day, this usually proceeds in stages. Nonetheless, this simulation comes from the best known predictive epidemiology models and helps demonstrate how even one day of indecision can cost thousands of lives.
In response to this outbreak in China and rapid appearance of Covid-19 globally, South Korea followed the WHO’s standard emergency operating procedures. Meaning: Test everyone possible, isolate all cases, restrict travel and gatherings, close non-essential businesses. The virus was contained and only 200 people died. Of course, previous virus outbreaks heightened their preparedness level. Germany was also well prepared given its rapid development of tests, and because they learned from the experience of Italy as Europe’s ‘ground zero’.
Roughly speaking, Italy crossed the ‘Day 0’ threshold in Figure 2 around February 15th. It was the least prepared as a country because it was the first in Europe, and a place where people from around the globe flock as tourists if not football fans. Thus, Italy’s case is not a story of major government failure, also given that there were reasons to be suspicious of the Chinese case.
The ‘Day 0’ threshold came around March 2nd in Germany, and ‘Day 0’ was around March 8th in New York at least on paper. But New York only started testing people with success around March 1st because the CDC’s own test kits released in early February failed. This left plenty of time, in ‘pandemic terms’, to source the accurate tests being deployed in the rest of the world since January. This did not happen in New York or the US as a whole. Thus, New York was caught completely unprepared but not because the virus was a surprise arrival.
When combined with the data from China, South Korea and several other countries, the WHO upgraded the global emergency to a global pandemic on March 12th. New York had issued a state of emergency but only gave stay at home orders as of March 20th. It was not until a week later that most schools were closed and police authorized to enforce these orders (the blue arrow around ‘Day 31’ in Figure 2). Despite massive open science efforts channeled through the WHO, New York and much of the US simply failed to heed obvious scientific evidence and predictions. This is even more shocking because Seattle, not New York, was ‘ground zero’ in the US. Washington State as a whole implemented early and successful emergency measures.
Reviewing the failures of countries, states or cities to immediately take drastic emergency measures before or on January 30th (global emergency) or March 12th (pandemic) is not the subject of this blog post. The world had access to all the same data and knowledge of how to test for the virus thanks to open science practices, the WHO and several partner organizations and websites.
The message I want to convey is that open science is not enough. Its limits are found in governments. In many countries, science has little place in government decision making. This is perhaps understandable in a dysfunctional authoritarian regime where nearly all political decisions are made to maintain and concentrate power. This is certainly a reason that the worst horrors of the virus are yet to come in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. But it is shocking in democracies where there are throngs of scientists and agencies tasked with monitoring and advising the government on what to do to protect its people.
The United States had ample information that Covid-19 was in the US and spreading rapidly, how to design effective tests, and exactly what to do to reduce the spread of the virus and its death toll months before any major actions were taken – the same information Washington State used to stem the spread. But this scientific information, shared at a scale and speed not seen before in world history, was simply not enough.
The Open Science Movement has ethical principles underlying its open access, data, methods and sharing recommendations. It is not just that open science practices make science more reliable and effective; they promote social justice, or scientific justice if you will. When every scientist in the world can access all the information that every other scientist in the world has, there is scientific equality. While rich universities boycott Elsevier, poorer universities cannot even afford a subscription. Thus, open access would bring a global North-South and a endowed v. not-endowed university equality to the world. But it can’t bring justice to those who are potential virus victims.
In the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, open science looked to undermine the bickering and buffonery of governments at first, but it could only ring the doorbell. Some governments simply refused to open the door, to take action. This begs the question if the Open Science Movement needs to adopt principles of political action that extend beyond policies promoting transparency and reproducibility. Does the Open Science Movement need to push governments to adopt administrative, if not constitutional procedures that make governments accountable to scientists in a natural disaster or emergency like a hurricane or pandemic?
I say yes from an ethical stand point. But its not so simple. As soon as we start pushing things like procedural reform, deep-pocketed special interests get involved and it gets ugly. As scientists we are not likely suited to mudslinging and political maneuvering. Not to mention that the more time we spend on lobbying, the less time we have for science. There are some of us with the ability to lead the Movement and influence governments, but most of us are ill-equipped to combat the powers-that-be behind politics.
That brings up the end game question: Is it enough to give the right answers to governments even if they ignore them? Have we done our duty as scientists if we just ‘show up at the doorstep’ and let government officials decide if we get to come in?
1 The original news article was deleted from the Chinese News Agencies’ website but can be found in the Internet Archive.
2 Source: Goh, Gabriel. “COVID Epidemic Calculator“. Day 0 is at least 3 symptomatic cases per million people, meaning there are potentially hundreds infected given the incubation period. Parameters used for predictions: 106 mil. Population, a single initial case, contagiousness per person of 2.2, rate of transmission 0.73, incubation period 5.2 days and mortality rate 2%.
A note from me: I have sought to capture the empirical evidence and historical timeline as accurate as possible, but any errors in this blog post are my own.
Analytical errors are a normal part of social science, as David Brady pointed out in the December 2019 IPM Newsletter. Whether conscious, unconscious or simply mistakes, we take certain paths in our research processes. All possible paths constitute researcher degrees of freedom, and they can lead to different findings. In fact, we can intentionally exploit paths to the results we want. Replications can work against this by detecting errors or identifying questionable decisions. We have few replications in sociology, those working in IPM being no exception. Thus just one replication of any given published should be a scientific improvement.
But is it?
Let’s imagine a secondary data study that a replicator wants to reproduce. We now know from a major social science journal, that even when researchers provide their code it rarely runs ‘right out of the box’; replicators often need additional information or materials from the authors (Janz 2015). Moreover, consider an R user trying to replicate Stata code. This requires writing brand new code. Replications with the simple goal of reproduction are not as straightforward as we think! Now let’s imagine a replicator has more complicated goals of testing generalizability or scrutinizing the original study. A replication is as prone to researcher degrees of freedom problems as the original study. This means replications might not be as useful as we hoped, and alone cannot alleviate the ‘crisis of science’.
To be more effective, original studies and replications alike need to focus on model specification. As Muñoz and Young (2018) demonstrate, the cost of running billions of models is roughly zero. Unless they are super-complicated, a computer can do this for us very quickly. Given that researchers accidentally or intentionally report only models supporting their claims, it is a useful exercise to check how alternative specifications might affect the findings. This does not mean running all possible models. Doing so throws models into the results pool that are impossible causally speaking. We need to carefully, logically select models based on plausible research decisions. For example, if a researcher does not weight their survey data, we should ask, ‘why not?’. If a researcher measures poverty as half the median income, we should explore alternative measures.
Putting together all combinations of plausible decisions we come to a set of models that are theoretically defensible. A major gain is that we can see which decisions have an impact on the results. This gives an indication of where we need to focus our future research. One of the newest ways to do this is p-curve analysis, also known as “specification curve” modeling. These methods were originally introduced as ways to detect p-hacking and publication bias. But we can extend them to standard research and replications, leading to gains in theory. These methods caught on in psychology recently (Rohrer 2018), and it is time for sociology to get behind the curve and move ahead our discipline’s reliability.
Janz, Nicole. 2015. “Leading Journal Verifies Articles before Publication – So Far, All Replications Failed.” Political Science Replication Blog. Retrieved July 22, 2019.
Muñoz, John and Cristobal Young. 2018. “We Ran 9 Billion Regressions: Eliminating False Positives through Computational Model Robustness.” Sociological Methodology 48(1):1–33.
Rohrer, Julia M. 2018. “Run All the Models! Dealing With Data Analytic Flexibility.” APS Observer 31(3).
A major segment of social science uses formal models and quantitative methods to explain social phenomena. That means they use mathematical symbols to define how they think the world works, and then find data and test it. For example, researchers want to explain social outcomes, like committing a crime, changing jobs, moving or having children. Why do some people do these things and not others? Researchers then speculate that other things cause these outcomes like getting married, having a job or losing a job, how much money a person makes, how old they are and all kinds of other stuff.
Next, researchers change their theoretical ideas into a formal model. This means an equation. Before you stop reading, maybe pause to consider that an equation is just a theory expressed with symbols instead of standard language. For example,
Y = X
and this might represent moving homes (“Y“) is caused by getting married (“X“). Another way of saying this is, Y depends on X or moving depends on getting married.
But seriously, getting married does not always cause moving. Sometimes it does. The correct claim is that moving is a function of getting married. Function means that marriage probably increases the likelihood of moving by some amount. Therefore, researchers add a modifier to X, like the letter b, so if b was 0.3 getting married would increase the likelihood of moving by 30%. People also move when they don’t get married, so researchers add a constant a to account for the likelihood of a person moving for any other reason. So if a was 0.3 then the average person would have a 30% chance of moving at any point.
Y = a + bX
Now if a and bX could be used to perfectly predict whether a person moves or not. The researcher would have made a monumental achievement here. Instead what happens is the researcher goes and observes moving and marriage behaviors. Tries to do this with a random sample of the population of a society. Then applies the above equation to the sample data. Does the equation fit perfectly to the data? No. Never. Researchers must admit that their theories come with uncertainty. Maybe moving depends on the type of home the person always lives in, maybe it depends on whether a couple can afford to move or if it is even a couple or a single parent. There are nearly unlimited things that could cause moving. Also, getting a perfectly random sample, mistakes when observing or coding data, etc. leads to uncertainty in the results. This means the formal equation has to have e, an error term.
Y = a + bX + e
Researchers spend their time trying to reduce what is in the error term. So they are basically tasked with the job of reducing uncertainty. If scientists wants to fly a spaceship to mars they have to reduce all possible forms of uncertainty in the take off, flight path, landing, electronics and so forth. But a social scientist who wants to predict how many people will move, where they will move or which people will move, cannot reduce uncertainty that much. Sure, they can explain moving with job changes, family members getting sick, weather, hobbies, wars, and so many observable things. But they will never fully explain moving. What I’m really saying here is that social scientists will never be able to perfectly explain human behaviors. Its like this:
Why is it so hard? If we could just measure all the things that people are doing and thinking we could predict precisely what humans will do next, right? Maybe so, maybe not; but irrelevant because we cannot measure everything about humans. Even if we could measure the precise actions of the network of neurons in one human brain numbering greater than all the stars in the universe, we probably couldn’t measure love. But something that we might refer to as love seems to be a major force in guiding human actions. Both the effect of love:
“Love affects more than our thinking and our behavior toward those we love. It transforms our entire life”
– Thomas Merton
And the lack of love:
“Intense spiritual and emotional lack in our lives is the perfect breeding ground for material greed and overconsumption.”
– bell hooks(both quotes from hooks 2000, pp. 187 & 105)
These suggest love is a prime mover of human decisions and behaviors. But we don’t know what it is exactly and we have made no attempts, that I am aware of, in any large population surveys to measure it. So,
When we add love as an X variable to our formal model we cannot test anything, because we have not developed instruments to measure it. So it remains in the void of all that variance in Y that we simply cannot explain. Maybe we should start focus some of our effort on that.
hooks, bell. 2000. All About Love: New Visions. William Morrow and Company, New York, NY. ISBN 0-688-16844-2.