Ciencia abierta: iniciativas para mejorar la investigación en Latinoamérica
Article Sidebar
Publicado
jul 15, 2022
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##
https://doi.org/10.30878/ces.v30n1a11
Main Article Content
Antonio Laguna-Camacho
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4326-472X
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4326-472X
Resumen
Se brinda una introducción a la ciencia abierta por medio de la revisión de sus aspectos básicos. En particular, se presenta la crisis de replicación en investigación y ejemplos de prácticas cuestionables que generan resultados falsos positivos. Se presentan también iniciativas de ciencia abierta para mejorar la reproducibilidad y confiabilidad del saber científico. Se discute además el impacto de la adopción de los principios de ciencia abierta en elevar los estándares para publicar reportes científicos, así como retos para transformar el sistema en el que se desarrolla la investigación. En general, se busca una reflexión para acercar la comunidad académica en Latinoamérica al movimiento de ciencia abierta y se comparten recursos para que el lector interesado pueda profundizar e involucrarse.
Article Details
Como citar
LAGUNA-CAMACHO, Antonio.
Ciencia abierta: iniciativas para mejorar la investigación en Latinoamérica.
CIENCIA ergo-sum, [S.l.], v. 30, n. 1, jul. 2022.
ISSN 2395-8782.
Disponible en: <https://cienciaergosum.uaemex.mx/article/view/16436>. Fecha de acceso: 18 ago. 2026
doi: https://doi.org/10.30878/ces.v30n1a11.
Sección
Ensayo
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0.
Citas
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., Sarafoglou, A., Kekecs, Z., Kucharský, Š., Benjamin, D., Chambers, C. D., Fisher, A., Gelman, A.,... Wagenmakers, E. J. (2020). A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6
Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2013). Declaration of transparency for each research article. BMJ, 347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4796
Anaya, J., van der Zee, T., & Brown, N. (2017). Statistical infarction: a postmortem of the cornell food and brand lab pizza publications. PeerJ Preprints, 5. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3025v1
Anvari, F., & Lakens, L. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3, 266-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
Begley, C. G., Buchan, A. M., & Dirnagl, U. (2015). Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature, 525(7567), 25-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/525025a
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452-454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425. https://doi.org/a0021524
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 14(5), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Bruton, S. V., Medlin, M., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2020). Personal motivations and systemic incentives: scientists on questionable research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1531-1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00182-9
Carey, B. (2011, Noviembre). Fraud case seen as a red flag for psychology research. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html
Ciocca, D. R., & Delgado, G. (2017). The reality of scientific research in Latin America; an insider’s perspective. Cell Stress & Chaperones, 22(6), 847-852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12192-017-0815-8
CPEUM (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (2021). Artículo 3º. Fracción V Fracción Reformada DOF 12-06-2019.
Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., Orben, A., Parsons, S., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2019). Seven easy steps to open science. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 227(4), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387
De Filippo, D. y D’Onofrio, M.G. (2019). Alcances y limitaciones de la ciencia abierta en Latinoamérica: análisis de las políticas públicas y publicaciones científicas de la región. Hipertext.net, 19, 32-48. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2019.i19.03
Editor Nature Communications. (2020). Registered Reports offer recognition for rigour. Nature Communications, 11, 3443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17294-2
Editor Nature Human Behaviour. (2017). Promoting reproducibility with registered reports. Nature Human Behavior, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0034
Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: failures to replicate ψ. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 933-948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029709
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. Americn Scientist, 102(6), 460-465. https://doi.org/10.1511/2014.111.460
Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). What does research reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine, 8(341). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027
Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2012). The power of scientific knowledge: from research to public policy. Cambridge University Press.
Hawkes, N. (2018). Sixty seconds on... P-hacking. BMJ, 362. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4039
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
Kathawalla, U.-K., Silverstein, P., & Syed, M. (2021). Easing Into Open Science: A Guide for Graduate Students and Their Advisors. Collabra: Psychology, 7(18684). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18684
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Munafò, M. R., Hollands, G. J., & Marteau, T. M. (2018). Open science prevents mindless science. BMJ, 363, k4309. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4309
Munafò, M., Nosek, B., Bishop, D.,... Ioannidis, J. P. A (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Humane Behavior, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s Renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511-534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
Neuroskeptic. (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 643-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459519
Norris, E., & O’Connor, D. B. (2019). Behaviour Change for Open Science. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tch4w
Onie, S. (2020). Redesign open science for Asia, Africa and Latin America. Nature, 587(7832), 35-37. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03052-3
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Orben, A. (2019). A journal club to fix science. Nature, 573(7775). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02842-8
Rabelo, A., Farias, J., Sarmet, M. M., Joaquim, T., Hoersting, R. C., Victorino, L., Modesto, J., & Pilati, R. (2020). Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: results from a replication study and an international comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 674-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12632
Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s 'retroactive facilitation of recall' effect. PLOS ONE, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423
Robson, S. G., Baum, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., Beitner, J., Brohmer, H., Chin, J.,… Tangen, J. M. (2021). Nudging Open Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zn7vt
Sacco, D. F., & Brown, M. (2019). Assessing the efficacy of a training intervention to reduce acceptance of questionable research practices in psychology graduate students. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(3), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619840525
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2020). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795
Schimmack UR (2018, Enero). Why the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology should retract article DOI: 10.1037/a0021524 “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect” by Daryl J. Bem. Replicability Index. Retrieved from https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve and effect size: correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666-681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988
Stürmer, S., Oeberst, A., Trötschel, R., & Decker, O. (2017). Early-career researchers’ perceptions of the prevalence of questionable research practices, potential causes, and open science. Social Psychology, 48(6), 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. The American Psychologist, 61(7), 726-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726
Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2013). Declaration of transparency for each research article. BMJ, 347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4796
Anaya, J., van der Zee, T., & Brown, N. (2017). Statistical infarction: a postmortem of the cornell food and brand lab pizza publications. PeerJ Preprints, 5. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3025v1
Anvari, F., & Lakens, L. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3, 266-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
Begley, C. G., Buchan, A. M., & Dirnagl, U. (2015). Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature, 525(7567), 25-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/525025a
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452-454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425. https://doi.org/a0021524
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 14(5), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Bruton, S. V., Medlin, M., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2020). Personal motivations and systemic incentives: scientists on questionable research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1531-1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00182-9
Carey, B. (2011, Noviembre). Fraud case seen as a red flag for psychology research. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html
Ciocca, D. R., & Delgado, G. (2017). The reality of scientific research in Latin America; an insider’s perspective. Cell Stress & Chaperones, 22(6), 847-852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12192-017-0815-8
CPEUM (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (2021). Artículo 3º. Fracción V Fracción Reformada DOF 12-06-2019.
Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., Orben, A., Parsons, S., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2019). Seven easy steps to open science. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 227(4), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387
De Filippo, D. y D’Onofrio, M.G. (2019). Alcances y limitaciones de la ciencia abierta en Latinoamérica: análisis de las políticas públicas y publicaciones científicas de la región. Hipertext.net, 19, 32-48. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2019.i19.03
Editor Nature Communications. (2020). Registered Reports offer recognition for rigour. Nature Communications, 11, 3443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17294-2
Editor Nature Human Behaviour. (2017). Promoting reproducibility with registered reports. Nature Human Behavior, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0034
Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: failures to replicate ψ. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 933-948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029709
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. Americn Scientist, 102(6), 460-465. https://doi.org/10.1511/2014.111.460
Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). What does research reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine, 8(341). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027
Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2012). The power of scientific knowledge: from research to public policy. Cambridge University Press.
Hawkes, N. (2018). Sixty seconds on... P-hacking. BMJ, 362. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4039
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
Kathawalla, U.-K., Silverstein, P., & Syed, M. (2021). Easing Into Open Science: A Guide for Graduate Students and Their Advisors. Collabra: Psychology, 7(18684). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18684
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Munafò, M. R., Hollands, G. J., & Marteau, T. M. (2018). Open science prevents mindless science. BMJ, 363, k4309. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4309
Munafò, M., Nosek, B., Bishop, D.,... Ioannidis, J. P. A (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Humane Behavior, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s Renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511-534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
Neuroskeptic. (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 643-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459519
Norris, E., & O’Connor, D. B. (2019). Behaviour Change for Open Science. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tch4w
Onie, S. (2020). Redesign open science for Asia, Africa and Latin America. Nature, 587(7832), 35-37. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03052-3
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Orben, A. (2019). A journal club to fix science. Nature, 573(7775). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02842-8
Rabelo, A., Farias, J., Sarmet, M. M., Joaquim, T., Hoersting, R. C., Victorino, L., Modesto, J., & Pilati, R. (2020). Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: results from a replication study and an international comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 674-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12632
Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s 'retroactive facilitation of recall' effect. PLOS ONE, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423
Robson, S. G., Baum, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., Beitner, J., Brohmer, H., Chin, J.,… Tangen, J. M. (2021). Nudging Open Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zn7vt
Sacco, D. F., & Brown, M. (2019). Assessing the efficacy of a training intervention to reduce acceptance of questionable research practices in psychology graduate students. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(3), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619840525
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2020). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795
Schimmack UR (2018, Enero). Why the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology should retract article DOI: 10.1037/a0021524 “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect” by Daryl J. Bem. Replicability Index. Retrieved from https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve and effect size: correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666-681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988
Stürmer, S., Oeberst, A., Trötschel, R., & Decker, O. (2017). Early-career researchers’ perceptions of the prevalence of questionable research practices, potential causes, and open science. Social Psychology, 48(6), 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. The American Psychologist, 61(7), 726-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726