Acceso usuarios
Franco S. Benítez Benítez, Lorenzo A. Galán, Agustín Díaz Barquinero, Lucas Cuenya, Débora Inés Burin
En la última década, la denominada “crisis de replicabilidad” ha sacudido a los diferentes campos de las ciencias, desde las consideradas ciencias más “duras” hasta las consideradas ciencias más “blandas”. Para muchos, la ciencia psicológica ha sido el ejemplo por excelencia de los fallos en la replicabilidad de la ciencia y, por ende, en la forma de producir investigaciones científicas; no obstante, ha sido la ciencia más consciente de los problemas científicos existentes. En respuesta, se ha ido configurando el movimiento de ciencia abierta, un conjunto de buenas prácticas en investigación, que abarcan tanto al quehacer de la investigación como a políticas editoriales e institucionales. El presente trabajo consta de una encuesta dirigida a investigadores de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina (N = 90). Se realizaron preguntas cerradas y abiertas acerca de percepciones sobre la ciencia y las prácticas de ciencia abierta. Los resultados reflejan que el 56 % de la muestra está de acuerdo con la existencia de una crisis en la ciencia. A su vez, muestran reconocimiento parcial de la importancia de las prácticas de ciencia abierta, pero ausencia de la implementación efectiva de investigación transparente, debido a poca información y ausencia de incentivos. También revelan concepciones erróneas. Se comparan los resultados con estudios similares.
In the last decade, the so-called "replicability crisis" has shaken the different fields of science. Different causes have been attributed to the replicability crisis such as publication bias, questionable research practices, fraud, structural incentives, and statistical misunderstandings. The open science movement, a set of best practices in research, together with editorial and institutional policies, has been proposed to address this scientific crisis. This paper consists of a survey aimed at researchers in the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina (N = 90) aged between 20 and 80 years. The survey, based on previous ones, asked closed and open questions about perceptions of science, replicability crisis and open science practices. Of the sample, 49 % declared using a quantitative methodology, 28 % mixed and 23 % qualitative. Results show that 56 % of the sample agrees that there is a crisis in science.
A content analysis of the answers showed that the main causes of the crisis in science would be: lack of economic investment, lack of replicability and lack of dissemination of scientific literature. When inquiring about the importance of replication, 51.1 % considered it moderately important and 42.2 % very important, with no investigator who considered it not important at all. Results also reveal partial recognition of the importance of open science practices in general, but lack of effective implementation of transparent research, due to little information and lack of incentives. They also reveal misconceptions. The results are compared with similar studies. For example, lack of investment was found as the main justification for some of the respondents, in line with the results found in the Spanish study carried out in 2021. On the other hand, when investigating the statistical background of the researchers, results agree with those observed in the Spanish sample, with the fallacy that a statistically significant result is an important result being the most accepted one. Likewise, when considering the importance of replication in our sample, as in the Spanish sample, the majority of respondents reaffirmed its relevance. Regarding researchers' experiences with open science practices, most considered making sure to report their studies in a detailed manner, but those practices that include sharing data, scripts, and materials were not common, even though in general all open science practices were highly valued by respondents.
