AJPS badges
Posted: Tue May 10, 2016 9:12 am
AJPS is introducing gamification techniques to promote transparency, articles that comply with their dart policy receive 2 badges: open data and open material (this is not a late April fool it was posted today)
https://ajps.org/2016/05/10/ajps-to-awa ... ce-badges/
the badges are presented by the writer of the article just as a visual cue to easily identify what paper has passed their replication procedures and uploaded the data and code.
Here is the piece of the article that talks about exceptions:
"Of course, some articles published in the American Journal of Political Science will not receive the Badges. For example, many formal theory manuscripts and virtually all of the normative theory manuscripts that are submitted to the Journal do not contain any empirical analyses. Such work is exempt from the AJPS Replication Policy, so the Open Practice Badges are not relevant to these manuscripts. And there are certain situations in which a manuscript may be given an exemption from the usual replication requirements due to the use of restricted-access data. In such cases, authors still are asked to explain how interested researchers could gain access to the data and to provide all relevant software code and documentation for replicating their analyses. Manuscripts in this situation would not receive the Open Data Badge, but they would be awarded the Open Materials Badge. Even with allowances for exceptions, we anticipate that the vast majority of the articles published in the American Journal of Political Science will receive both Badges."
I wonder if they thought that some of the really interesting types of qualitative research that have been discussed in QTD might not get these badges... I guess they might be added to exceptions.
But more generally this type of gamification device is a paternalistic carrot/stick weak incentive structure.
I am open to see how it will affect the journal, and ready to accept that these incentives work and will improve the rate of replication/transparency in quantitative research, but part of me also resists to these types of approaches.
My hunch is that it will be useless for quantitative research, the only outcome will be stigmatizing the exceptions. But I am ready to be proven wrong.
https://ajps.org/2016/05/10/ajps-to-awa ... ce-badges/
the badges are presented by the writer of the article just as a visual cue to easily identify what paper has passed their replication procedures and uploaded the data and code.
Here is the piece of the article that talks about exceptions:
"Of course, some articles published in the American Journal of Political Science will not receive the Badges. For example, many formal theory manuscripts and virtually all of the normative theory manuscripts that are submitted to the Journal do not contain any empirical analyses. Such work is exempt from the AJPS Replication Policy, so the Open Practice Badges are not relevant to these manuscripts. And there are certain situations in which a manuscript may be given an exemption from the usual replication requirements due to the use of restricted-access data. In such cases, authors still are asked to explain how interested researchers could gain access to the data and to provide all relevant software code and documentation for replicating their analyses. Manuscripts in this situation would not receive the Open Data Badge, but they would be awarded the Open Materials Badge. Even with allowances for exceptions, we anticipate that the vast majority of the articles published in the American Journal of Political Science will receive both Badges."
I wonder if they thought that some of the really interesting types of qualitative research that have been discussed in QTD might not get these badges... I guess they might be added to exceptions.
But more generally this type of gamification device is a paternalistic carrot/stick weak incentive structure.
I am open to see how it will affect the journal, and ready to accept that these incentives work and will improve the rate of replication/transparency in quantitative research, but part of me also resists to these types of approaches.
My hunch is that it will be useless for quantitative research, the only outcome will be stigmatizing the exceptions. But I am ready to be proven wrong.