What lecturers and researchers in business management need to know about open science

ABEC. (2021). Avaliação por pares aberta e dados abertos marcam reflexões do terceiro dia do ABEC Meeting Live 2021. https://www.abecbrasil.org.br/novo/2021/09/avaliacao-por-pares-aberta-e-dados-abertos-marcam-reflexoes-do-terceiro-dia-do-abec-meeting-live-2021/

Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0081-0

Benedicto, A. S. (2021). Research, uncertainty and transparency: On COVID-19. Atención Primaria, 53(5), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2021.102015

Braga, C., & Cabral, J. E., Filho. (2021). Transparência na pesquisa e publicações sobre a COVID-19 = Transparency in research and publications on COVID-19. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil, 21(suppl. 1), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9304202100s100001

Burgelman, J. C., Osimo, D., & Bogdanowicz, M. (2010). Science 2.0 (change will happen…). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2961/2573

Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863

Cochrane, J. H. (2015). The grumpy economist. https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2015/12/secret-data.html

Colquitt, J. (2013). From the editors: Data overlap policy at AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 331-333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4002

Dosch, B., & Martindale, T. (2020). Reading the fine print: A review and analysis of business journals’ data sharing policies. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 25(3-4), 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2020.1847549

Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. (2023). ChatGPT for (finance) research: The Bananarama conjecture. Finance Research Letters, 53, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662

Easley, R. W., & Madden, C. S. (2013). Replication revisited: Introduction to the special section on replication in business research. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1375-1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.001

Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023). GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models [Papers 2303.10130, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023]. https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2303.10130.html

Erlandsson, B. (2017). Enrolling Brazilian editors in CSE’s Certificate Program: A successful initiative. Science Editor, 40(2), 157-159.

Friedman, D., Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental methods. Cambridge Books. ISBN: 9780521456821

Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001

Genaro, A. De, & Astorino, P. (2022). A tutorial on the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) in finance. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 26(Suplemento 1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2022210287.en

Groves, T. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ, 341, c6424. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6424

He, Y., Tian, K., & Xu, X. (2023). A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Scientometrics, 128, 587-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04552-x

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679487

Hopewell, S., Collins, G. S., Boutron, I., Yu, L., Cook, J., Shanyinde, M. Wharton, R., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G. (2014). Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: Retrospective before and after study. BMJ, 349, g4145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4145

Hustson, M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611, 192-193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w

Kathawalla, U. K., Silverstein, P., & Syed, M. (2021). Easing into open science: A guide for graduate students and their advisors. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18684

Kirkman, B., & Chen, G. (2011). Maximizing your data or data slicing? Recommendations for managing multiple submissions from the same dataset. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 433-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00228.x

Kirtley, O. J., Janssens, J. J., & Kaurin, A. (2022). Open Science in suicide research is open for business. Crisis, 43(5), 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000859

Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., & Moylan, E. C. (2013). A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models. F1000Research, 4, 1252.

Langley-Evans, S. C. (2022). Open research: Enhancing transparency in peer review. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 35(3), 421-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13007

Marques, N. L, Bastian-Pinto, C. L., & Brandão, L. E. T. (2021). A tutorial for modeling real options lattices from project cash flows. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200093

Martins, H. C. (2020). A importância da Ciência Aberta (Open Science) na pesquisa em Administração. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190380

Martins, H. C., & Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2020). A nova seção da Revista de Administração Contemporânea: Artigos-Tutoriais. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(3), 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020200044

Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2019). Revisão pelos pares aberta e Ciência Aberta na comunidade de pesquisa em negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190278

Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2020, novembro 26). APO – Open Science, artigos aplicados e artigos científicos de impacto: A experiência brasileira e internacional. Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4289210

Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2021). The Journal of Contemporary Administration (RAC)’s 2018-2021 managerial report and a farewell. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25(6), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021210100.en

Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Leal, C. C. (2021). Salami Science in the Age of Open Data: Déjà lu and accountability in management and business research. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200194

Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 171-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086

Molloy, J. C. (2011). The open knowledge foundation: Open data means better science. Plos Biology, 9(12), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195

Morlin, B., & Calin-Jageman, R. J. (2020). What psychology teachers should know about Open Science and the new statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 47(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320901372

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Open science by design: Realizing a vision for 21st century research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525413/#!po=20.0820

Nature. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613, 612. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1

O'Carroll, C. (2017). European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Cabello Valdes, C., Rentier, B., Kaunismaa, E.et al., Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging Open Science practices – Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science, Cabello Valdes, C.(editor), Rentier, B.(editor), Kaunismaa, E.(editor), Metcalfe, J.(editor), Esposito, F.(editor), McAllister, D.(editor), Maas, K.(editor), Vandevelde, K.(editor), , Publications Office, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2777/75255

Peci, A. (2022). Editorial adoption of Open Peer Review. Revista de Administração Pública, 56(4), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761242022x

Pérez-Soria, J. (2022). Qué hacer en la investigación cualitativa ante la apertura de datos. RECERCA. Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi, 27(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.6103

Rocha, E. S., Albrecht, E., & El-Boghdadly, K. (2023). Open science should be a pleonasm. Anaesthesia, 78(5), 551-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15962

Rooyen, S. Van, Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318(23), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research, 6(588), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311

Ryan, R. C., & Tipu, S. A. A. (2022). Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications. Research Policy, 51(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104408

Schiozer, R. F., Mourad, F. A., & Martins, T. C. (2021). A tutorial on the use of differences-in-differences in management, finance, and accounting. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200067

Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: Reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ, 315, 759-760. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7111.759

Stark, P. B. (2018). Before reproducibility must come preproducibility. Nature, 557, 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05256-0

Tenorio-Fornés, A., Tirador, E.P., Sánchez-Ruiz, A.A. (2021). Decentralizing science: Towards an interoperable open peer review ecosystem using blockchain. Information Processing & Management, 58(6), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102724

Unesco. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Disponível em: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en

Vazire, S., Schiavone, S. R., & Bottesini, J. G. (2020). Credibility beyond replicability: Improving the four validities in psychological science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bu4d3

Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043

Wei, C., Zhao, J., Ni, J., Li, J. (2023). What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals. Scientometrics, 128, 2763-2776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04683-9

Wittman, J. T., Brian, H., & Aukema, A. (2020). Guide and toolbox to replicability and open science in entomology. Journal of Insect Science, 20(3), 6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieaa036

Woelfle, M., Olliario, P., & Todd, M. H. (2011). Open science is a research accelerator. Nature Chemistry, 3, 745-748. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1149

Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: Promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, 125, 1033-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4

Zhang, L., & Ma, L. (2023). Is Open Science a double-edge sword? Data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles. Scientometrics, 128, 2803-2818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04684-8