% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Aleksic:1028405,
      author       = {Aleksic, Jelena and Alexa, Adrian and Attwood, Teresa K and
                      Bolser, Dan and Dahlö, Martin and Davey, Robert and Dinkel,
                      Holger and Förstner, Konrad and Grigorov, Ivo and
                      Hèriché, Jean-Karim and Chue Hong, Neil and Lahti, Leo and
                      MacLean, Dan and Markie, Michael L and Molloy, Jenny and
                      Schneider, Maria Victoria and Scott, Camille and Smith-Unna,
                      Richard and Vieira, Bruno Miguel},
      title        = {{T}he {O}pen {S}cience {P}eer {R}eview {O}ath},
      publisher    = {Zenodo},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-04586},
      year         = {2014},
      abstract     = {One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be
                      able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of
                      research that has been done before. However, with the
                      increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques,
                      coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing
                      research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly,
                      scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with
                      clarity and rigour, in order for research to be
                      reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the
                      transparency of the scientific method and the
                      reproducibility of research results: specifically, we
                      introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto.
                      These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable
                      reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and
                      apply open-science principles, and support the ideas of
                      transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater
                      societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the
                      stage of peer review will help to check that the research
                      being published includes everything that other researchers
                      would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is
                      the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the
                      community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these
                      principles prior to publication should help to improve
                      published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility
                      of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to
                      authors and their institutions. Future incarnations of the
                      various national Research Excellence Frameworks (REFs) will
                      evolve away from simple citations towards measurable
                      societal value and impact. The proposed manifesto aspires to
                      facilitate this goal by making transparency, reproducibility
                      and citizen-scientist engagement with the knowledge-creation
                      and dissemination processes, the default parameters for
                      performing sound research.},
      keywords     = {open science (Other) / peer review (Other) / reviewer
                      (Other) / oath (Other)},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)25},
      doi          = {10.5281/ZENODO.12273},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1028405},
}