Fixing science means an end to gaming the system Nick Brown Abstract During the last decade, there has been a substantial acceleration in the open science movement. Most people would probably hope to have seen signs of positive change in that time, yet it seems that the process of improving the practice of science is moving at a glacial pace. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002816 Even the journal PLOS ONE, a pioneer of supposedly mandatory data sharing, has taken no action beyond a seven-year-old expression of concern [7] for a failure to share data from an article [8] that continues to have substantial influence on clinical practice worldwide. The mentality still seems to be “How can I get published?” far more often than “What is true?”. 8 McCrone P, Sharpe M, Chalder T, Knapp M, Johnson AL, Goldsmith KA, et al. Adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise, and specialist medical care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e40808. pmid:22870204
Author here... I would like to thank the author of PLOS Biology, Nona Pariente, first for inviting me to contribute this editorial (which is loosely based on a quick talk that I gave at a conference back in March), and second for not querying the criticism of PLOS ONE during the review process. Several points of detail were improved as we went along, but this swipe at PLOS ONE was not mentioned at any stage. Kudos to Nona for that, I feel.