2024-02-12 09:16 UTC
The explanation is that journals are more likely to publish research that has open data, but also that is more rigorous. If published research has no open data, it therefore tends to be more rigorous, otherwise it would not be published at all. Research that is more rigorous tends to be more reproducible, and in our case, this effect is stronger than open data. So, published research without open data is more rigorous which in turn is more reproducible.
Replies (1)
-
@vtraag@social.cwts.nl 2024-02-12 09:16
The key insight here is that the negative observed association does not reflect the positive causal effect of open data on reproducibility. We would be completely wrong if we would draw the conclusion that open data decreases reproducibility. Especially if we would make policy recommendations, for instance around open data, it is critical that we do not make such mistakes.