Many political science journals are beginning to work with prospective authors to implement guidelines for research transparency and interpretability, and many political scientists are urging continued deliberation on how best to promote that transparency. This post is designed to foster deliberation. You are invited to raise questions, make observations, describe relevant experiences either within political science or in other relevant disciplines, propose revisions or new guidelines, and otherwise explore the ways in which research transparency and interpretability is being implemented, should be, or should not be.
We would also like to alert the political science community to the deliberations on qualitative research transparency currently being organized by the APSA’s section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research (QMMR). An outline of the QMMR process can be found on the section’s website, here. The QMMR deliberations will be open to all.
Comments on any aspect of implementation are invited, but to help foster systematic discussion we offer below a few categories into which your observations might fall. Alternatively, you may identify a new category in your comment, or simply post comments without indicating a category.
We also ask all participants to remain courteous and focused on the issues at hand.
For your use, we provide URLs to some relevant materials:
- Replication and Data Research Transparency (PSNow)
- Qualitative & Multi-Method Research Newsletter (Spring 2015, Vol. 13, No. 1)
- For a More Public Political Science (Perspectives on Politics)
- APSR Submission Guidelines in Brief
- Perspectives on Politics Guidelines on Evidentiary Support and Research Transparency
- APSA Guide to Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms
- Statement by APSA Presidents on DA-RT, November 24, 2015
Thanks very much, and we look forward to a robust and constructive discussion.
- Confidentiality and anonymity
- Cost in time or money
- Transparency or interpretability in archival work
- Transparency in big data
- Transparency or interpretability in field work
- Relevance for political theory or political philosophy
- Embargos on making public new research materials
- Editors’ decision-making process
- Appeals from editors’ decisions
- Consistency across journals