Open Science and Public Trust in Science: Results from Two Studies

Overview

Journal Public Underst Sci

Specialties History of Medicine
Science

Date 2022 Jun 14

PMID 35699352

Authors

Tom Rosman

Michael Bosnjak

Henning Silber

Joanna Kossmann

Tobias Heycke

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In two studies, we examined whether open science practices, such as making materials, data, and code of a study openly accessible, positively affect public trust in science. Furthermore, we investigated whether the potential trust-damaging effects of research being funded privately (e.g. by a commercial enterprise) may be buffered by such practices. After preregistering six hypotheses, we conducted a survey study (Study 1; = 504) and an experimental study (Study 2; = 588) in two German general population samples. In both studies, we found evidence for the positive effects of open science practices on trust, though it should be noted that in Study 2, results were more inconsistent. We did not however find evidence for the aforementioned buffering effect. We conclude that while open science practices may contribute to increasing trust in science, the importance of making use of open science practices visible should not be underestimated.

Citing Articles

Ten simple rules for good model-sharing practices.

Kherroubi Garcia I, Erdmann C, Gesing S, Barton M, Cadwallader L, Hengeveld G PLoS Comput Biol. 2025; 21(1):e1012702.

PMID: 39792790 PMC: 11723533. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012702.

The IBEX Imaging Knowledge-Base: A Community Resource Enabling Adoption and Development of Immunofluoresence Imaging Methods.

Yaniv Z, Anidi I, Arakkal L, Arroyo-Mejias A, Beuschel R, Borner K ArXiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39764400 PMC: 11702815.

From complexity to clarity: How AI enhances perceptions of scientists and the public's understanding of science.

Markowitz D PNAS Nexus. 2024; 3(9):pgae387.

PMID: 39290437 PMC: 11406778. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae387.

Expectations of Katowice residents regarding the program assumptions of the European city of science Katowice 2024 in the field of medical and health sciences - questionnaire survey results.

Piotr R, Krzysztof K, Ewa N, Katarzyna B, Klaudia A, Tomasz H BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):2180.

PMID: 39135169 PMC: 11318179. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19641-0.

The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review.

Cole N, Kormann E, Klebel T, Apartis S, Ross-Hellauer T R Soc Open Sci. 2024; 11(6):240286.

PMID: 39100167 PMC: 11296153. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.240286.

References

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. View

Field S, Wagenmakers E, Kiers H, Hoekstra R, Ernst A, van Ravenzwaaij D . The effect of preregistration on trust in empirical research findings: results of a registered report. R Soc Open Sci. 2020; 7(4):181351. PMC: 7211853. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181351. View

Critchley C . Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci. 2008; 17(3):309-27. DOI: 10.1177/0963662506070162. View

Lazic A, Zezelj I . A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public Underst Sci. 2021; 30(6):644-670. DOI: 10.1177/09636625211011881. View

Wicherts J, Veldkamp C, Augusteijn H, Bakker M, van Aert R, van Assen M . Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid -Hacking. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:1832. PMC: 5122713. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832. View

Munafo M . Open Science and Research Reproducibility. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016; 10:ed56. PMC: 4898932. DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2016.ed56. View

Soveri A, Karlsson L, Antfolk J, Lindfelt M, Lewandowsky S . Unwillingness to engage in behaviors that protect against COVID-19: the role of conspiracy beliefs, trust, and endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Public Health. 2021; 21(1):684. PMC: 8027965. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10643-w. View

Wang L, Zhang Z, McArdle J, Salthouse T . Investigating Ceiling Effects in Longitudinal Data Analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 2009; 43(3):476-496. PMC: 2778494. DOI: 10.1080/00273170802285941. View

10.

Kerr N . HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2005; 2(3):196-217. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4. View

11.

Vazire S . Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018; 13(4):411-417. DOI: 10.1177/1745691617751884. View

12.

Dietz T . Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 Suppl 3:14081-7. PMC: 3752165. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212740110. View

13.

Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R . Replication crisis = trust crisis? The effect of successful vs failed replications on laypeople's trust in researchers and research. Public Underst Sci. 2020; 29(3):270-288. DOI: 10.1177/0963662520902383. View

14.

Silvertown J . A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009; 24(9):467-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017. View

15.

Wallach J, Boyack K, Ioannidis J . Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015-2017. PLoS Biol. 2018; 16(11):e2006930. PMC: 6245499. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930. View

16.

Rosman T, Adler K, Barbian L, Blume V, Burczeck B, Cordes V . Protect ya Grandma! The Effects of Students' Epistemic Beliefs and Prosocial Values on COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions. Front Psychol. 2021; 12:683987. PMC: 8268677. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.683987. View

17.

Munafo M, Nosek B, Bishop D, Button K, Chambers C, Percie du Sert N . A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 1:0021. PMC: 7610724. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021. View

18.

Rosman T, Bosnjak M, Silber H, Kossmann J, Heycke T . Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Underst Sci. 2022; 31(8):1046-1062. PMC: 9630960. DOI: 10.1177/09636625221100686. View

19.

Mede N, Schafer M, Ziegler R, Weisskopf M . The "replication crisis" in the public eye: Germans' awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research. Public Underst Sci. 2020; 30(1):91-102. DOI: 10.1177/0963662520954370. View

20.

Lewandowsky S, Bishop D . Research integrity: Don't let transparency damage science. Nature. 2016; 529(7587):459-61. DOI: 10.1038/529459a. View