none

This article presents a large-scale data-driven analysis of the use of initials versus full first names in the author lists of scientific publications, focusing on changes over time in the use of initials. The article has been reviewed by three reviewers. The originality of the research and the large-scale data analysis are considered strengths of the article. A weakness is the clarity, readability, and focus of certain parts of the article, in particular the introduction and background sections. In addition, the reviewers point out that the discussion section can be improved and deepened. The reviewers also suggest opportunities for strengthening or extending the article. This includes adding case studies, extending the comparative analysis, and providing more in-depth analyses of changes over time in policies, technologies, and data sources. Finally, while reviewer 3 is critical about the gender analysis, reviewer 2 considers this analysis to be a strength of the article.

none

I started reading this paper with great interest, which flagged over time. As someone with extensive experience both publishing peer-reviewed research articles and working with publication data (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, PubMedCentral) I understand there are vagaries in the data because of how and when it was collected, and when certain policies and processes were implemented. For example, as an author starting in the late 1980s, we were instructed by the journal “guide to authors” to use only initials. My early papers were all only using initials. This changed in the mid-late 1990s. Another example, when working with NIH publications data, one knows dates like 1946 (how far back MedLine data go), 1996 (when PubMed was launched), and 2000 (when PubMedCentral was launched) and 2008 (when NIH Open Access policy enacted). There are also intermediate dates for changes in curation policy…. that underlie a transition from initials to full name in the biomedical literature.

I realize that the study covers all research disciplines, but still I am surprised that the authors of this paper don’t start with an examination of the policies underlying publications data, and only get to this at the end of a fairly torturous study.

As a reader, this reviewer felt pulled all over the place in this article and increasingly frustrated that this is a paper that explores the Dimensions database vagaries only and not really the core overall challenges of bibliometric data, irrespective of data source. Dimensions ingests data from multiple sources — so any analysis of its contents needs to examine those sources first.

A few specific comments:

• The “history of science” portion of the paper focuses on English learned societies in the 17th century. There were many other learned societies across Europe, and also “papers” (books, treatises) from long before the 17th century in Middle-eastern and Asian countries (e.g, see history of mathematics, engineering, governance and policy, etc.). These other histories were not acknowledged by the authors. Research didn’t just spring full-formed out of Zeus’ head.

• It is unclear throughout if the authors are referring to science, research, which disciplines are or are not included. The first chart on discipinary coverage is Fig 13 and goes back to 1940ish. Also, which languages are included in the analysis? For example, Figure 2 says “academic output” but from which academies? What countries? What languages? Disciplines? Also, in Figure 2, this reviewer would have like to see discussion about the variability in the noisiness of the data over time.

• The inclusion of gender in the paper misses the mark for this reviewer. When dealing with initials, how can one identify gender? And when working in times/societies where women had to hide their identity to be published…. how can a name-based analysis of gender be applied? If this paper remains a study of the “initial era”, this reviewer recommends removing the gender analysis.

• Reference needed for “It is just as important to see ourselves reflected in the outputs of the research careers…” (section B).

• Reference needed for “This period marked the emergence of “Big Science” (Section B). How do we know this is Big Science? What is the relationship with the nature of science careers? Here it would be useful perhaps to mention that postdocs were virtually unheard of before Sputnik.

• Fig 3. This would be more effective as a % total papers than absolute #.

• Gradual Evolution of the Scholarly Record. This reviewer would like to see proportion of papers without authors. A lot of history of science research is available for this period, and a few references here would be welcome, as well as a by-country analysis (or acknowledgement that the data are largely from Europe and/or English-speaking countries).

• Accelerated Changes in Recent Times. Again, this reviewer would like to see reference to scholarship on the history of science. One of the things happening in the post WW2 timeframe is the increase in government spending (in the US particularly) on R&D and academic research. So, is the academy changing or is it responding to “market forces”.

• Reflective richness of data. “Evolution of the research community” is not described in the text, not is collaborative networks.

• In the following paragraph, one could argue that evaluation was a driver of change, not a response to it. This reviewer would like to see references here.

• II. Methodology. (i) 2nd sentence missing “to” “… and full form to refer to an author name…”. (ii) 2nd para the authors talk about epochs, but the data could be (are) discontinuous because of (a) curation policy, (b) curation technology, (c) data sources (e.g., Medline rolled out in the 1960s and back-populated to 1946). (iii) 4th para referes to Figs 3 and 4 showing a marked change between 1940 and 1950, but Fig 3 goes back only to 1960, and Fig 4 is so compressed it is hard to see anything in that time range. (iv) Para 7. “the active publishing community is a reasonable proxy for the global research population”. We need a reference here and more analysis. Is this Europe? English language? Which disciplines? All academia? Dimensions data? (v) Para 12 “In exploring the issue of gender…” see comments above. Gender is an important consideration but is out of scope, in this reviewer’s opinion, for this paper focused on use of initials vs. full name.

• Listing 1. Is there a resolvable URL/DOI for this query?

• Figs 9-11, 14, 15. This reviewer would like to see a more fulsome examination / discussion of data discontinuities. Particularly around ~1985-2000.

Discussion

• The country-level discussion suggests the data (publications included) are only those that have been translated into English. Please clarify. Also, please add references in this section. There are a lot of bold statements, such as “A characteristic of these countries was the establishment of strong national academies.” Is this different from other places in the world? How? In the para before this statement, there is a phrase “picking out Slavonic stages” that is not clear to this reviewer.

• The authors seem to get ahead of themselves talking about “formal” and “informal” in relation to whether initials or full names are used. And then discuss the “Power Distance” and end up arguing that it isn’t formal/informal … but rather publisher policies and curation practices driving the initial era and its end.

• And then the authors come full circle on research articles being a technology, akin to a contract. Which is neat and useful. But all the intermediate data analysis is focused on the Dimensions data base and this reviewer would argue should be a part of the database documentation rather than a scholarly article.

• This reviewer would prefer this paper be focused much more tightly on how publishing technology can and has driven the sociology of science. Dig more into the E. Journal Analysis and F. Technological analysis. Stick with what you have deep data for, and provide us readers with a practical and useful paper that maybe, just maybe, publishers will read and be incentivized to up their game with respect to adoption of “new” technologies like ORCID, DOIs for data, etc. Because these papers are not just expositions on a disciplinary discourse, they are also a window into how science (research) works and is done.

none

The presented preprint is a well-researched study on a relevant topic that could be of interest to a broad audience. The study's strengths include a well-structured and clearly presented methodology. The code and data used in the research are openly available on Figshare, in line with best practices for transparency. Furthermore, the findings are presented in a clear and organized manner, with visualization that aid understanding.

At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to a few points that could potentially improve the work.

1. I think it would be beneficial to expand the annotation to approximately 250 words.

2. The introduction starts with a very broad context, but the connection between this context and the object of the research is not immediately clear. There are few references in this section, making it difficult to determine whether the authors are citing others or their own findings.

3. The transition to the main topic of the study is not well-defined, and there is no description of the gap in the literature regarding the object of study. Additionally, "bibliometric archaeology" appears at the end of the introduction but is only mentioned again later in the discussion, which may cause confusion for the reader.

4. It would be helpful to clearly state the purpose and objectives of the study both in the Introduction and in the abstract as well.

5. Besides, it is important to elaborate on the contribution of this study in the introduction section.

6. The same applies to the background - a very broad context, but the connection with the object of the research is not entirely clear.

7. Page 4 - as far as I understand, these are conclusions from a literature review, while point 3 (Reflective Richness of Data) does not follow from the previous analysis.

8. The overall impression of the introduction and background is that it is an interesting text, but it is not well related to the objectives of the study. I would recommend shortening these sections by making the introduction and literature review more pragmatic and structured. At the same time, this text could be published as a standalone contribution.

9. As I mentioned above, the methodology refers to the strengths of the study. However, in this section, it would be helpful to introduce and justify the structure of presenting the results.

10. In the methodology section, the authors could also provide a footnote with a link to the code and dataset (currently, it is only given at the end).

11. With regard to the discussion, I would like to encourage the authors to place their results more clearly in the academic context. Ideally, references from the introduction and/or literature review would reappear in this section to help clarify the research contribution.

12. Although Discussion C is an interesting read, it seems more related to the introduction than the results. Again, the text itself is rather interesting, but it would benefit from a more thorough justification.

Remarks on the images:

1. At least the data source for the images should be specified in the background, because it is not obvious to the reader before describing the methodology.

2. The color distinction between China and Russia in Figure 8 is not very clear.

3. The gray lines in Figures 9-11 make the figures difficult to read. Additionally, the meaning of these lines is not clearly indicated in the legends of Figures 10 and 11. These issues should be addressed. 

All comments and suggestions are intended to improve the article. Overall, I have a very positive impression of the work.

Sincere, 

Dmitry Kochetkov

none

Overview

This manuscript provides an in-depth examination of the use of initials versus full names in academic publications over time, identifying what the authors term the "Initial Era" (1945-1980) as a period during which initials were predominantly used. The authors contextualize this within broader technological, cultural, and societal changes, leveraging a large dataset from the Dimensions database. This study contributes to the understanding of how bibliographic metadata reflects shifts in research culture.

Strengths

+ Novel concept and historical depth

The paper introduces a unique angle on the evolution of scholarly communication by focusing on the use of initials in author names. The concept of the "Initial Era" is original and well- defined, adding a historical dimension to the study of metadata that is often overlooked. The manuscript provides a compelling narrative that connects technological changes with shifts in academic culture.

+ Comprehensive dataset

The use of the Dimensions database, which includes over 144 million publications, lends significant weight to the findings. The authors effectively utilize this resource to provide both anecdotal and statistical analyses, giving the paper a broad scope. The differentiation between the anecdotal and statistical epochs helps clarify the limitations of the dataset and strengthens the authors' conclusions.

+ Cross-disciplinary relevance

The study's insights into the sociology of research, particularly the implications of name usage for gender and cultural representation, are highly relevant across multiple disciplines. The paper touches on issues of diversity, bias, and the visibility of researchers from different backgrounds, making it an important contribution to ongoing discussions about equity in academia.

+ Technological impact

The authors successfully connect the decline of the "Initial Era" to the rise of digital publishing technologies, such as Crossref, PubMed, and ORCID. This link between technological infrastructure and shifts in scholarly norms is a critical insight, showing how the adoption of new tools has real-world implications for academic practices.

Weaknesses

-  Lack of clarity and readability

While the manuscript is rich in data and analysis, it can be dense and challenging to follow for readers not familiar with the technical details of bibliometric studies. The text occasionally delves into highly specific discussions that may be difficult for a broader audience to grasp while other concepts are introduced in cursory. Consider condensing the introduction section, removing unrelated historical accounts, and leading the audience to the key objectives of this research much earlier.

-  Missing empirical case studies

The manuscript remains largely theoretical, relying heavily on data analysis without providing concrete case studies or empirical examples of how the "Initial Era" affected individual disciplines or researchers. A more detailed exploration of specific instances where the use of initials had significant consequences would make the findings more tangible. Incorporating case studies or anecdotes from the history of science that illustrate the real-world impacts of the trends identified in the data would enrich the paper. These examples could help ground the analysis in practical outcomes and demonstrate the relevance of the "Initial Era" to contemporary debates.

-  Half-baked comparative analysis

Although the paper presents interesting data about different countries and disciplines, the comparative analysis between these groups could be further developed. For example, the reasons behind the differences in initial use between countries with different writing systems or academic cultures are not fully explored. A more in-depth comparative analysis that explains the cultural, linguistic, or institutional factors driving the observed differences in initial use would add nuance to the findings. This could involve a more detailed discussion of how non-Roman writing systems influence name formatting or how specific national academic policies shape author metadata.

-  Limited discussion of alternative explanations

While the authors link the decline of the "Initial Era" to technological advancements, other potential explanations, such as changing editorial policies (“technological harmonisation”), shifts in academic prestige, or the influence of global collaboration, are not fully explored. The paper could benefit from a broader discussion of these factors. Expanding the discussion to include alternative explanations for the decline of initial use, and how these might interact with technological changes, would provide a more comprehensive view. Engaging with literature on academic publishing practices, editorial decisions, and global research trends could help contextualize the findings within a wider framework.

Conclusion

This manuscript offers a novel and insightful analysis of the evolution of name usage in academic publications, providing valuable contributions to the fields of bibliometrics, science studies, and research culture. With improvements in clarity, comparative analysis, and the incorporation of case studies, this paper has the potential to make a significant impact on our understanding of how metadata reflects broader societal and technological changes in academia. The authors are encouraged to refine their discussion and expand on the implications of their findings to make the manuscript more accessible and applicable to a wider audience.

Porter, S. J., & Hook, D. W. (2024). The Rise and Fall of the Initial Era. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06500.

Aug 14, 2024

Nov 20, 2024

Nov 20, 2024

Authors:

• Simon Porter (Digital Science) s.porter@digital-science.com
• Daniel Hook (Digital Science) d.hook@digital-science.com

2

10.48550/arXiv.2404.06500

The Rise and Fall of the Initial Era

none

The paper focuses on two major issues, the “credibility crisis” in Psychology and open science practices, and argues that the two could have a synergistic relationship in Africa, with moves to improve reproducibility and integrity in Psychology benefiting from and contributing to developments to make science more accessible and transparent. Three reviewers assessed the article. The article was considered by all reviewers to be a well-written overview of different dimensions of the “credibility crisis” in Psychology and ways it is being addressed, and of the open science movement, particularly in Africa. The analysis providing a taxonomy of open science developments (organised by accessibility, infrastructure, credibility, and community) and the commentary on how the development of open science can be facilitated in African contexts are considered strengths of the article. Areas where the article could be improved were identified, including that the argument about the mutual benefits that could accrue in African contexts between addressing challenges associated with the “credibility crisis” and encouraging open science could be sharpened and made more specific to Africa. Practical ways in which researchers could adopt open science practices, and how such developments might be measured, could also be improved, with specific comments made about bringing diamond open access into the analysis.

I am on the PsyArxix Scientific Advisory Board. PsyArxiv and preprint servers are mentioned positively by the article. I am a member of the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) and chair of the UKRN Institutional Leads group. UKRN is a sister organisation to the African Reproducibility Network (AREN), which is mentioned positively by the article. I am a senior research fellow at the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). RoRI supports the development of MetaRoR, which could be considered an overlay journal. Overlay journals are mentioned positively by the article.

A summary of what the authors were trying to achieve (address the entire article, not just individual points or sections)

This short paper provides an introduction to two issues: the “credibility revolution” of practices in psychology research following the reproducibility crisis, and the state of psychology research in Africa and the factors which are crucial to its development. The paper claims that there are mutual benefits: efforts to support credible and accessible research can benefit psychology in Africa, African psychology can expand and enhance the credibility of psychology research in the rest of the world.

An account of the major strengths and weaknesses of the conceptual framework, methods and results

The paper serves as a very accessible introduction to the “reproducibility crisis” in psychology, and the subsequent “credibility revolution” of research practices which are often (but not exclusively) focussed on transparency and accessibility, and which are applicable in many fields beyond psychology.

The taxonomy of open science innovations into four categories - Accessibility, Infrastructure, Credibility, Community - is a nice way of organising initiatives.

It may be beyond the scope of the remit the authors set themselves, but from a metascience perspective there is an unanswered question of how progress on the challenges set out by the paper would be measured. What are the indicators which we could use to evaluate progress in the different challenge areas or against which to measure benefits ?

One paragraph summarising progress on reproducibility (p8 “The result was an explosion of research on practices to improve the credibility of psychology research”) seems to imply that credibility efforts are coextensive with replication studies (which is surely not what the authors mean) and further to imply that credibility practices are limited in applicability to a restricted domain of mostly online studies (which undersells the benefits of the credibility practices developed within psychology and admirably showcased in this paper).

An appraisal of whether the authors achieved their aims, and whether the results support their conclusions

I am not qualified to comment on whether the portrayal of African psychology is fair or comprehensive. I note that six of the nine authors have affiliations with African institutions.

A discussion of the potential likely impact of the article on the field, and the utility of the conceptual framework, methods and empirical materials/data to the community

The contribution of this paper is to signpost the valuable work that is being done on credibility mechanisms and on research development in Africa.

Any additional context that might help readers interpret or understand the significance of the article

None

Any issues the authors need to address about the availability of data, code, research ethics, or other issues pertaining to the adherence of the article to MetaROR’s publishing policies

N/A

Positionality:

As an experimental psychologist I have been involved in the discussion around credibility since at least 2011. I have no experience or familiarity with African psychology or the human development issues mentioned by the article.

Reviewers are asked to provide specific guidance on the following:

Does the article contribute new insights to the relevant fields?

Yes. Both topics - credibility in research and research in Africa - are huge topics. The brief introductions here are valuable and there is added benefit of bringing the two into explicit dialogue.

Are the key insights clearly communicated in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion?

Yes

Does the introduction section adequately explain necessary background information? Does it set out and justify the motivation for and aim of the study?

Yes

Does the literature review (where applicable) include the relevant research including the most recent research?

Yes, with the caveat that the topics are so large that it is impossible in this amount of space to be comprehensive.

Are any analytical concepts or theoretical frameworks used appropriately introduced and taken up in the empirical analysis (where applicable)?

N/A

Are all research methods clearly described and appropriate? In the case of quantitative submissions, are the methods rigorous and does the study include or point to all materials required to attempt a replication of the results?

N/A

Do the results make sense? Are they clearly formatted and presented? Are graphs easily readable and clearly labeled? Are all figures and tables understandable without reference to the main body of the article? Do they contain proper captions?

N/A

Are the results discussed in the context of previous findings? Are the results similar to previously reported findings? Are differences explained?

There is no mention of previous work on this exact topic (the synergy). Perhaps there isn’t any? Maybe explicit statement to this effect would be good

Are limitations of the study and their implications for interpretation of the results clearly described (where applicable)?

On a similar line, maybe readers would benefit from a statement from the authors on their backgrounds and/or how the author team came together to address this topic?

Are interpretations and conclusions consistent with the empirical materials and data?

N/A

Are all references appropriate? Are necessary references present? Are all references cited in the text included in the reference list?

Nosek et al (2021) is missing or should be Nosek et al (2022), which additionally appears slightly out of alphabetical order in the bibliography

If one or more studies in the article were preregistered, are the hypotheses, research methods, and inference criteria in line with the preregistration?

N/A

none

A summary of what the authors were trying to achieve (address the entire article, not just individual points or sections)

The area of expertise of the reviewer is open access which, for all intents and purposes, is a subset of open science. The nub of this manuscript is the credibility of psychology research using open science to grow that credibility and to bridge the psychology knowledge divide between the global north and Africa. Given the reviewers limited knowledge of the core issue of psychology research, the reviewer will confine his comments to his area of expertise.

An account of the major strengths and weaknesses of the conceptual framework, methods and results

Psychological science is facing a ‘credibility crisis’ because many studies can’t be replicated, prompting reforms for more transparent and rigorous research. While these efforts have progressed in North America and Europe, Africa has seen less impact due to challenges like low funding and poor infrastructure, widening the gap in research capacity. These are the core issues covered in this manuscript. However, what is omitted as a challenge is the brain drain and its impact on research and research production. Many authors talk about knowledge pilgrimage as African researchers have to research issues from a global north perspective to improve chances for publication. There is a nuanced difference between research colonialism (concept used by the authors) and knowledge pilgrimage – the former aligned to helicopter research while the latter is about African researchers manipulating global north research data to get published at the neglect of Africa. 

The authors make the point about power imbalances and the fact that global north researchers use Africa as a point of data collection without recognising the contribution by the African researchers.

The research gap is widened given the reliance on North American and Europeans guidelines and standards. Open science practices offer African researchers tools to improve research quality and join global discussions. Initiatives like the African Reproducibility Network can help build stronger research communities, addressing local issues while contributing to a more inclusive and globally relevant psychology. Strengthening African research could also advance human development across the continent.

It is recommended that the authors do not use illegal entities as sources of information as, in the opinion of the reviewer, brings into question the credibility of the manuscript.

The perceived weaknesses relate to the oversimplification of open science solutions. While open science is framed as a key solution, the manuscript oversimplifies its implementation in Africa. It only superficially acknowledges the barriers to adopting open science practices, such as the lack of stable internet access, digital tools, and the necessary training in many African institutions. The manuscript suggests open science can bridge gaps without delving into the complexities of infrastructure and access that make it difficult for African researchers to fully engage with these practices.

The manuscript should pay a little more attention on how African researchers can practically adopt open science tools. While it mentions open-access platforms and reproducibility networks, it doesn’t provide details on how these can be integrated into the current research systems in Africa, given the resource constraints. Practical guidance on funding models, technical support, or training programs needed to implement open science would provide a more grounded solution. The use of diamond open access is an extremely viable model to grow the production of psychological research.

An appraisal of whether the authors achieved their aims, and whether the results support their conclusions

From an open science perspective, the authors have done relatively well to provide a roadmap for the improved accessibility and credibility of psychology research.

The authors highlight how open science practices, such as PsyArXiv and AfricArXiv, enhance research accessibility by allowing researchers to freely share their findings. This is critical in the context of the paywalls that restrict access to valuable research, particularly for researchers in low-resource settings. They also address the issue of inclusivity or equity. APCs is a new barrier. It is pointed out that many researchers in Africa face barriers due to high article processing fees associated with open access journals. This situation can perpetuate inequities in knowledge production and dissemination. What the authors have missed is the opportunity to investigate diamond open access as a viable alternative for the dissemination of African scholarship.

The preprints solution is a viable pathway for researchers to share their findings before formal publication. This can facilitate greater visibility for their work and allow for earlier feedback, although it’s essential to navigate journal policies carefully. The acknowledgement of overlay journals is important given that it is a relatively new concept. Instead of publishing papers directly, they provide peer review for papers that have already been posted on preprint servers. If the paper passes peer review, the overlay journal "publishes" the paper by linking to it on the preprint server. When one ventures into the arena of quality, this process helps build research production capacity. However, it must be noted that some overlay journals charge a fee for the peer review and publication process.

The other significant issue is that of research credibility. The authors discuss innovative tools and processes that enhance credibility. Initiatives such as registered reports and pre-registration of study protocols enhances the transparency and credibility of research. These methods can mitigate biases related to selective reporting of positive results, thus improving the overall integrity of psychological research. Community initiatives like that of Psychological Science Accelerator, underlines the importance of collaboration in enhancing research credibility. Engaging a diverse range of researchers can lead to more comprehensive studies and foster an environment of shared knowledge.

One of the major challenges is that of low skills levels. The authors bring into the discussion the issue of building capacity – the train-the trainer model is critical for an inclusive process. Further, to maximize the benefits of open science practices, there’s a clear need for training and capacity-building initiatives tailored to the African context. This would empower researchers with the skills and knowledge to effectively engage with these practices.

What is of concern to the reviewer is the indistinctive definition of predatory. The authors should stay away from aligning predatory with open access. The fact that the mode of delivery is electronic material must not be confused with a model for the delivery of predatory scholarship

In the main, the authors have achieved their goal of developing a roadmap for bridging the divide.

Reviewers are asked to provide specific guidance on the following:

Does the article contribute new insights to the relevant fields?

The manuscript provides a high level association between open science practices and driving human development in Africa. This is done through enhancing access to research, improving infrastructure, and boosting credibility. These are established which is confirmed by the authors highlight that platforms like AfricArXiv and OSF provide free access to research materials and tools, reduce barriers imposed by paywalls. There are other initiatives such as Registered Reports, the African Reproducibility Network that foster collaboration and skill-building.

The new insights that are brought forward via the linking of these established tools, practises to the African scenario. Empowering and bridging the divide are the new insights.

Are the key insights clearly communicated in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion?

The abstract should provide a little more detail on how open science and its relationship with bridging the knowledge divide. The introduction gives substantial grounding on what the readers can expect from the rest of the article. However, the conclusion does not pull the golden threads together. A little more can be done with the conclusion and bringing an association between the introduction and conclusion.

Do the results make sense? Are they clearly formatted and presented? Are graphs easily readable and clearly labeled? Are all figures and tables understandable without reference to the main body of the article? Do they contain proper captions?

The discussion is substantial. The two tables are clear and easily readable. What is commended is that the authors do not duplicate what is captured in the two tables.

Are any analytical concepts or theoretical frameworks used appropriately introduced and taken up in the empirical analysis (where applicable)?

There is no theoretical framework or a research methodology section. However, this may be a practise that the reviewer is accustomed to but not necessary. Be that as it may, it will help the manuscript if the authors could articulate the methodology.

Does the literature review (where applicable) include the relevant research including the most recent research?

The review of the literature is substantial. However, there are gaps (e.g. diamond open access) in the review of the literature with regard to more recent development with regard to dissemination of scholarship.

There are a number of very old references and more current references. The old references are important to ground the issue of (de)colonialization which is important for the major part of the discussion. More recent literature would give the authors an understanding of diamond which will help in sourcing alternatives.

I have no competing interests with the authors.

The authors outline the developments of both North America and Europe as well as Africa, and how both parties can benefit from the progress and learnings of the other. However, the authors argue that this can only occur if a wide array of stakeholders invest in science in Africa, including resourcing, training, and development of research tools. I particularly enjoyed reading this article, as the authors outline how science – even in its most basic forms – in fact can and do impact population outcomes and development. It provides a reader naïve of the research situation in Africa, as well as one that is relatively naïve to open science, a concise summary of how these two can interact to yield better outcomes for both – suitable for a wide range of stakeholders.

A key strength of this article is that the authorship consists of experts involved in both fields that are being discussed i.e., open science, and science in Africa. Thus, providing a relatively balanced view of the situation. However, my one concern is that the presentation for the case of each side benefiting the other could be made stronger, particularly how Africa could benefit from open science and the credibility revolution occurring in North America and Europe. At the moment, it reads that the key emphasis is that Africa could benefit greatly from open science learning if it addresses key structural barriers, and that open science could benefit from Africa by expanding its research community. However, the latter is true for many regions of the world.  As Africa is a diverse and rich continent in history and culture, I encourage the authors to examine further and investigate case studies or findings to strengthen this argument. Examples may include where Africa has excelled in transparency, collaboration, or other key tenets of good science. This approach forces us to recognize that in North America and Europe research ‘culture’, shortcomings may be addressed or remedied by looking to other research cultures globally. This would provide a more balanced argument for how both parties can mutually benefit one another - in line with the core intention of the piece. Thank you for the opportunity to review this article.

https://osf.io/preprints/africarxiv/e57bq

Adetula, A., Forscher, P. S., Basnight-Brown, D., Azouaghe, S., Ouherrou, N., CHARYATE, A., … IJzerman, H. (2021, June 21). Synergy Between the Credibility Revolution and Human Development in Africa. https://doi.org/10.31730/osf.io/e57bq

August 8, 2024

January 22, 2025

January 22, 2025

Authors:

• Adeyemi Adetula (Busara Center for Behavioral Economics, Nairobi, Kenya) adeyemiadetula1@gmail.com
• Patrick Forscher (Department of Psychology, United States International University-Africa, Nairobi, Kenya) patrick.forscher@busara.global
• Dana Basnight-Brown (Department of Psychology, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco) dana.basnightbrown@gmail.com
• Soufian Azouaghe (Université Chouaib Doukkali, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3) azouaghe.soufian@gmail.com
• Nihal Ouherrou (Université Ibn Tofail) n.ouherrou@gmail.com
• Abdelilah Charyate (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) abdelilah.charyate@uit.ac.ma
• Nina Hansen (Department of Pure and Applied Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria) n.hansen@rug.nl
• Gabriel Adetula (LIP/PC2S, Université Grenoble Alpes, Saint-Martin-d’Heres, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France & Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), France) g1b2gbo3detul4@gmail.com
• Hans IJzerman hans@absl.io

1

https://osf.io/preprints/africarxiv/e57bq

10.31730/osf.io/e57bq

Synergy Between the Credibility Revolution and Human Development in Africa

Jennifer Byrne is a member of the editorial team of MetaROR working with Jason Chin, a co-author of the protocol and also a member of the editorial team of MetaROR.

Researchers are willing to trade their results for journal prestige: results from a discrete choice experiment [Version 1]

This protocol aims to address two questions: (1) What do we know about the science underlying impactful legal decisions? (2) How can we assess this evidence efficiently and accurately, such that it is usable for courts? The protocol has been reviewed by three reviewers (reviewer 2 in fact represents a team of three individuals). The reviewers mention various strengths of the protocol. Reviewer 1 emphasises the importance and timeliness of the research questions and praises the interdisciplinary nature of the research team. Reviewer 3 considers the protocol to be thoughtful and detailed, and reviewer 2 notes that the protocol presages an important effort. The reviewers do not see any major shortcomings in the protocol, but they do highlight opportunities to strengthen the protocol, such as considering studies published in languages other than English and adding more detail on how team disagreements will be resolved.

Competing interest: Jennifer Byrne is a member of the editorial team of MetaROR working with Jason Chin, a co-author of the protocol and also a member of the editorial team of MetaROR.