Page - 27 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

28 C.M.Stracke the scientific knowledge doubles, the access to it remains limited inmost cases. I agreewith themthatOpenAccess toscientificknowledge isahumanright: Ithas to be tackledbytheresearcher, researchinstitutions, fundingbodies,publicauthorities and thewhole society. 2.4.2 Challenges forOpenScience ThreegeneralchallengesofOpenScienceareidentifiedbyAllenandMehler(2019) whenpracticingOpenScience:First, the restrictionsonflexibility, second, thecosts of (additional) time required for Open Science and third, the lack of an incentive structure.Furthermore,therearemanymorechallengesforOpenScienceatdifferent levels fromwhich only two examples are selected to highlight the questions to be addressedandansweredbyOpenScience. First and at the general level, the opportunity for replication as encouraged and requestedbyOpenSciencecanalsocauseaconstraintongenerality (Simons,Shoda &Lindsay,2017).Thatisasubstantialandgenericquestionthatisnoteasytoanswer. Thesituationin(social)sciencehasslowlyenhancedsincetherhetoricquestioningof replicationsbySchmidt(2009).Ontheotherhand,Simmons,NelsonandSimonsohn couldprove thehugeflexibilityof theresearcherwhenanalysingdata,often leading to unpredictable and non-replicable results (Simmons et al., 2011). Furthermore, meta-research has shown thatmost studies are still not fulfilling the requirements andstandardsofOpenScience including theopportunity for replicationevenif they areclaiming todo it (Nuijten,Hartgerink,vanAssen,Epskamp&Wicherts, 2016). Second and at the analysis level,OpenScience has to dealwith the same chal- lenges as traditional research that became evident with the discussion in the year 2017 about the right level for statistical significance: Benjamin et al. (2017) pro- posed p<0.005 (instead of p<0.05) as a new level for better reproducibility and more accurate communication. In direct replicas, Lakens et al. (2017) recommend to avoid the term statistical significance and the use of standardized thresholds for p-values whereasMcShane, Gal, Gelman, Robert and Tackett (2017) demands to abandon the importanceof null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) andof sta- tistical significance and its levels in general. This discussion demonstrates, on the otherhand,abigadvantageofOpenScience.Researcherscanquicklyreadpreprints and answer them in the sameway leading to a strong and lively community. Thus, OpenScienceoffersnewcommunicationchannels thatavoid thewaiting for review processesand facilitatemoreanddirect responses.