Open Science in Three Acts: Foundations, Practice, and Implementation – First Act

Main Article Content

Ricardo Limongi
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-7515
Pablo Rogers
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0093-3834

Abstract

This editorial inaugurates a series of three, dedicated to the theme of open science (CA) and its implementation in the scenario of research in Administration. In the first part, we explore the fundamental issues underpinning CA, the challenges that motivate it, such as the reproducibility crisis, and the need to engage advisors and graduate programs in adopting these principles. We call on the scientific community to recognize CA as the foundation for new researchers’ reliability, dissemination, and training. In the following editorials, we move on to the practical dimensions of CA. The second text will discuss the available tools and workflows that an open scientist can incorporate into their research routine. Finally, the third editorial will address the challenge of implementing these practices, proposing a practical template to guide researchers and graduate programs in systematically adopting CA in their projects.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Limongi, R., & Rogers, P. (2025). Open Science in Three Acts: Foundations, Practice, and Implementation – First Act. Brazilian Administration Review, 22(1), e250079. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2025250079
Section
Editorial

References

Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452-454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

Ball, P. (2023). Is AI leading to a reproducibility crisis in science? Nature, 624(7990), 22-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03817-6

Bockting, C. L., Van Dis, E. A. M., Van Rooij, R., Zuidema, W., & Bollen, J. (2023). Living guidelines for generative AI — why scientists must oversee its use. Nature, 622(7984), 693-696. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03266-1

Haven, T. L., Abunijela, S., & Hildebrand, N. (2023). Biomedical supervisors’ role modeling of open science practices. eLife, 12, e83484. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83484

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2023). What lectures and research in business management need to know about open science. Journal of Business Administration, 63(4), e0000- 0033. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020230408x

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie Du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

O’Grady, C. (2023). Preregistering, transparency, and large samples boost psychology studies’ replication rate to nearly 90% [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm8658

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2022). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546