Being part of SORTEE means joining a global open science community dedicated to understanding and improving the countless moving parts, incentive structures, roadblocks, and processes that shape how research is conducted, shared, and accessed. For those new to the society, making sense of it all can feel overwhelming—with so much happening in the open science world, where do we begin? Often, the best way to learn is from the experience and expertise of others. That’s why we’re launching ECR Asks, a new interview series as part of SORTEE Voices. This series will spotlight the journeys and perspectives of our fantastic SORTEE members on open science with the specific goal of seeking advice and insights to help Early Career Researchers navigate the evolving landscape of open science and academia.

For this first interview of the ECR Asks series, I want to sincerely thank Tim for a really fun conversion! While I have many more questions, I hope that this first installment of ECR Asks can be an interesting and informative read for my fellow ECRs.

Q&A

For this Q&A, I spoke with Tim Parker, Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies at Whitman College, Washington, USA. Tim’s research focuses on plant community responses to environmental change, but he describes his most important work as being on bias in empirical research. He has published widely in bird ecology and collaborated on dozens of papers related to open science, scientific bias, and transparency in ecology. Tim has been involved with the Center for Open Science for about a decade where he has contributed to various initiatives, including updating the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines for improved accessibility. Tim co-founded SORTEE in 2020, serving as its inaugural president and then a member on the leadership board. Since 2023, he has chaired the media committee, promoting SORTEE across a range of digital platforms. He joined me on the 14th of February to chat about preprints and post-prints, incentives in open science, and how ECRs can make their own commitment to best practices.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What Brought You To Open Science?

ECR: On your website biography, you talk about your first step into open science when you conducted the meta-review on blue tit colouration. Can you tell me a little about this project and what stage in your career were you when you undertook it?

TP: I was what in the United States would be referred to as an Assistant Professor, meaning I was a newly hired academic. What had motivated me, however, was experience from my postdoctoral research. I had a large dataset and was comparing it to numerous studies that made claims about blue tit behavior and traits. I wasn’t finding evidence consistent with those claims and began to wonder what was wrong—was it my dataset? My methods? As I carefully reviewed those studies, I started identifying methodological issues that increased the risk of bias, and those concerns led me to conduct the meta-analysis. It was actually a very high-risk strategy for me because I needed to publish good research to keep my job. I ended up investing a significant amount of my time into this study that could have easily been rejected by peer reviewers who were unhappy with it, as I was essentially calling out an entire body of literature and questioning its validity. It wasn’t necessarily a smart move, but it was something I felt compelled to do. I was fortunate to have received very sympathetic peer reviewers, and as a result, the paper got published. Open Science wasn’t as big of a discussion when I started on this project but it paid off, and significantly changed the course of my career.

Who Is Responsible For Open Science?

ECR: Until the end of last year you were a board member of the TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion) committee, part of the Center for Open Science. As part of this position, you were involved with updating and maintaining the TOP Guidelines for open science (updates that have recently been released as a preprint). In the original 2015 TOP Guidelines paper, the authors wrote that while most scientists value open science, they operate in an academic reward system that does not sufficiently incentivise open practices. They wrote that while everyone would benefit, no one is incentivised to do so. A decade since the publication of that paper, do you feel that much has changed?

TP: It’s interesting because in some ways a lot has changed, and in others, not very much. There are far, far more people aware of these issues than there were a decade ago. And there are people who are taking important steps to improve transparency. Maybe not so much in ecology and evolutionary biology, but, for instance, in psychology, there are many, many people who are pre-registering studies, or even publishing via the registered reports model that really increases rigor, reduces the chance of bias, and increases transparency in the scientific process. Although in ecology, we have more open data than psychology does — but that predates the TOP guidelines.

ECR: On your website, you say “it is within our power as a scientific community to change these incentive structures, for instance by adopting editorial and funding policies that more highly value replication, changing data reporting standards at journals, and developing and promoting hypothesis registries”. Who specifically are you referring to as the scientific community here? Is it mainly the authors, the reviewers, the journals, the funders, the universities, or the readers who should be most incentivized for openness? And who should be held accountable when it isn’t open?

TP: The power largely lies with the gatekeepers. Journals have exercised some power, which has led to relatively good data sharing in ecology. They have basically said, “if you want to publish a paper with us, you have to archive your data,” and although it’s far from perfect and varies among journals, it’s moving in the right direction. The amount of publicly available data has increased significantly in the last 15 years. But funders also have substantial power and haven’t fully leveraged it. Funders have promoted open access in some cases—such as through Plan S in Europe, which mandates certain levels of open access publication—but funders have not strongly prioritized replication, pre-registration, or registered reports, making those practices relatively uncommon. Scientific institutions, including research universities and foundations, have generally done little. Hiring and promotion decisions could include criteria for transparency and reliability, but they often do not.

ECRs In Open Science: What Can We Do?

ECR: As a PhD researcher at the beginning of my academic career, it sometimes feels impossible to have any impact. I am lucky to be published, win a grant, gain exposure, or get a job, and I can’t always be picky about openness except within the remit of my own research. What advice would you give to early-stage researchers who care about open science but have little influence?

TP: There are steps you can take to ensure your own work is reliable and transparent. Joining organizations like SORTEE can help because going at it alone is hard and having a supportive community makes a difference. It’s also important to recognize the constraints you face. No one is perfect, and if you want to remain in traditional scientific institutions, you must meet certain expectations, such as publishing papers. However, ethical and transparent ways to publish reliable science exist, and being aware of them is key.

A great tool for junior researchers is the registered report. This process involves writing an introduction and detailed methods section before conducting the research and submitting it to a journal. The journal sends these sections for peer review, assessing whether the research question is valuable and whether the methods are sound. If reviewers identify issues, you have the opportunity to revise your methods before conducting the study, leading to improved research design. It’s frustrating when a study is completed, and reviewers later point out flaws in the methodology that you can no longer correct. With registered reports, this problem is mitigated because the methodology is vetted before data collection.

ECR: Oh, it sounds like a really great idea!

TP: You haven’t even gotten to the best part yet! The best part is that if the journal decides to accept your study—if they say, “Yes, your introduction is good. Yes, your methods are sound. We will accept your study”—then, as long as you follow through with your planned research and interpret your results in a reasonable way, they promise to publish your paper. This means you don’t have an incentive to manipulate your results in any way that is dishonest or biased.

Bias in presenting results is a widespread issue in statistical disciplines, and it’s harmful to both science and researchers. Many researchers feel pressured to craft a compelling story to get their paper published in a top journal, even if it means omitting or downplaying certain findings. I think registered reports are especially beneficial for junior researchers. You get feedback on your methods before you even begin, and publication is guaranteed as long as you stick to your research plan. While this practice has become common in psychology it remains rare in ecology and evolutionary biology, but there are journals that do it.

ECR: That sounds great! Are there any downsides?

TP: There is one notable downside: a delay. When you submit a registered report for peer review, you have to wait for approval before you can begin your research. This process can take months. So, while it improves research quality, it does slow things down. It depends on the situation and research timeline.

ECR: Based on your own career in open science, would you encourage early-career researchers to take similar risks and push for open science even when it challenges established ideas?

TP: I think that people should absolutely pursue bold ideas, even ideas that might be controversial. I think when you identify an idea, and it’s clear that it’s going to be interesting to a lot of people, that’s the best case. You might get someone who’s really interested in a niche area of ecology or evolutionary biology that they think is problematic in some way and they might butt heads with people in that subdiscipline, eventually publish something, and then realize that it is beneficial to the broader scientific community. However, there is always risk in pushing against the establishment. It’s wonderful to be an idealist, but idealism can collide with practical constraints and I have seen idealistic early-career scientists become frustrated with the field and choose to leave. Depending on how much you push against conventional thinking, it can impact opportunities for postdocs or future positions. I don’t want to discourage people, but at the same time, I don’t want to pretend that those costs don’t exist.

That being said, I am thrilled that so many early-career scientists are engaged in organisations like SORTEE. I hope they continue in their careers, become influential, and advocate for better scientific practices. I do think it’s great if people want to do exciting research that has risk involved. If there’s no intellectual risk, it probably means you’re not learning anything. So while there can obviously be trade-offs to doing so, you should be taking intellectual risks, and that’s a great thing.