CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 30Academic Publishing and Open AccessResearch Data Management PracticesResearch, Science, and Academia

Messing with Merton: The intersection between Open Science practices and Mertonian values

Open access
Hosseini, Mohammad, Senabre Hidalgo, Enric, Horbach, Serge P. J. M., Guttinger, Stephan, Penders, Bart·2022·Accountability in Research
DOI 10.31235/osf.io/9nyh8PMC PMC10163171

Preprint — published as 10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers’ behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers’ interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31235/osf.io/9nyh8

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This evolution is in response to changes in science's social, institutional, economic, and political environment and advancements in scientific instruments, tools, and methods.

    “This evolution is in response to changes in science’s social, institutional, economic, and political environment and advancements in scientific instruments, tools, and methods [100].”

    From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [100]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hosseini, M., Senabre Hidalgo, E., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Guttinger, S., & Penders, B.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Hosseini, Mohammad
ORCID
Venue
Accountability in Research
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2022-09-15
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
428-455
ISSN
0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.31235/osf.io/9nyh8
PMC
PMC10163171
OpenAlex
W4307500010
Cited by
30
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001422)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
open science, Thomas Merton, communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness, research integrity, research ethics, disciplinary culture, researcher behavior
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Personnel, Science, Social Values, Ethics, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review