Reputation Without Practice? A Dynamic Computational Model of the Unintended Consequences of Open Scientist Reputations

Practicing open science can have benefits for the career prospects of individual researchers or labs through higher quality work and increased chances of publication. However, being an outspoken advocate of open science might also indirectly benefit individual scientific careers, in the form of status in a scientific community, decisions for tenure, and eligibility for certain kinds of funding. Therefore, it may be profitable for individual labs to appear to engage in open science practices, without actually putting in the associated effort or doing only the bare minimum. In this article, we explore two types of academic behavior through a dynamic computational model (cf. Smaldino & Mcelreath, 2016) of an academic community that rewards open science: (1) practicing open science and/or (2) advocating open science. Crossing these two types of behavior leads to four different kinds of labs and we examine which of them thrive in this academic community. We found that labs that practice and advocate open science dominate in a scientific community that values open science. Implications of the model results are discussed.