From Scientific Ideals to Practical Open Science: How reporting on study limitations can diminish Avoidable Research Waste

In this 45 minute talk, I go back to the Avoidable Research Waste (ARW) papers of 2009 and 2014. I briefly comment on the links between UNESCO's Open Science Recommendations paper (2021) and Robert Merton's CUDOS principles that describe and prescribe good ways of doing science (1942). I talk at some length about my own work (with Dr. Halil Kilicoglu and others) on self-acknowledgment of limitations and connect that to the question of how we may organize skepticism (the 'OS' in CUDOS) in our research teams). I distinguish four types of limitations and link the types 3 and 4 to multiverse sensitivity analysis, a radical form of testing the robustness of study findings. Finally, I spend 10 minutes on the results of a small study we did at our open science support desk to find out to what extent our faculty's researchers embraced the 14 principles of our internal open science checklist between 2020 and 2023. The last slide discusses slow science, team science and again the organization of skepticism within research settings.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
ResearchEquals
Published
2026-02-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.53962/vwyq-k0sw
Primary Topic
Research Data Management Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From Scientific Ideals to Practical Open Science: How reporting on study limitations can diminish Avoidable Research Waste

Gerben ter Riet
ResearchEquals
Research Data Management Practices
article

From Scientific Ideals to Practical Open Science: How reporting on study limitations can diminish Avoidable Research Waste

Gerben ter Riet
article en

Abstract

In this 45 minute talk, I go back to the Avoidable Research Waste (ARW) papers of 2009 and 2014. I briefly comment on the links between UNESCO's Open Science Recommendations paper (2021) and Robert Merton's CUDOS principles that describe and prescribe good ways of doing science (1942). I talk at some length about my own work (with Dr. Halil Kilicoglu and others) on self-acknowledgment of limitations and connect that to the question of how we may organize skepticism (the 'OS' in CUDOS) in our research teams). I distinguish four types of limitations and link the types 3 and 4 to multiverse sensitivity analysis, a radical form of testing the robustness of study findings. Finally, I spend 10 minutes on the results of a small study we did at our open science support desk to find out to what extent our faculty's researchers embraced the 14 principles of our internal open science checklist between 2020 and 2023. The last slide discusses slow science, team science and again the organization of skepticism within research settings.

ResearchEquals
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Research Data Management Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

From Scientific Ideals to Practical Open Science: How reporting on study limitations can diminish Avoidable Research Waste — Gerben ter Riet · ResearchEquals (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS