Thus We Are Agreed! A Systematic Mapping Review of Adversarial Collaborations in Science

In a time where the methods of science are frequently called into question, open science practices are gaining increased importance. A particularly cooperative form of transparent science is the approach of adversarial collaboration (AC), where research groups with different explanations of the same phenomenon work closely together to develop a study and publish their results jointly, regardless of the outcome. The aim of this work, a systematic mapping review, is to provide a comprehensive overview of the formal aspects of AC and identify the relevant factors that need to be considered when applying this method. For this purpose, both AC studies and publications related to this topic were analyzed. The total of 89 articles retrieved, analyzed, and integrated indicates that accounts on this topic have slightly increased (mostly in psychology) in recent years. However, only a handful of authors have delved more deeply into ACs, and there currently is no journal specifically promoting ACs. The analyzed sources provide a solid foundation for best-practice recommendations and a comprehensive overview of the pros and cons of AC, in the form of organized lists of AC-related known advantages and challenges (alongside solutions to the latter ones). Specifically, some AC studies show weaknesses in study quality, mainly due to a lack of information on the implementation steps. This systematic mapping review serves not only as an introduction to the topic, but also as a guide for future ACs.