The distinction between ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ sub-communities aligns with the self-identities of many researchers in the social sciences. In my experience advocating for open science in multi-method environments these identities create polarization.

The social sciences and humanities have a high level of epistemic diversity: they harbor different research traditions, with a wide variety of types of empirical data, methods of analysis, philosophies of knowledge, and epistemologies in their approaches to knowledge creation. Here I’d like to share experiences trying to enhance transparency as a common objective in two environments with high epistemic diversity.

Dear editor, As you will recall, I recently replied to your invitation to review #[JRNL-YY-NUMBER] for your journal with the request to provide access to the data and code the authors used to produce results reported in the manuscript. Unfortunately, you have not yet agreed to ask the authors of this manuscript to provide access. Please do so at your earliest convenience. There is no need to log onto my Journal Editor Manager system.

In all likelihood, you also get numerous requests to review articles, contribute articles to special issues, compile or edit a special issue, or even to join an editorial board. Recently colleagues asked me how to deal with such requests. Most of these requests come from predatory publishers such as SCIRP, MDPI, Hindawi and Frontiers.

Do people give more if they are reminded of the social norm to give? Several experiments among students show that explicit reminders with texts such as “Do the right thing” lead to more cooperation in social dilemmas (Dal Bó & Dal Bó, 2014; Capraro & Vanzo, 2019). There is also evidence that moral norms in crowdfunding campaigns can lead to more giving behavior (Capraro & Vanzo, 2019; Van Teunenbroek, Bekkers &

What are the motivations and obstacles for charitable giving? Depending on the research design, there are two perspectives from which we can think about answers to this question.

If your vision of an ideal connected world is an online platform for free exchange of knowledge and reasoned debate, untainted by prejudice and hate, you will be fascinated by the demise of Twitter since October 27, 2022. On that day, the then richest man of the world, Elon Musk, took over the company for $44 billion.

A decade of meta science research on social science research has produced devastating results. While the movement towards open science is gaining momentum, awareness of the credibility crisis remains low among social scientists.

Which governance instruments can we employ to promote open science? In this post I discuss governance instruments that can encourage researchers to engage in two important practices of open science: documenting and sharing research data. The practice of documenting data makes science more transparent. Sharing data makes science more open. Documenting data is a necessary first step towards more open science.

How do publications in nonprofit and philanthropic studies report on the type of data they report on? What are the characteristics of samples and measurement instruments used in research? Which research designs and methods are used in the analysis of data? To what extent do publications describe the generalizability and validity of observations?

The Researchers, Academics, and Data Enthusiasts (RADE) working group of WINGS is organizing a session “Longitudinal Studies: Contributions to Understanding Giving Behaviour and the Practice of Philanthropy” on September 19th, from 12:30 pm to 2:00 pm (UTC).