“The shift towards more robust research is primarily a social change.”

Eike Mark Rinke on his experiences with open science

Photo credit: University of Leeds

Looking back on your early days of involvement in open science, what was the trigger?

EMR: There was no single moment. My interest developed during my doctoral and postdoctoral studies, mainly through meta-research. An early impetus was a preprint in which we showed about ten years ago that many communication scientists were unable to correctly define basic statistical metrics such as p-values or confidence intervals – even though they used them regularly. This realisation was a key moment, almost a shock: I realised how much actual research practice deviated from the methodological standards in textbooks. Added to this was the so-called hidden curriculum – informal rules that senior researchers passed on to their doctoral students and which often contradicted good scientific practice. This included, for example, collecting as many dependent variables as possible in order to selectively focus on “working” results. At the time, this was considered normal. Today, it is clear that such practices systematically lead to less robust research. This awareness was a major motivation for me to advocate for more robust science and, thus, for open science.

Has this changed in the past ten years? Is the influence of the hidden curriculum on young researchers diminishing?

EMR: Yes, I think so. It’s a gradual process, but progress is being made. On the one hand, meta-studies and preprints that highlight shortcomings in research practice have an enlightening effect. Above all, however, the open science movement has had a strong normative effect: it contrasts the previous informal hidden curriculum with an alternative, more ideal-oriented curriculum. More and more young researchers are recognising that this practice is not only scientifically sound, but can also be beneficial for their careers. In addition, debates about p-values, publication bias and similar topics are having an educational influence. Such discussions were less common when I was a young researcher; today they are widespread. Overall, therefore, I see clear progress.

What has already been achieved, and what still needs to happen for open science to become mainstream? Where do you see progress, and where are there structural obstacles?

EMR: It is crucial to design the scientific system in such a way that it systematically promotes transparency and inclusion. Strategies such as those of the Centre for Open Science, which aim at cultural change, are helpful. Nevertheless, significant structural hurdles remain. The publish-or-perish paradigm continues to privilege rapid publication and citation counts over careful truth-finding – something that could also be called “fast science.” In a science system where individual researchers and institutions compete for reputation, open science is therefore often considered risky. Added to this is a status quo bias: The most influential players, mostly established senior researchers, often have the most to lose. Their scientific reputation and many of their achievements, their life’s work, so to speak, are based on practices that would at least be critically questioned in a more open scientific culture. As long as these incentive structures do not change, the transition to open science will remain a slow, incremental process.

Yes, this is indeed an issue that affects everyone who works with senior researchers. Their behaviour needs to be critically reflected upon, but this is often avoided.

EMR: Exactly. And it’s not just about self-preservation. Many senior researchers simply don’t have the time to engage intensively with new developments such as open science. Due to their extensive commitments in teaching, administration and peer review, they are often less informed about current open science discourses.

Is it really a question of time? Young researchers are also under enormous pressure. Many work on fixed-term part-time contracts, have to secure their livelihoods and publish a lot at the same time. Couldn’t one argue that senior researchers who are already established are more likely to have the time resources?

EMR: That is a valid objection, and I admit that I may be arguing too generously here. In fact, meta-studies on open science show that innovations in scientific production predominantly originate from younger researchers. They are under greater pressure to make a name for themselves and stay at the forefront of current developments. Many open science practices are closely linked to these developments, which is why they are mainly driven by the younger generation. Anyone who wants to publish in leading social science methodology journals can hardly ignore open science. Established researchers who have already secured their position often feel less incentive to do so.

In your view, what role does institutional support play in the move towards more open science, particularly through networks such as the UK Reproducibility Network , in which you yourself are active?

EMR: In my view, these networks are crucial. The shift towards more robust research is primarily a social change. Transdisciplinary communities dedicated to open science and good scientific practice, as one might say in the old-fashioned way, are creating the necessary foundation for this. We must not forget that today’s young researchers are tomorrow’s senior researchers. The “Planck principle” is often quoted in this context: Science progresses one funeral at a time. That may be an exaggeration, but it hits the nail on the head: cultural change takes place over generations. Networks offer young researchers a social home and strengthen their idealism by enabling exchange, recognition and cooperation. It is precisely this social energy that is crucial. Thinking about exciting stuff together. That’s also a big part of our UK Reproducibility Network. It creates bonds, motivates people to put open science into practice and, in the long term, helps to ensure that open practices are less perceived as special cases and exotic, and increasingly become the norm.

You are Local Network Lead of the UK Reproducibility Network at the University of Leeds. What exactly does this role involve?

EMR: At its core, it’s about community building and community management. My job is to create spaces for exchange and to get as many colleagues on campus as possible involved and engaged in the long term. Specifically, this means giving lectures for different disciplines, organising interdisciplinary journal clubs such as ReproducibiliTea, and working closely with our university library. My colleagues there are, if you will, the “hidden heroes” of the open science movement – they do an enormous amount to promote it. We cooperate on events, podcasts and information services. I also act as a contact person for the university management. There are more and more enquiries about how open science can be better anchored institutionally. Recently, for example, I was a member of a task force that developed local open research resources for researchers. Overall, I see my role as that of a local expert who brings knowledge from meta and open science research into everyday campus life.

You talk about creating spaces for communication. That’s also my field of work: bringing people together, facilitating exchange, being a kind of facilitator. What do you think are the most effective measures? What would you recommend to others?

EMR: In my experience, two points are particularly important. First, establish personal relevance for the respective audience. Although open science has its roots firmly in psychology and the replication crisis there, the discussion must always be translated into the context of the respective discipline. You should listen, be empathetic and understand the questions and challenges that researchers face in their field, and then show how open science can help in concrete terms.

Secondly, go where people are, so to speak, a captive audience. In the open science community, there is a pronounced problem of preaching to the choir. You have to go where open science is not normally on the agenda – for example, at institute-wide events, faculty meetings or training courses – and give short, concise presentations, like mini TED talks. An audience that has not specifically come to an open science event is often particularly valuable.

Thirdly – and this is perhaps most effective in the long term – start early. I like to refer to the so-called “impressionable years hypothesis” from political socialisation research, which states that attitudes become entrenched primarily in young people. Applied to science, this means that those who reach young researchers as early as possible have a lasting influence on their later practice.

That’s why I offer an introductory seminar for new doctoral students every year in my department of political science. There, I not only teach the basic principles of open science, but also emphasise the strategic dimension for their own careers in science: transparency and reproducibility standards have long been a prerequisite for success in many disciplines. You have to be able to publish data. You have to publish your code, comment on it well, and ensure that the findings you report are reproducible. And if you really want to be at the top of your game, you should go even further: for example, you can publish Shiny apps that allow the general public to interactively reanalyse your data in a browser window. Practices like these can be powerful career boosters today. Those who master and use them significantly increase their chances of succeeding in the competitive environment of science.

So you offer seminars for students and young researchers. Is participation mandatory or voluntary for students? Do you have the impression that your ideas have a lasting effect? Are there any concrete indications or indicators that suggest that the content of your seminar is actually being taken up in scientific practice?

EMR: To start with the first question: yes, participation is compulsory because the seminar is part of the general introductory events for new doctoral students. However, it is a separate module within this series, which is designed by different lecturers and coordinated with the head of our doctoral programmes. As for the impact, the feedback has been consistently positive. Many junior colleagues are grateful to be prepared for the fact that the ideal and reality of scientific practice often diverge – and that there is a growing community working to bridge this gap. They are given concrete tools with which they can contribute to more robust practices themselves. I regularly receive informal feedback showing that the seminar is appreciated.

In addition, we regularly collect data here in Leeds: we have already conducted two cross-faculty community surveys to assess attitudes, knowledge and practices relating to open science. It is particularly encouraging that the university is currently working on systematically recording open science indicators. That’s really great. In future, researchers will be asked to indicate when reporting new publications whether data has been published, whether the code is available and whether pre-registration has taken place – in each case with references to the relevant sources. This will create an institutional database that will provide valuable insights in the long term and enable targeted measures to be taken.

You are not only active in Leeds, but also familiar with other open science communities. In your opinion, are there any international pioneers? Would you say that the United Kingdom is particularly advanced, or perhaps the Netherlands or certain US institutions? Do you observe any international differences?

EMR: Yes, definitely. The UK is very well positioned thanks to the UK Reproducibility Network, as are the Netherlands. Open science practices are also firmly established at many top institutions in the US. Germany has also caught up significantly in recent years. However, I would talk less about differences between countries and more about differences between research-intensive and less research-intensive institutions. Much depends on the quality standards of the respective institutions, their resources for training and methodological further education, and the self-image of the researchers.

This means that the top institutions are significantly more active when it comes to open science. That would also be a strong argument: if you want to play in the “premier league,” you should implement open science – it strengthens your reputation.

EMR: Absolutely. And there is even a more concrete argument that I regularly bring up in my introductory lectures for new doctoral students. Even though impact factors are widely criticised, they remain an important indicator of a journal’s standing. If you analyse how political science journals differ in terms of their open science requirements, a clear pattern emerges: in the bottom two quartiles, there are virtually no requirements. In the second and third quartiles, the requirements have risen slightly over the past ten years. And in the top journals – i.e. the top quartile – the proportion of open science requirements has exploded. In other words, if you want to publish in the leading journals today, there is no way around open science.

An example: I am associate editor at Political Communication , a very good journal in my small field. Two years ago, we introduced the position of data editor. This person systematically checks whether data has been disclosed, whether the code is available and, above all, whether the reported findings are actually reproducible. If something is wrong – for example, because the code is faulty or the results cannot be reproduced – the manuscript is not published. This is a clear prerequisite for publication.

The open science agenda for communication science, which I discussed here in the magazine with Tobias Dienlin, contains many concrete proposals. Based on your experience, which of these do you consider particularly effective? What advice would you give to a junior researcher who wants to start with a few effective steps?

EMR: That depends greatly on who you are addressing. The agenda includes measures that are primarily aimed at institutions, research funders or journals – such as our recommendation to implement the TOP Guidelines or to create incentives for adopting open science practices. These are particularly important from a systemic perspective, but are less relevant to individual actions. When we focus on early-career researchers, the crucial first step is to ensure the reproducibility of their own research. This sounds trivial, but it is essential. In concrete terms, this means that materials, data sets and code should be made openly accessible – open data and open code are the basis. Without this basic transparency, everything else is secondary. Building on this, further steps can be taken, such as version control and project organisation via platforms such as GitHub to increase the traceability of one’s own work. More complex practices such as pre-registration or even registered reports are then possible. But the first and most important step remains the establishment of this basic transparency.

Many researchers have limited time resources. If you recommend open science, at what point would you advise them to actively pursue open access?

EMR: As soon as the project is at a stage where initial results can be made public – for example, when a preprint or early manuscript version is published, or at the latest when pre-registration takes place. At this point at the latest, you should ensure that you retain the rights to your own work, i.e. that copyright retention is guaranteed. Working with the library is helpful in this regard. Most researchers have little interest in dealing intensively with copyright issues – often out of a rather short-sighted attitude: “The main thing is that I have the publication for my CV; who reads it is secondary.” However, this view ignores a central dimension of open science. Open science means not only robust and transparent research, but also inclusive and socially accessible research. Open access is essential for this: research gains social value to the extent that it is made accessible to the public. This is particularly true for the humanities and social sciences, which are less focused on technical innovation and more on strengthening our social self-image. This idea must be emphasised again and again. At the same time, it is realistic to acknowledge that universities, and libraries in particular, play a key role here. They have to take on a large part of the organisational work to ensure open access, thereby compensating for the fact that many researchers still pay too little attention to this aspect – even among those who expressly support the open science movement.

Let’s move on to your own research. You have conducted scientific research on pre-registrations and registered reports. What are the specific advantages of these procedures? What have you found – both in terms of the quality of your own research and the potential effects on scientific careers?

EMR: Pre-registrations and registered reports are a central element of open science innovations, which are increasingly becoming standard practice. In certain fields of research – especially in experimental laboratory research – pre-registration has become virtually indispensable if you want to publish in good journals. In other areas, such as parts of the social sciences, it is not yet standard practice, but it already offers clear advantages – and not only in terms of publication opportunities. One key point that I always emphasise is the gain in confidence in one’s own findings. Pre-registration is not just a formal requirement, but also a tool for self-monitoring. In a sense, you make a pact with yourself: you determine in advance which hypotheses and analyses you will carry out, thereby reducing the risk of being guided – consciously or unconsciously – by subsequent adjustments or selective evaluation. For many researchers, this means considerably greater confidence in the robustness of their own work.

You have worked on an open research case study in political science. To what extent can the results be transferred to economic research?

EMR: In my view, almost all aspects of this case study are just as relevant to economic research as they are to political science. This leads to a fundamental point that is important to me: on the one hand, it makes sense to conduct the open science discussion in a subject-specific manner and to address the respective methods, data types and research cultures. On the other hand, we should not underestimate the transdisciplinary relevance of the basic principles. The central goals of open science – transparency, social accessibility, robustness – apply across all disciplines. We should therefore not succumb to the temptation to contextualise every observation too strongly or even to relativise it. Statements such as “That only applies to psychology, but not to us” or “What we have found in political science cannot be transferred to economics” are too simplistic. The fundamental lessons are very similar in all fields; differences tend to lie in the emphasis, depending on data types and analysis methods. Political science and economic research are particularly close in terms of methodology. The findings are therefore directly transferable to these two disciplines.

Thank you very much!

*The interview was conducted on 23 June 2025 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.
This text was translated on 31 July 2025 using DeeplPro.

About Dr Eike Mark Rinke:

Dr Eike Mark Rinke is a lecturer in politics and media at the University of Leeds and co-director of the Centre for Democratic Politics. He is actively involved in the open science movement, is the local network lead of the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) at the University of Leeds and a member of the BITSS Catalyst Programme for promoting transparency and reproducibility in the social sciences. In 2024, his commitment to open science practices was recognised with the University of Leeds’ Research Culture Award.

In his research, Rinke specialises in the empirical and normative study of political communication at the individual and societal levels. This includes studies on the democratic quality of how journalists and citizens communicate about political ideas, events and people in different contexts, from election campaigns to political participation events and from social protests to everyday life.

Contact: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/politics/staff/1073/dr-eike-mark-rinke

Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/emrinke.bsky.social

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eike-mark-rinke-4a122210/

OSF: https://osf.io/we5ak/

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Eike-Mark-Rinke-2035219321

to Open Science Magazine