Preferred way to cite OSF projects?

[Alex Holcombe]

Is there a preferred way to cite Open Science Framework projects?  I imagine this has been asked before, but in a search I didn't find the answer.

At the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, we are using OSF pages to host the study design, analysis plan, and data for our Registered Replication Reports (here's an example: http://openscienceframework.org/project/yBeUR/ )

Some of the contributors, each of whom have their own individual lab OSF page for their part in the project, want to cite this unfinished project on their CV or in manuscripts.  At the journal we can concoct some way to cite the future Registered Replication Reports, but we'd also like to know an APA-friendly way to cite OSF pages.

Alex (Associate Editor, Perspectives on Psychological Science))

[Jeffrey Spies]

Does anyone have thoughts on this? Before I let the group know what
I've been thinking about this, I'd like to see if anyone has any
feedback.

Jeff.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Science Framework" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to openscienceframe...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Ben Blohowiak]

Perhaps a place to start the discussion is in the domain that I mentioned in a message sent to Alex off-list; something to the effect of:

Why would it differ from citing any other website?

If it wouldn't:
http://www.apastyle.org/learn/quick-guide-on-references.aspx

[Alex Holcombe]

We may want to cite an OSF registration separately from the ongoing project page. Following APA format for websites,

Author, A. (date). Title of document [Format description]. Retrieved from http://xxxxxxxxx

 for the main project page the citation might be:

Blowohiak, Ben B. (2013). Pendulum-Style Electric Generators. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/L4zJP/.

Note that in the year, it seems we have to make a choice of whether to use the year the page was last updated, or the year it was created, unfortunately with no indication to the reader of which we are using.

For a registration, to again follow the APA strictly we have:

Blowohiak, Ben B. (2013). Pendulum-Style Electric Generators. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

The only difference is the URL, which is unfortunate. Perhaps we could use the "Format description" the APA mentions to differentiate them, although I haven't found any guidance on its use. E.g. the second could be:

Blowohiak, Ben B. (2013). Pendulum-Style Electric Generators [OSF open-ended registration]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

If that's a good idea, what might the "Format description" be for the previous page, "[OSF project]"  ?

Alex

[Brian Nosek]

Hi Alex --

This is something we are talking about a lot now.  Because OSF is pushing wider the conception of citable units, there will inevitably be some change to the current citation standards.  Another option in the set like what you raised would be:

Blowohiak, Ben B. (2013). Pendulum-Style Electric Generators. Open Science Framework, L4zJP. http://openscienceframework.org/project/L4zJP/

Also, we have the URL osf.io.  One thing we are thinking about is having that "osf.io" essentially be a replacement for "doi"

So, for example,

Blowohiak, Ben B. (2013). Pendulum-Style Electric Generators. Open Science Framework. osf.io/L4zJP/

There are complications to consider with version control, and related to that, registrations - as you mention.  To instantiate the fact that citable objects can be version controlled, a specific date or version number could become part of citation standards.  

If any on the list are interested in working on this issue, it might be interesting to form a small group to investigate the varieties of solutions and propose some possible standards.

Brian

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Alex Holcombe <aohol...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Ben Blohowiak]

I'm willing to help parse requirements and collaborate on methods for their efficient fulfillment.

[ascension]

I have send this reply off-list as well, but curiousity and wonderment have gotten the best of me concerning what the preferred way to cite projects is/ will be. So, here are my 2 cents: I reasoned that perhaps you could 1) try and find a uniform way to cite things (i.c. both for projects like the Registered Replication Reports, and new projects), and 2) view everything used on the OSF as data (so a pre-registration would be considered "data", as would a data file). If this makes any sense, I then view at the APA guidelines and look at page 210-211; point 54 data set and come up with something like the following:

Registered Replication Reports

Reference list:

Open Science Framework (2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science:
Registered Replication Report-Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990) [pre-registration, materials, protocol, data file]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/yBeUR/

 

In text:

(Open Science Framework; Perspectives on Psychological Science:
Registered Replication Report-Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 2013)

Open Science Framework; Perspectives on Psychological Science;
Registered Replication Report-Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (2013)

 

New projects

Reference list:

Open Science Framework (2013). Blowohiak, B. B.: Pendulum-Style Electric Generators [pre-registration]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

Open Science Framework (2014). Blowohiak, B. B.: Pendulum-Style Electric Generators [pre-registration, materials]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

Open Science Framework (2015). Blowohiak, B. B.: Pendulum-Style Electric Generators [pre-registration, materials, protocol]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

Open Science Framework (2016). Blowohiak, B. B.: Pendulum-Style Electric Generators [pre-registration, materials, protocol, data]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

 

In case of multiple authors, follow general APA-guidelines (e.g., APA guidelines 6^th ed. Page 184). For example:

Open Science Framework (2013). Author, A. A., & Blowohiak, B. B.: Pendulum-Style Electric Generators [pre-registration]. Retrieved from http://openscienceframework.org/project/fqrF7/.

 

In text:

(Open Science Framework; Blowohiak, 2013)

Open Science Framework; Blowohiak (2013)

 

In case of multiple authors, follow general APA-guidelines (e.g., APA guidelines 6^th ed. Page 177). For example:

(Open Science Framework; Author and Blowohiak, 2013)

Open Science Framework; Author and Blowohiak (2013)

Would such an approach (i.c. try and find an optimal uniform manner to cite things) make sense?

Cheers.