The PRO Initiative encourages all peer reviewers (that’s us) to insist on author’s (that’s us again) following open science:
We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.
I think this is an interesting development, but perhaps this is too radical? Although the initiative insists not being a boycott, the suggested response seems pretty close:
I cannot recommend this paper for publication, as it does not meet the minimum quality requirements for an open scientific manuscript (see https://opennessinitiative.org/). I would be happy to review a revision of the manuscript that corrects this critical oversight.
Perhaps we can reach the “goal of the Initiative […] to increase the quality of published research by creating the expectation of open research practices” by spreading the word (further) first, and insisting on open science as part of the review? Or perhaps the initiative is the right means? Are the problems psychology is facing shared with all of the social sciences? I’m not sure.
Didier Ruedin 