What can research publishers do to encourage open science?

Question

The research landscape is complex, and different actors have different options to help with a systemic move towards open science.

Research publishers

• help communicate research
• help assess research and its societal impact
• interact with researchers
• interact with other research stakeholders
• do many other things

In this thread, I would like us to explore which options research publishers have to encourage open science in-house as well as in the communities and other stakeholders they interact with.

If you have multiple ideas for concrete actions, I suggest to post them as separate answers (rather than as one monolithic answer), so as to facilitate the discussion and refinement of your ideas.

Answer 1

As per this article, introducing badges for sharing into a journal seems to have motivated some psychologists to share more:

We report an increase in reported data sharing of more than an order of magnitude from baseline in Psychological Science, as well as an increase in reported materials sharing, although to a weaker degree. Moreover, we show that reportedly available data and materials were more accessible, correct, usable, and complete when badges were earned. We demonstrate that badges are effective incentives that improve the openness, accessibility, and persistence of data and materials that underlie scientific research.

Answer 2

Publish more of the research process, i.e. not just narratives about past research but also intermediate outcomes that are being produced on the way, e.g. research proposals, data management plans, workshop reports.

Answer 3

Make the reviews public: while that is kind of normal for the few reviews that come in post-publication, reviews that have come in before a manuscript's publication should be published alongside that manuscript.

Note that this does not necessarily mean to reveal the identity of the reviewers, which is an additional way to lend credibility to the reviews and thus the publication's review process.