Conservation science is a multidisciplinary and collaborative discipline. This journal's policy is to encourage transparent and open practices in science, including sharing of data, code, and survey instruments. Such practices are especially important in light of emerging, broader scientific issues, such as reproducibility of research protocols and results, wasting of research outputs and resources, and questionable data and reporting practices. Conservation Biology promotes this agenda through its transparency and openness guidelines and checklist and through the publication of registered reports. Transparency and openness have the potential to improve research design and methods, provide opportunities to validate models and statistical analyses, encourage collaboration, and increase citations (Piwowar et al. 2007). Preregistration aims to reduce selective reporting and unplanned exploratory analyses that can lead to unreliable research findings.

The Center for Open Science has introduced “badges” as a way to recognize authors who engage in transparent practices (for further information, see https://cos.io/our-services/open-science-badges/). The badges are a step toward a wider cultural change in research publishing in which transparency, openness, and preregistration are rewarded. In particular, it is hoped that awarding badges for open science practices, such as data and material sharing and preregistration, will improve replicability, reduce the prevalence of questionable research practices, and reduce the waste of research outputs and resources.

Authors who adopt transparent practices for an article in Conservation Biology are now able to select from 3 open science badges: open data, open materials, and preregistration. Badges appear on published articles as visible recognition and highlight these efforts to the research community. There is an emerging body of literature regarding the influences of badges, for example, an increased number of articles with open data (Kidwell et al 2016) and increased rate of data sharing (Rowhani-Farid et al. 2018). However, in another study, Rowhani-Farid et al. (2020) found that badges did not “noticeably motivate” researchers to share data. Badges, as far as we know, are the only data-sharing incentive that has been tested empirically (Rowhani-Farid et al. 2017).

Rates of data and code sharing are typically low (Herold 2015; Roche et al 2015; Archmiller et al 2020; Culina et al 2020). Since 2016, we have asked authors of contributed papers, reviews, method papers, practice and policy papers, and research notes to tell us whether they “provided complete machine and human-readable data and computer code in Supporting Information or on a public archive.” Authors of 31% of these articles published in Conservation Biology said they shared their data or code, and all authors provide human-survey instruments in Supporting Information or via a citation or online link (i.e., shared materials).

Of course, there may be good reasons why particular data should not or cannot be shared. For example, constraints may arise because of disclosure of potentially sensitive location information for rare and threatened species, privacy of personal information for human participants or interviewees, and confidentiality agreements with funders. Reproducibility requires that authors archive complete and reusable data sets and materials. We understand that data archiving takes time to learn and to do well.

By offering badges, Conservation Biology is encouraging authors to share data and materials and to preregister studies. Through this incentive, Conservation Biology is taking an additional step toward transparency in the research it publishes and toward the ultimate goals of producing reliable scientific findings, improving the credibility of science, and accelerating scientific discoveries and knowledge creation in our discipline.

保护科学是一门多学科协作的学科。该期刊的政策是鼓励科学领域的透明和开放实践，包括数据、代码和调查工具的共享。鉴于新出现的、更广泛的科学问题，例如研究方案和结果的可重复性、研究成果和资源的浪费以及有问题的数据和报告做法，此类做法尤其重要。保护生物学通过其透明度和开放性准则和清单以及通过发布注册报告来促进这一议程。透明度和开放性有可能改进研究设计和方法，提供验证模型和统计分析的机会，鼓励合作，并增加引用（Piwowar 等人，2007 年）。预注册旨在减少可能导致不可靠研究结果的选择性报告和计划外的探索性分析。

开放科学中心引入了“徽章”作为识别参与透明实践的作者的一种方式（有关更多信息，请参阅 https://cos.io/our-services/open-science-badges/）。这些徽章是朝着更广泛的研究出版文化变革迈出的一步，在这种变革中，透明度、开放性和预注册都得到了回报。特别是，希望为开放科学实践授予徽章，例如数据和材料共享和预注册，将提高可复制性，减少有问题的研究实践的普遍性，并减少研究成果和资源的浪费。

为保护生物学中的文章采用透明实践的作者现在可以从 3 个开放科学徽章中进行选择：开放数据、开放材料和预注册。徽章作为可见的认可出现在已发表的文章中，并向研究界强调这些努力。关于徽章影响的文献不断涌现，例如，公开数据的文章数量增加（Kidwell等，2016年），数据共享率提高（Rowhani-Farid等，2018年）。然而，在另一项研究中，Rowhani-Farid 等人。（2020年）发现，徽章并没有“显着地激发”研究人员共享数据。据我们所知，徽章是唯一经过实证检验的数据共享激励措施（Rowhani-Farid 等人，2017 年）。

数据和代码共享率通常较低（Herold 2015；Roche 等人2015 年；Archmiller 等人2020 年；Culina 等人2020 年）。自 2016 年以来，我们已经要求投稿论文、评论、方法论文、实践和政策论文以及研究笔记的作者告诉我们他们是否“在支持信息或公共档案中提供了完整的机器和人类可读的数据和计算机代码。 ” 在《保护生物学》上发表的这些文章中，31% 的作者表示他们共享了他们的数据或代码，所有作者都在支持信息中或通过引文或在线链接（即共享材料）提供了人类调查工具。

当然，不应该或不能共享特定数据可能有充分的理由。例如，由于稀有和受威胁物种的潜在敏感位置信息的披露、人类参与者或受访者的个人信息隐私以及与资助者的保密协议，可能会出现限制。再现性要求作者存档完整且可重复使用的数据集和材料。我们了解数据归档需要时间来学习和做好。

通过提供徽章，保护生物学鼓励作者共享数据和材料并预先注册研究。通过这一激励措施，保护生物学正在向其发表的研究的透明度迈出额外的一步，并朝着产生可靠的科学发现、提高科学的可信度以及加速我们学科中的科学发现和知识创造的最终目标迈进。