Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the reliability of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the validity of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

对抗性合作：行为科学中一种被低估的方法。


预注册、公开程序和数据以及功效分析等开放科学举措因提高研究结果的可靠性而受到称赞。然而，一项潜在的同样重要的举措——旨在提高科学的有效性——在很大程度上被忽视了。对抗性合作（AC）是指团队科学，其中选择成员代表不同（甚至相互矛盾）的观点和假设，有或没有中立的团队成员来仲裁争议。在这里，我们提供有关 AC 的背景，并认为它们是有效的、必要的且未得到充分利用。我们解释了 AC 如何以及为何能够增强科学的可靠性和有效性，以及为什么它们的益处超出了团队科学领域，涵盖了事实核查、群体智慧、期刊评论和顺序编辑等领域。提高科学有效性将提高源自行为科学研究的政策和干预措施的有效性，随着时间的推移，它可以帮助挽救我们学科的声誉，因为它的产品将被认为是对不同观点进行认真、开放的考虑的结果。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。