A. Lupia

Abstract The U.S. Congress writes the legislation that funds the National Science Foundation (NSF). Researchers who seek NSF support may benefit by understanding how Congress views the agency. To this end, we use text analysis to examine every statement in the Congressional Record made by any member of Congress about the NSF over a 22-year period. While we find broad bipartisan support for the NSF, there are notable changes over time.

Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1, 2). When asked, most scientists embrace these features as disciplinary norms and values (3). Therefore, one might expect that these valued features would be routine in daily practice. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case (4–6). A likely culprit for this disconnect is an academic reward system that does not sufficiently incentivize open practices (7).

Promoting an open research culture B. A. Nosek*, G. Alter, G. C. Banks, D. Borsboom, S. D. Bowman, S. J. Breckler, S. Buck, C. D. Chambers, G. Chin, G. Christensen, M. Contestabile, A. Dafoe, E. Eich, J. Freese, R. Glennerster, D. Goroff, D. P. Green, B. Hesse, M. Humphreys, J. Ishiyama, D. Karlan, A. Kraut, A. Lupia, P. Mabry, T. A. Madon, N. Malhotra, E. Mayo-Wilson, M. McNutt, E. Miguel, E. Levy Paluck, U. Simonsohn, C. Soderberg, B. A. Spellman, J. Turitto, G. VandenBos, S. Vazire, E. J. Wagenmakers, R. Wilson, T.