Current reform movements in science seek to change how researchers do science, the tools and infrastructure they use to so, and how they assess each others’ work in terms of quality and value. Here, we argue that openness and replicability are quickly becoming key indicators for such quality assessments and they sometimes operate through citation strategies that actively pursue (some degree of) oblivion for non-reformed science. We do not oppose a genuine pursuit of transparency and methodological quality, but are concerned by how uncritical and oversimplified interpretations of both are skewing the collective memory of the scholarly community.

Peer Review

This content is only available as a PDF.

Author notes

Handling Editor: Vincent Larivière

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview