scholarly journals A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Klein ◽  
Tom E. Hardwicke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Johannes Breuer ◽  
Henrik Danielsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Incremental Step

The credibility of scientific claims depends upon the transparency of the research products upon which they are based (e.g., study protocols, data, materials, and analysis scripts). As psychology navigates a period of unprecedented introspection, user-friendly tools and services that support open science have flourished. However, the plethora of decisions and choices involved can be bewildering. Here we provide a practical guide to help researchers navigate the process of preparing and sharing the products of their research (e.g., choosing a repository, preparing their research products for sharing, structuring folders, etc.). Being an open scientist means adopting a few straightforward research management practices, which lead to less error prone, reproducible research workflows. Further, this adoption can be piecemeal – each incremental step towards complete transparency adds positive value. Transparent research practices not only improve the efficiency of individual researchers, they enhance the credibility of the knowledge generated by the scientific community.

scholarly journals A practical guide for transparency in psychological science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Klein ◽  
Tom Elis Hardwicke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Johannes Breuer ◽  
Henrik Danielsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Management Practices ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Incremental Step

The credibility of scientific claims depends upon the transparency of the research products upon which they are based (e.g., study protocols, data, materials, and analysis scripts). As psychology navigates a period of unprecedented introspection, user-friendly tools and services that support open science have flourished. There has never been a better time to embrace transparent research practices. However, the plethora of decisions and choices involved can be bewildering. Here we provide a practical guide to help researchers navigate the process of preparing and sharing the products of their research. Being an open scientist means adopting a few straightforward research management practices, which lead to less error prone, reproducible research workflows. Further, this adoption can be piecemeal – each incremental step towards complete transparency adds positive value. Transparent research practices not only improve the efficiency of individual researchers, they enhance the credibility of the knowledge generated by the scientific community.

scholarly journals A Hydrologist's Guide to Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn A. Hall ◽  
Sheila M. Saia ◽  
Andrea L. Popp ◽  
Nilay Dogulu ◽  
Stanislaus J. Schymanski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Current State ◽  
Research And Education

Abstract. Open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research can have a significant impact on the scientific community and broader society. While more individuals and organizations within the hydrology community are embracing open science practices, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social (e.g., fear of being scooped) challenges remain. Furthermore, there are a growing number of constantly evolving open science tools, resources, and initiatives that can seem overwhelming. These challenges and the ever-evolving nature of the open science landscape may seem insurmountable for hydrologists interested in pursuing open science. Therefore, we propose general Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science for research and education and the Open Hydrology Practical Guide to improve the accessibility of currently available tools and approaches. We aim to inform and empower hydrologists as they transition to open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible research. We discuss the benefits as well as common open science challenges and how hydrologists can overcome them. The Open Hydrology Principles and Open Hydrology Practical Guide reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology; we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve and expand with emerging open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join in and help advance open science by contributing to the living version of this document and by sharing open hydrology resources in the community-supported repository (https://open-hydrology.github.io).

scholarly journals A Student's Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristoffer Klevjer ◽  
Per Pippin Aspaas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Experimental Psychology ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Master's Degree ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Education Project ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Master’S Degree

In this episode, we are exploring a student's perspective on open science – and specifically replication studies. Kristoffer Klevjer recently finished his Master’s degree in psychology at UiT The Arctic University of Norway and has now taken on a PhD. But already as a master student, Klevjer was involved in replication studies. In his experience, replication studies can be benefitial to the student, the supervisor, and the scientific community at large. Furthermore, Klevjer argues that replications can be well suited for students at Bachelor level as well. In the interview, Klevjer refers to several publications and projects, including - The Collaborative Replications and Education Project - Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020198 - Psychological Science Accelerator The replication Klevjer did for his Master's degree can be found here First published online March 9, 2020.

scholarly journals A Hydrologist’s Guide to Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Hall ◽  
Sheila Saia ◽  
Andrea Popp ◽  
Stan Schymanski ◽  
Niels Drost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Social Barriers ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Current State ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Practical Guidelines

<p>To have lasting impact on the scientific community and broader society, hydrologic research must be open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible. With so many different perspectives on and constant evolution of open science approaches and technologies, it can be overwhelming for hydrologists to start down the path towards or grow one’s own push for open research. Open hydrology practices are becoming more widely embraced by members of the community and key organizations, yet, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social barriers (e.g., fear of being scooped) still exist. These barriers may seem insurmountable without practical suggestions on how to proceed. Here, we propose the Open Hydrology Principles to guide individual and community progress toward open science. To increase accessibility and make the Open Hydrology Principles more tangible and actionable, we also present the Open Hydrology Practical Guidelines. Our aim is to help hydrologists transition from closed, inaccessible, not reusable, and not reproducible ways of conducting scientific work to open hydrology and empower researchers by providing information and resources to equitably grow the openness of hydrological sciences. We provide the first version of a practical open hydrology resource that may evolve with open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. We discuss some of the benefits of open science and common reservations to open science, and how hydrologists can pursue an appropriate level of openness in the presence of barriers. Further, we highlight how the practice of open hydrology can be expanded. The Open Hydrology Principles, Practical Guide, and additional resources reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology and we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join the open science conversation by contributing to the living version of this document and sharing open hydrology resources at the community-supported repository at open-hydrology.github.io.</p>

scholarly journals Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Manh-Toan Ho ◽  
Manh-Tung Ho ◽  
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Central Idea ◽  
Retracted Article ◽  
Scientific Ideas

This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods. The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation. The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process.

LUU CHECKER: A Web-based Tool to Incorporate Emerging LUs in the SWAT Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 723-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurdeep Singh ◽  
Dharmendra Saraswat ◽  
Naresh Pai ◽  
Benjamin Hancock
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Urban Forest ◽  
Swat Model ◽  
Land Use Changes ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Hydrologic Response Unit ◽  
User Friendly

Abstract. Standard practice of setting up Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) involves use of a single land use (LU) layer under the assumption that no change takes place in LU condition irrespective of the length of simulation period. This assumption leads to erroneous conclusions about efficacy of management practices in those watersheds where land use changes (LUCs) (e.g. agriculture to urban, forest to agriculture etc.) occur during the simulation period. To overcome this limitation, we have developed a user-friendly, web-based tool named LUU Checker that helps create a composite LU layer by integrating multiple years of LU layers available in watersheds of interest. The results show that the use of composite LU layer for hydrologic response unit (HRU) delineation in 2474-km2 L’Anguile River Watershed in Arkansas was able to capture changed LU at subbasin level by using LU data available in the year 1999 and 2006, respectively. The web-based tool is applicable for large size watersheds and is accessible to multiple users from anywhere in the world. Keywords: Land use, Web-based tool, SWAT, LUU Checker.

scholarly journals Maximizing the Reproducibility of Your Research

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Bosco ◽  
Joshua Carp ◽  
James G. Field ◽  
Hans IJzerman ◽  
Melissa Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Science Collaboration

Open Science Collaboration (in press). Maximizing the reproducibility of your research. In S. O. Lilienfeld & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological Science Under Scrutiny: Recent Challenges and Proposed Solutions. New York, NY: Wiley.

scholarly journals German Reproducibility Network - a new platform for Open Science in Germany

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Fritzsch ◽  
Daniel Nüst
Keyword(s):  
Local Level ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Further Education ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Research Software

<p>Open Science has established itself as a movement across all scientific disciplines in recent years. It supports good practices in science and research that lead to more robust, comprehensible, and reusable results. The aim is to improve the transparency and quality of scientific results so that more trust is achieved, both in the sciences themselves and in society. Transparency requires that uncertainties and assumptions are made explicit and disclosed openly. <br>Currently, the Open Science movement is largely driven by grassroots initiatives and small scale projects. We discuss some examples that have taken on different facets of the topic:</p><ul><li>The software developed and used in the research process is playing an increasingly important role. The Research Software Engineers (RSE) communities have therefore organized themselves in national and international initiatives to increase the quality of research software.</li> <li>Evaluating reproducibility of scientific articles as part of peer review requires proper creditation and incentives for both authors and specialised reviewers to spend extra efforts to facilitate workflow execution. The Reproducible AGILE initiative has established a reproducibility review at a major community conference in GIScience.</li> <li>Technological advances for more reproducible scholarly communication beyond PDFs, such as containerisation, exist, but are often inaccessible to domain experts who are not programmers. Targeting geoscience and geography, the project Opening Reproducible Research (o2r) develops infrastructure to support publication of research compendia, which capture data, software (incl. execution environment), text, and interactive figures and maps.</li> </ul><p>At the core of scientific work lie replicability and reproducibility. Even if different scientific communities use these terms differently, the recognition that these aspects need more attention is commonly shared and individual communities can learn a lot from each other. Networking is therefore of great importance. The newly founded initiative German Reproducibility Network (GRN) wants to be a platform for such networking and targets all of the above initiatives. GRN is embedded in a growing network of similar initiatives, e.g. in the UK, Switzerland and Australia. Its goals include </p><ul><li>Support of local open science groups</li> <li>Connecting local or topic-centered initiatives for the exchange of experiences</li> <li>Attracting facilities for the goals of Open Science </li> <li>Cultivate contacts to funding organizations, publishers and other actors in the scientific landscape</li> </ul><p>In particular, the GRN aims to promote the dissemination of best practices through various formats of further education, in order to sensitize particularly early career researchers to the topic. By providing a platform for networking, local and domain-specific groups should be able to learn from one another, strengthen one another, and shape policies at a local level.</p><p>We present the GRN in order to address the existing local initiatives and to win them for membership in the GRN or sibling networks in other countries.</p>

scholarly journals Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?

First Monday ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Scheliga ◽  
Sascha Friesike
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Social Dilemma ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Individual Scientist ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Opening Up

Digital technologies carry the promise of transforming science and opening up the research process. We interviewed researchers from a variety of backgrounds about their attitudes towards and experiences with openness in their research practices. We observe a considerable discrepancy between the concept of open science and scholarly reality. While many researchers support open science in theory, the individual researcher is confronted with various difficulties when putting open science into practice. We analyse the major obstacles to open science and group them into two main categories: individual obstacles and systemic obstacles. We argue that the phenomenon of open science can be seen through the prism of a social dilemma: what is in the collective best interest of the scientific community is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual scientist. We discuss the possibilities of transferring theoretical solutions to social dilemma problems to the realm of open science.

scholarly journals Teaching reproducible research for medical students and postgraduate pharmaceutical scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas D. Meid
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Pharmaceutical Sciences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Academic Settings ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Good Research

AbstractIn medicine and other academic settings, (doctoral) students often work in interdisciplinary teams together with researchers of pharmaceutical sciences, natural sciences in general, or biostatistics. They should be fundamentally taught good research practices, especially in terms of statistical analysis. This includes reproducibility as a central aspect. Acknowledging that even experienced researchers and supervisors might be unfamiliar with necessary aspects of a perfectly reproducible workflow, a lecture series on reproducible research (RR) was developed for young scientists in clinical pharmacology. The pilot series highlighted definitions of RR, reasons for RR, potential merits of RR, and ways to work accordingly. In trying to actually reproduce a published analysis, several practical obstacles arose. In this article, reproduction of a working example is commented to emphasize the manifold facets of RR, to provide possible explanations for difficulties and solutions, and to argue that harmonized curricula for (quantitative) clinical researchers should include RR principles. These experiences should raise awareness among educators and students, supervisors and young scientists. RR working habits are not only beneficial for ourselves or our students, but also for other researchers within an institution, for scientific partners, for the scientific community, and eventually for the public profiting from research findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document