52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

No abstract

No abstract

Trying to remember something now typically improves your ability to remember it later. However, after watching a video of a simulated bank robbery, participants who verbally described the robber were 25% worse at identifying the robber in a lineup than were participants who instead listed U.S. states and capitals-this has been termed the "verbal overshadowing" effect (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). More recent studies suggested that this effect might be substantially smaller than first reported. Given uncertainty about the effect size, the influence of this finding in the memory literature, and its practical importance for police procedures, we conducted two collections of preregistered direct replications (RRR1 and RRR2) that differed only in the order of the description task and a filler task. In RRR1, when the description task immediately followed the robbery, participants who provided a description were 4% less likely to select the robber than were those in the control condition. In RRR2, when the description was delayed by 20 min, they were 16% less likely to select the robber. These findings reveal a robust verbal overshadowing effect that is strongly influenced by the relative timing of the tasks. The discussion considers further implications of these replications for our understanding of verbal overshadowing.

Open science is a collection of actions designed to make scientific processes more transparent and results more accessible. Its goal is to build a more replicable and robust science; it does so using new technologies, altering incentives, and changing attitudes. The current movement toward open science was spurred, in part, by a recent series of unfortunate events within psychology and other sciences. These events include the large number of studies that have failed to replicate and the prevalence of common research and publication procedures that could explain why. Many journals and funding agencies now encourage, require, or reward some open science practices, including preregistration, providing full materials, posting data, distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory analyses, and running replication studies. Individuals can practice and promote open science in their many roles as researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, teachers, and members of hiring, tenure, promotion, and awards committees. A plethora of resources are available to help scientists, and science, achieve these goals.

Open science is a collection of actions designed to make scientific processes more transparent and results more accessible. Its goal is to build a more replicable and robust science; it does so using new technologies, altering incentives, and changing attitudes. The current movement toward open science was spurred, in part, by a recent series of unfortunate events within psychology and other sciences. These events include the large number of studies that have failed to replicate and the prevalence of common research and publication procedures that could explain why. Many journals and funding agencies now encourage, require, or reward some open science practices, including pre-registration, providing full materials, posting data, distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory analyses, and running replication studies. Individuals can practice and promote open science in their many roles as researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, teachers, and members of hiring, tenure, promotion, and awards committees. A plethora of resources are available to help scientists, and science, achieve these goals. Keywords: data sharing, file drawer problem, open access, open science, preregistration, questionable research practices, replication crisis, reproducibility, scientific integrityThanks to Brent Donnellan (big thanks!), Daniël Lakens, Calvin Lai, Courtney Soderberg, and Simine Vazire OPEN SCIENCE 3 Open Science When we (the authors) look back a couple of years, to the earliest outline of this chapter, the open science movement within psychology seemed to be in its infancy. Plenty of people were pointing to problems in psychology research, collecting archival data to support the claims, and suggesting how science could be improved. Now it seems that the open science movement has reached adolescence. Things are happening-and they are happening quickly. New professional organizations are being formed to uncover and facilitate ways to improve science, often through new technology, and some old organizations are adopting new procedures to remedy problems created by past practices, often involving revising journal policies. Researchers are changing the way they teach, practice, and convey science. And scientific information (and opinions) are traveling fast. In blogs, tweets, Facebook groups, op eds, science journalism, circulation of preprints, post-print comments, video talks, and so on, more people are engaged in communicating science, and hoping to improve science, than ever before. Thus, any new technology, new procedure, new website, or new controversy we describe is likely to be superseded (or solved) even by the time this chapter is published. But the core values of open science should remain. The "Open Science" MovementScience is about evidence: observing, measuring, collecting, and analyzing evidence. And it is about evidence that can be shared across observers and, typically, although not necessarily exactly (Merton, 1973;Popper, 1959), replicated later. Science is about testing hypotheses, using inductiv...

No abstract

No abstract