7 Easy Steps to Open Science: An Annotated Reading List

Crüwell, Sophia; Doorn, Johnny van; Etz, Alexander; Makel, Matthew C.; Moshontz, Hannah; Niebaum, Jesse C.; Orben, Amy; Parsons, Sam; Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Michael

doi:10.31234/osf.io/cfzyx

Cited by 50 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A multifaceted approach will likely be required, with iterative evaluation and careful scrutiny of reform initiatives (Hardwicke et al, 2020). At the educational level, guidance and resources are available to aid researchers (Crüwell et al, 2018;Klein et al, 2018). At the institutional level, there is evidence that funder and journal policies can be effective at fomenting change (Hardwicke et al, 2018;Nuijten et al, 2018) and these initiatives should be translated and disseminated where relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014-2017)

Hardwicke¹,

Thibault²,

Kosie

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives have emphasized the benefits of several transparency and reproducibility-related research practices; however, their adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. To estimate their prevalence, we manually examined a random sample of 250 psychology articles published between 2014-2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65% [95% confidence interval, 59%-71%]); however, sharing of research materials (26/183, 14% [10%-19%]), study protocols (0/188, 0% [0%-1%]), raw data (4/188, 2% [1%-4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188, 1% [0%-1%]) was rare. Pre-registration was also uncommon (5/188, 3% [1%-5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228, 62% [56%-69%]), but conflict of interest statements were less common (88/228, 39% [32%-45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188, 5% [3%-8%]) and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183, 11% [8%-16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183, 7% [4%-10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish a baseline which can be used to assess future progress towards increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014-2017)

Hardwicke¹,

Thibault²,

Kosie

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following recommendations for Open Science in Crüwell et al (2018) and Berez-Kroeker et al (2018), the data and code used to produce the analyses discussed in this paper are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/bfyhr/.…”

Section: Open Science Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory study of voicing-related differences in vowel duration as compensatory temporal adjustment in Italian and Polish

Coretta

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over a century of phonetic research has established the cross-linguistic existence of the so called "voicing effect", by which vowels tend to be shorter when followed by voiceless stops and longer when the following stop is voiced. However, no agreement is found among scholars regarding the source of this effect, and several causal accounts have been advanced. A notable one is the compensatory temporal adjustment account, according to which the duration of the vowel is inversely correlated with the stop closure duration (voiceless stops having longer closure durations than voiced stops). The compensatory account has been criticised due to lack of empirical support and its vagueness regarding the temporal interval within which compensation is implemented. The results from an exploratory study of Italian and Polish suggest that the duration of the interval between two consecutive stop releases in CVCV words in these languages is not affected by the voicing of the second stop. The durational difference of the first vowel and the stop closure would then follow from differences in timing of the VC boundary within this interval. While other aspects, like production mechanisms related to laryngeal features effects and perceptual biases cannot be ruled out, the data discussed here are compatible with a production account based on compensatory mechanisms.

show abstract

“…The continuing misuse of statistical methods has led to a substantial portion of the literature being unreplicable and most likely untenable (Ioannidis 2005; Open Science Collaboration 2015), which has led to a reform movement around "Open Science," where an increasing number of scientists have focused on improving the use and development of statistics and methodology within psychology. This movement has led to the development of a variety of Open Science practices, such as data sharing (Klein et al 2018), preregistration (Wagenmakers et al 2012), and preregistration's more rigorous sister Registered Reports (RRs; Chambers et al 2014), with the goal of creating transparent and accessible psychological research (Nuijten 2018;Crüwell et al 2018). Importantly, transparent scientific practices can counteract the effect of cognitive biases and other pressures that may affect the reproducibility of scientific findings (Munafò et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robust Standards in Cognitive Science

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent discussions within the mathematical psychology community have focused on how Open Science practices may apply to cognitive modelling. Lee et al. (2019) sketched an initial approach for adapting Open Science practices that have been developed for experimental psychology research to the unique needs of cognitive modelling. While we welcome the general proposal of Lee et al. (2019), we believe a more fine-grained view is necessary to accommodate the adoption of Open Science practices in the diverse areas of cognitive modelling. Firstly, we suggest a categorization for the diverse types of cognitive modelling, which we argue will allow researchers to more clearly adapt Open Science practices to different types of cognitive modelling. Secondly, we consider the feasibility and usefulness of preregistration and lab notebooks for each of these categories and address potential objections to preregistration in cognitive modelling. Finally, we separate several cognitive modelling concepts that we believe Lee et al. (2019) conflated, which should allow for greater consistency and transparency in the modelling process. At a general level, we propose a framework that emphasizes local consistency in approaches while allowing for global diversity in modelling practices.

show abstract

7 Easy Steps to Open Science: An Annotated Reading List

Cited by 50 publications

References 26 publications

Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014-2017)

Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014-2017)

An exploratory study of voicing-related differences in vowel duration as compensatory temporal adjustment in Italian and Polish

Robust Standards in Cognitive Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About