What Psychology Teachers Should Know About Open Science and the New Statistics

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-179
Author(s):  
Beth Morling ◽  
Robert J. Calin-Jageman
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Psychology Courses ◽  
Psychology Teachers ◽  
New Statistics ◽  
Science Movement

Psychology teachers have likely heard about the “replication crisis” and the “open science movement” in psychology, and they are probably aware that psychologists have proposed new standards for research practice. How should our psychology courses reflect these new standards? We describe several modern practices that have transformed our field and that seem likely to endure: preregistration of studies, transparency of reporting, norms for replication, and the new statistical focus on estimation and precision. We offer suggestions for how to integrate these new practices into psychology courses.

scholarly journals What Psychology Teachers Should Know about Open Science and the New Statistics (Morling & Calin-Jageman, 2020)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Morling ◽  
Robert Calin-Jageman
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Teaching Of Psychology ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Psychology Courses ◽  
Psychology Teachers ◽  
New Statistics ◽  
Science Movement

This article is in press at the journal Teaching of Psychology (Generalists' Corner). ABSTRACT: Psychology teachers have likely heard about the “replication crisis” and the “open science movement” in psychology, and they are probably aware that psychologists have proposed newstandards for research practice. How should our psychology courses reflect these new practices?We describe several modern practices that have transformed our field and that seem likely toendure: preregistration of studies, transparency of reporting, norms for replication, and the newstatistical focus on estimation and precision. We offer suggestions for how to integrate these newpractices into psychology courses.

scholarly journals Advancing Transparency and Impact of Research: Initiating Crosstalk between Indigenous Research and Mainstream “Open Science”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Priscilla Lui ◽  
Monica C. Skewes ◽  
Sarah Gobrial ◽  
David Rollock
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Native Communities ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Human Functioning ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Science Movement

To answer questions about human psychology, psychological science needs to yield credible findings. Because of their goals of understanding people’s lived experiences and advocating for the needs of the Native communities, Indigenous scholars tend to use community-based participatory research (CBPR) or approach science from a constructivist framework. The primary goal of mainstream psychological science is to uncover generalizable facts about human functioning. Approached from a postpositivist framework, mainstream psychological scholars tend to assume the possibility of identifying researcher biases and achieving objective science. Recently, many psychological findings fail to replicate in new samples. The replication crisis raised concerns about the validity of psychological science. The mainstream open science has been promoted as a solution to this replication crisis; the open science movement encourages researchers to emphasize transparency and accountability to the broad research community. The notion of transparency aligns with the principles of CBPR—research approach common in Indigenous research. Yet, open science practices are not widely adopted in Indigenous research, and mainstream open science does not emphasize researchers’ accountability to the communities that their science is intended to serve. We examined Indigenous researchers’ awareness and concerns about mainstream open science. Participants endorsed the value of transparency with the participants and their communities. They also were concerned about being disadvantaged and the possible negative impact of data sharing on the Native communities. We suggest that there is value in connecting mainstream open science and Indigenous research to advance science that empowers people and makes positive community impact.

Open Science: Recommendations for research on school bullying

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Noret ◽  
Simon C. Hunter ◽  
Sofia Milheiro Pimenta ◽  
Rachel Taylor ◽  
Rebecca Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
School Bullying ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Participatory Research Methods ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement has developed out of growing concerns over the scientific standard of published academic research and a perception that science is in crisis (the "replication crisis"). Bullying research sits within this scientific family and without taking a full part in discussions risks falling behind. Open science practices can inform and support a range of research goals while increasing the transparency and trustworthiness of the research process. In this paper, we aim to explain the relevance of open science for bullying research and discuss some of the questionable research practices which challenge the replicability and integrity of research. We also consider how open science practices can be of benefit to research on school bullying. In doing so, we discuss how open science practices, such as pre-registration, can be of benefit to a range of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative research and studies employing a participatory research methods approach. To support researchers in adopting more open practices, we also highlight a range of relevant resources and set out a series of recommendations to the bullying research community.

A Call to Develop Standards for Those Delivering ‘Research Practice’ Training

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Kingsley
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
The North

The nature of the research endeavour is changing rapidly and requires a wide set of skills beyond the research focus. The delivery of aspects of researcher training ‘beyond the bench’ is met by different sections of an institution, including the research office, the media office and the library. In Australia researcher training in open access, research data management and other aspects of open science is primarily offered by librarians. But what training do librarians receive in scholarly communication within their librarianship degrees? For a degree to be offered in librarianship and information science, it must be accredited by the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), with a curriculum that is based on ALIA’s lists of skills and attributes. However, these lists do not contain any reference to key open research terms and are almost mutually exclusive with core competencies in scholarly communication as identified by the North American Serials Interest Group and an international Joint Task Force. Over the past decade teaching by academics in universities has been professionalised with courses and qualifications. Those responsible for researcher training within universities and the material that is being offered should also meet an agreed accreditation. This paper is arguing that there is a clear need to develop parallel standards around ‘research practice’ training for PhD students and Early Career Researchers, and those delivering this training should be able to demonstrate their skills against these standards. Models to begin developing accreditation standards are starting to emerge, with the recent launch of the Centre for Academic Research Quality and Improvement in the UK. There are multiple organisations, both grassroots and long-established that would be able to contribute to this project.

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para repositório conforme a Ciência Aberta

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angélica Conceição Dias Miranda ◽  
Milton Shintaku ◽  
Simone Machado Firme
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Open File ◽  
Research Institutes ◽  
Criteria For Evaluation ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Bibliographic Study

Resumo: Os repositórios têm se tornado comum nas universidades e institutos de pesquisa, como forma de ofertar acesso à produção científica e, com isso, dar visibilidade à instituição. Entretanto, em muitos casos ainda estão restritos aos conceitos do movimento do arquivo aberto e acesso aberto, sendo que já se discute o Movimento da Ciência Aberta, revelando certo descompasso, requerendo estudos que apoiem a atualização dessa importante ferramenta. Nesse sentido, o presente estudo verifica os requisitos envolvidos nos movimentos abertos, de forma a apoiar a discussão técnica e tecnológica. Um estudo bibliográfico, que transforma as informações sobre os movimentos em critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para criação de repositórios, apresentando a implementação da interação como um novo desafio. Nas considerações procura-se contribuir com a discussão sobre a Ciência Aberta, de forma mais aplicada bem como o ajuste dos repositórios a esse movimento.Palavras-chave: Repositórios.  Critérios de avaliação. Arquivo aberto. Acesso aberto. Dados abertos. Ciência aberta.SURVEY OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF REPOSITORY TOOLS ACCORDING TO OPEN SCIENCE Abstract: Repositories have become common in universities and research institutes, as a way of offering access to scientific production, thereby giving visibility to the institution. Meanwhile, in many cases, repositories are restricted to the concepts of open movement and open access considering that the Open Science Movement is already being discussed. Regarding this matter, this study verifies the requirements involved in the open movements, in order to support a technical and technological discussion.  A bibliographic study that transforms information about movements into criteria to evaluate tools used to create repositories, presenting an implementation of interaction as a new challenge. In the considerations, we contribute with a discussion about an Open Science, in a more applied way, as well as the adjustment of the repositories to this movement.Keywords: Repositories. Evaluation Criteria. Open File. Open Access. Open Data. Open Science.

scholarly journals Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of Religion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Jane Charles ◽  
James Edward Bartlett ◽  
Kyle J. Messick ◽  
Thomas Joseph Coleman ◽  
Alex Uzdavines
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Psychology Of Religion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
The Way

There is a push in psychology toward more transparent practices, stemming partially as a response to the replication crisis. We argue that the psychology of religion should help lead the way toward these new, more transparent practices to ensure a robust and dynamic subfield. One of the major issues that proponents of Open Science practices hope to address is researcher degrees of freedom (RDF). We pre-registered and conducted a systematic review of the 2017 issues from three psychology of religion journals. We aimed to identify the extent to which the psychology of religion has embraced Open Science practices and the role of RDF within the subfield. We found that many of the methodologies that help to increase transparency, such as pre-registration, have yet to be adopted by those in the subfield. In light of these findings, we present recommendations for addressing the issue of transparency in the psychology of religion and outline how to move toward these new Open Science practices.

scholarly journals Alchemy & algorithms: perspectives on the philosophy and history of open science

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Lahti ◽  
Filipe da Silva ◽  
Markus Laine ◽  
Viivi Lähteenoja ◽  
Mikko Tolonen
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Community Resource ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Video And Audio ◽  
The University ◽  
Science Movement

This paper gives the reader a chance to experience, or revisit, PHOS16: a conference on the History and Philosophy of Open Science. In the winter of 2016, we invited a varied international group to engage with these topics at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Our aim was to critically assess the defining features, underlying narratives, and overall objectives of the open science movement. The event brought together contemporary open science scholars, publishers, and advocates to discuss the philosophical foundations and historical roots of openness in academic research. The eight sessions combined historical views with more contemporary perspectives on topics such as transparency, reproducibility, collaboration, publishing, peer review, research ethics, as well as societal impact and engagement. We gathered together expert panellists and 15 invited speakers who have published extensively on these topics, allowing us to engage in a thorough and multifaceted discussion. Together with our involved audience we charted the role and foundations of openness of research in our time, considered the accumulation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, and debated the various technical, legal, and ethical challenges of the past and present. In this article, we provide an overview of the topics covered at the conference as well as individual video interviews with each speaker. In addition to this, all the talks, Q&A sessions, and interviews were recorded and they are offered here as an openly licensed community resource in both video and audio form.

scholarly journals Improving Social Science: Lessons from the Open Science Movement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Engzell ◽  
Julia Marie Rohrer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Exchange ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Science Movement

The transdisciplinary movement towards greater research transparency opens the door for a meta-scientific exchange between different social sciences. In the spirit of such an exchange, we offer some lessons inspired by ongoing debates in psychology, highlighting the broad benefits of open science but also potential pitfalls, as well as practical challenges in the implementation that have not yet been fully resolved. Our discussion is aimed towards political scientists but relevant for population sciences more broadly.

Open Science and Its Impact on Libraries, Publishers, and Authors

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
Josiline Phiri Chigwada
Keyword(s):  
Information Sources ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The Body ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Structured Document ◽  
Science Movement

The open science movement enables the accessibility and reusability of research output across the globe. Researchers and other stakeholders in the research process can now easily collaborate to add to the body of knowledge. This chapter documents how open science is impacting the role of libraries, publishers, and authors in the digital era. A structured document analysis and web analysis were done to find out how authors, publishers, and librarians are affected by open science. It was found that librarians are taking advantage of open science to provide various information sources to patrons, the publishers are now charging article processing fees to make the journal articles open access upon publishing, and authors are now able to access many information sources during the research process and enjoy greater visibility of their research output. The author recommends the adoption of open science especially in the developing countries and the enactment of policies that support open science at national, regional, and international levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document