scholarly journals Teaching Good Research Practices: Protocol of a Research Master Course

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Sarafoglou ◽  
Suzanne Hoogeveen ◽  
Dora Matzke ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Public Sharing ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Good Research

The current crisis of confidence in psychological science has spurred on fieldwide reforms to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and replicability. To solidify these reforms within the scientific community, student courses on open science practices are essential. Here we describe the content of our Research Master course “Good Research Practices” which we have designed and taught at the University of Amsterdam. Supported by Chambers’ recent book The 7 Deadly Sins of Psychology, the course covered topics such as QRPs, the importance of direct and conceptual replication studies, preregistration, and the public sharing of data, code, and analysis plans. We adopted a pedagogical approach that (1) reduced teacher-centered lectures to a minimum; (2) emphasized practical training on open science practices; (3) encouraged students to engage in the ongoing discussions in the open science community on social media platforms.

scholarly journals Teaching Good Research Practices: Protocol of a Research Master Course

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-59
Author(s):  
Alexandra Sarafoglou ◽  
Suzanne Hoogeveen ◽  
Dora Matzke ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Public Sharing ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Good Research

The current crisis of confidence in psychological science has spurred on field-wide reforms to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and replicability. To solidify these reforms within the scientific community, student courses on open science practices are essential. Here we describe the content of our Research Master course “Good Research Practices” which we have designed and taught at the University of Amsterdam. Supported by Chambers’ recent book The 7 Deadly Sins of Psychology, the course covered topics such as QRPs, the importance of direct and conceptual replication studies, preregistration, and the public sharing of data, code, and analysis plans. We adopted a pedagogical approach that: (a) reduced teacher-centered lectures to a minimum; (b) emphasized practical training on open science practices; and (c) encouraged students to engage in the ongoing discussions in the open science community on social media platforms.

scholarly journals Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016 – 2019): A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric R. Louderback ◽  
Sally M Gainsbury ◽  
Robert Heirene ◽  
Karen Amichia ◽  
Alessandra Grossman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open publication, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods to behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016 – 12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice’s prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI:[0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI:[2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI:[31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI:[5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI:[0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI:[12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI:[4.6, 8.9]) used a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI:[1.4, 4.2]) of the studies were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more broadly.

Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Fox ◽  
Katy E Pearce ◽  
Adrienne L Massanari ◽  
Julius Matthew Riles ◽  
Łukasz Szulc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Respect For Persons ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Communication ◽  
The Future

Abstract The open science (OS) movement has advocated for increased transparency in certain aspects of research. Communication is taking its first steps toward OS as some journals have adopted OS guidelines codified by another discipline. We find this pursuit troubling as OS prioritizes openness while insufficiently addressing essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Some recommended open science practices increase the potential for harm for marginalized participants, communities, and researchers. We elaborate how OS can serve a marginalizing force within academia and the research community, as it overlooks the needs of marginalized scholars and excludes some forms of scholarship. We challenge the current instantiation of OS and propose a divergent agenda for the future of Communication research centered on ethical, inclusive research practices.

Collaboration in Giftedness and Talent Development Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-107
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Makel ◽  
Kendal N. Smith ◽  
Erin M. Miller ◽  
Scott J. Peters ◽  
Matthew T. McBee
Keyword(s):  
Gifted Education ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Development Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Improvement

Existing research practices in gifted education have many areas for potential improvement so that they can provide useful, generalizable evidence to various stakeholders. In this article, we first review the field’s current research practices and consider the quality and utility of its research findings. Next, we discuss how open science practices increase the transparency of research so readers can more effectively evaluate its validity. Third, we introduce five large-scale collaborative research models that are being used in other fields and discuss how they could be implemented in gifted education research. Finally, we review potential challenges and limitations to implementing collaborative research models in gifted education. We believe greater use of large-scale collaboration will help the field overcome some of its methodological challenges to help provide more precise and accurate information about gifted education.

Support for Open Science Practices in Emotion Science: A Survey Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olmo Van den Akker ◽  
Laura Danielle Scherer ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts ◽  
Sander Koole
Keyword(s):  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Methodological Rigor ◽  
Negative Findings ◽  
Larger Sample

So-called “open science practices” seek to improve research transparency and methodological rigor. What do emotion researchers think about these practices? To address this question, we surveyed active emotion researchers (N= 144) in October 2019 about their attitudes toward several open science practices. Overall, the majority of emotion researchers had positive attitudes toward open science practices and expressed a willingness to engage in such practices. Emotion researchers on average believed that replicability would improve by publishing more negative findings, by requiring open data and materials, and by conducting studies with larger sample sizes. Direct replications, multi-lab studies, and preregistration were all seen as beneficial to the replicability of emotion research. Emotion researchers believed that more direct replications would be conducted if replication studies would receive increased funding, more citations, and easier publication in high impact journals. Emotion researchers believed that preregistration would be stimulated by providing researchers with more information about its benefits and more guidance on its effective application. Overall, these findings point to considerable momentum with regard to open science among emotion researchers. This momentum may be leveraged to achieve a more robust emotion science.

scholarly journals Privacy versus Open Science

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Dennis ◽  
Paul Michael Garrett ◽  
Hyungwook Yim ◽  
Jihun Hamm ◽  
Adam F Osth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Privacy Preserving ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Good Research

Pervasive internet and sensor technologies promise to revolutionize psychological science. However, the data collected using these technologies is often very personal - indeed the value of the data is often directly related to how personal it is. At the same time, driven by the replication crisis, there is a sustained push to publish data to open repositories. These movements are in fundamental conflict. In this paper, we propose a way to navigate this issue. We argue that there are significant advantages to be gained by ceding the ownership of data to the participants who generate it. Then we provide desiderata for a privacy-preserving platform. In particular, we suggest that researchers should use an interface to perform experiments and run analyses rather than observing the stimuli themselves. We argue that this method not only improves privacy but will also encourage greater compliance with good research practices than is possible with open repositories.

scholarly journals Advancing the Cognitive Science of Religion through Replication and Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Hoogeveen ◽  
Michiel van Elk
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cognitive Science Of Religion ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Science Of Religion

The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is a relatively young but prolific field that has offered compelling insights into religious minds and practices. However, many empirical findings within this field are still preliminary and their reliability remains to be determined. In this paper, we first argue that it is crucial to critically evaluate the CSR literature and adopt open science practices and replication research in particular to move the field forward. Second, we highlight the outcomes of previous replications and make suggestions for future replication studies in the CSR, with a particular focus on neuroscience, developmental psychology, and qualitative research. Finally, we provide a ‘replication script’ with advice on how to select, conduct, and organize replication research. Our approach is illustrated with a ‘glimpse behind the scenes’ of the recently launched Cross-Cultural Religious Replication Project, in the hope of inspiring scholars of religion to embrace open science and replication in their own research.

scholarly journals Preregistration in the Context of Expertise Research: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moreau
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Expert Performance ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Design Characteristics ◽  
Small Sample Sizes

A number of recent reforms in psychological science have centered around following best practices to improve the robustness and reliability of empirical findings. Among these, preregistration has become a fundamental component, on the rise in the last few years, yet it remains relatively uncommon in expertise research. In this paper, I point out the numerous benefits of preregistration, drawing on specific examples from the field of expertise. I then examine some of the challenges the field of psychology is currently facing to implement systematic preregistration, including many that are particularly exacerbated in expertise research. Specifically, I discuss widespread design characteristics such as small sample sizes, the lack of consistent definitions regarding what constitutes expert performance, and inherent difficulties in conducting replication studies with rare, elite populations. Finally, I make a number of recommendations to facilitate preregistration in expertise research, including tips to handle and report deviations from original plans, and discuss future directions toward more prevalent open science practices.

scholarly journals Questionable and Open Research Practices: Attitudes and Perceptions among Quantitative Communication Researchers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert N Bakker ◽  
Jaidka Kokil ◽  
Timothy Dörr ◽  
Neil Fasching ◽  
Yphtach Lelkes
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Work ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Pluralistic Ignorance ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions

Abstract Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices (QRPs) are believed to be widespread, evidence for this belief is, primarily, derived from other disciplines. Therefore, it is largely unknown to what extent QRPs are used in quantitative communication research and whether researchers embrace open research practices (ORPs). We surveyed first and corresponding authors of publications in the top-20 journals in communication science. Many researchers report using one or more QRPs. We find widespread pluralistic ignorance: QRPs are generally rejected, but researchers believe they are prevalent. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices. In all, our study has implications for theories in communication that rely upon a cumulative body of empirical work: these theories are negatively affected by QRPs but can gain credibility if based upon ORPs. We outline an agenda to move forward as a discipline.

scholarly journals Optimizing the Scientific Study of Suicide with Open and Transparent Research Practices

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Carpenter ◽  
Keyne C. Law
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
Psychology Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Large Samples ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Standard Practices

Suicide research is vitally important, yet—like psychology research more broadly—faces methodological challenges. In recent years, researchers have raised concerns about standard practices in psychological research, concerns that apply to suicide research and raise questions about its robustness and validity. In the present paper, we review these concerns and the corresponding solutions put forth by the ‘open science’ community. These include using open science platforms, pre-registering studies, ensuring reproducible analyses, using high-powered studies, ensuring open access to research materials and products, and conducting replication studies. We build upon existing guides, address specific obstacles faced by suicide researchers, and offer a clear set of recommended practices for suicide researchers. In particular, we consider challenges that suicide researchers may face in seeking to adopt ‘open science’ practices (e.g., prioritizing large samples) and suggest possible strategies that the field may use in order to ensure robust and transparent research, despite these challenges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document