scholarly journals The past, present, and future of ego depletion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Inzlicht ◽  
Malte Friese
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Ego Depletion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Scientific Status ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Mere Existence

At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what is suggests about ego depletion; but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological science.

scholarly journals The Past, Present, and Future of Ego Depletion

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 370-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Inzlicht ◽  
Malte Friese
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Ego Depletion ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Mere Existence

Abstract. At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion and Self-Control: Conceptual and Empirical Advances. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what it suggests about ego depletion, but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices, we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological 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 ‘Trust Us’: Open Data and Preregistration in Political Science and International Relations

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bermond Scoggins ◽  
Matthew Peter Robertson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Statistical Inference ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Replication Crisis

The scientific method is predicated on transparency -- yet the pace at which transparent research practices are being adopted by the scientific community is slow. The replication crisis in psychology showed that published findings employing statistical inference are threatened by undetected errors, data manipulation, and data falsification. To mitigate these problems and bolster research credibility, open data and preregistration have increasingly been adopted in the natural and social sciences. While many political science and international relations journals have committed to implementing these reforms, the extent of open science practices is unknown. We bring large-scale text analysis and machine learning classifiers to bear on the question. Using population-level data -- 93,931 articles across the top 160 political science and IR journals between 2010 and 2021 -- we find that approximately 21% of all statistical inference papers have open data, and 5% of all experiments are preregistered. Despite this shortfall, the example of leading journals in the field shows that change is feasible and can be effected quickly.

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 FRET-based dynamic structural biology: Challenges, perspectives and an appeal for open-science practices

eLife ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eitan Lerner ◽  
Anders Barth ◽  
Jelle Hendrix ◽  
Benjamin Ambrose ◽  
Victoria Birkedal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Structural Biology ◽  
Single Molecule ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Biomolecular Structure ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Structure And Dynamics ◽  
Single Molecule Fret ◽  
Current State

Single-molecule FRET (smFRET) has become a mainstream technique for studying biomolecular structural dynamics. The rapid and wide adoption of smFRET experiments by an ever-increasing number of groups has generated significant progress in sample preparation, measurement procedures, data analysis, algorithms and documentation. Several labs that employ smFRET approaches have joined forces to inform the smFRET community about streamlining how to perform experiments and analyze results for obtaining quantitative information on biomolecular structure and dynamics. The recent efforts include blind tests to assess the accuracy and the precision of smFRET experiments among different labs using various procedures. These multi-lab studies have led to the development of smFRET procedures and documentation, which are important when submitting entries into the archiving system for integrative structure models, PDB-Dev. This position paper describes the current ‘state of the art’ from different perspectives, points to unresolved methodological issues for quantitative structural studies, provides a set of ‘soft recommendations’ about which an emerging consensus exists, and lists openly available resources for newcomers and seasoned practitioners. To make further progress, we strongly encourage ‘open science’ practices.

Integration of traditional and innovation processes of development of modern science

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Art History ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Educational Management ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Current State ◽  
Social Communications ◽  
History Of ◽  
Wide Readership ◽  
Innovation Processes

The collective monograph describes the integration of traditional and innovation processes of development of modern science. The general issues of the history of pedagogy, theory and methods of teaching, vocational education and educational management, the current state of philological research, social psychology, social communications, historical sciences, culturology, art history etc. are considered. The publication is intended for scholars, teachers, postgraduate students, and students, as well as a wide readership.

Openness in geoscience - a quantitative assessment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Bosman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Current State ◽  
Publication Data ◽  
Science Application ◽  
Data Requirements ◽  
Opening Up

<p>There is growing consensus that making our research process and outputs more open is necessary to increase transparency, efficiency, reproducibility and relevance of research. With that we should be better able to contribute to answering important questions and overcoming grand challenges. Despite considerable attention for open science, including citizen science, there is no overall baseline showing the current state of openness in our field. This presentation shows results from research that quantitatively charts the adoption of open practices across the geosciences, mostly globally and across the full research workflow. They range from setting research priorities, collaboration with global south researchers and researchers in other disciplines, sharing code and data, sharing posters online, sharing early versions of papers as preprints, publishing open access, opening up peer review, using open licenses when sharing, to engaging with potential stakeholders of research outcomes and reaching out to the wider public. The assessment uses scientometric data, publication data, data from sharing platforms and journals, altmetrics data, and mining of abstracts and other outputs, aiming to address the breadth of open science practices. The resulting images show that open science application is not marginal anymore, but at the same time certainly not mainstream. It also shows that limited sharing, limited use of open licenses and limited use of permanent IDs makes this type of assessment very hard. Insights derived from the study are relevant inputs in science policy discussions on data requirements, open access, researcher training and involvement of societal partners.</p>

scholarly journals How open science can benefit bilingualism research: A lesson in six tales

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Dal Ben ◽  
Melanie Brouillard ◽  
Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero ◽  
Hilary Killam ◽  
Lena V. Kremin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Recent Discussion ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Do So

Bilingualism is hard to define, measure, and study. Sparked by the so-called replication crisis in the social sciences, a recent discussion on the advantages of open science is gaining momentum. Here we join this debate to argue that bilingualism research would greatly benefit from embracing open science. We do so in a unique way, by presenting six fictional stories that illustrate how open science practices — sharing preprints, materials, code, and data; pre-registering studies; and joining large-scale collaborations — can strengthen bilingualism research and further improve its quality.

scholarly journals (Re)Building Trust? Journals’ Open Science Badges Influence Trust in Scientists.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Schneider ◽  
Tom Rosman ◽  
Augustin Kelava ◽  
Samuel Merk
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Epistemic Beliefs ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Title Pages ◽  
Moderating Role

As a response to the replication crisis, reforms call for the implementation of open science standards. In this regard, open science badges are a promising method to signal a study’s adherence to open science practices (OSP). In an experimental study, we investigated whether badges on journal article title pages affect non-scientists’ trust in scientists. Furthermore, we analyzed the moderating role of epistemic beliefs in this regard. We randomly assigned 270 non-scientists to two of three conditions: Badges awarded (visible compliance to OSP), badges not awarded (visible non-compliance to OSP) and no badges (compliance not visible, control condition). Results indicate that badges influence trust in scientists as well as the epistemic beliefs of participants. However, epistemic beliefs did not moderate the effect of badges on trust. In sum, our paper provides support to the notion that badges are an effective means to promote epistemic beliefs and trust in scientists.

What do incoming university students believe about open science practices in psychology?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Beaudry ◽  
Matt N Williams ◽  
Michael Carl Philipp ◽  
Emily Jane Kothe
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Incoming Students ◽  
Teaching Implications

Background: Understanding students’ naive conceptions about how science works and the norms that guide scientific best practice is important so that teachers can adapt their teaching to students’ existing understandings. Objective: To describe what incoming undergraduate students of psychology believe about reproducibility and open science practices in psychology. Method: International online survey with participants who were about to start their first course in psychology at a university (N = 239). Results: When asked about how research should be done, most students endorsed most (but not all) of ten open science practices. When asked to estimate the proportion of published psychological studies that apply each of a set of 10 open science practices, participants’ estimates tended to average near 50%. Only 18% of participants had heard of the term “replication crisis.” Conclusion: Despite relatively significant media attention on the replication crisis, few incoming psychology students are familiar with the term. Incoming students nevertheless appear to be sympathetic toward most open science practices, although they may overestimate the prevalence of these practices in psychology. Teaching Implications: Teaching materials aimed at incoming psychology students should not assume pre-existing knowledge about open science or replicability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document