scholarly journals Emerging Privacy Issues in Times of Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Erb ◽  
Christoph Bösch ◽  
Cornelia Herbert ◽  
Frank Kargl ◽  
Christian Montag
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Important Challenge ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Privacy Issues

The open science movement has taken up the important challenge to increase transparency of statistical analyses, to facilitate reproducibility of studies, and to enhance reusability of data sets. To counter the replication crisis in the psychological and related sciences, the movement also urges researchers to publish their primary data sets alongside their articles. While such data publications represent a desirable improvement in terms of transparency and are also helpful for future research (e.g., subsequent meta-analyses or replication studies), we argue that such a procedure can worsen existing privacy issues that are insufficiently considered so far in this context. Recent advances in de-anonymization and re-identification techniques render privacy protection increasingly difficult, as prevalent anonymization mechanisms for handling participants' data might no longer be adequate. When exploiting publicly shared primary data sets, data from multiple studies can be linked with contextual data and eventually, participants can be de-anonymized. Such attacks can either re-identify specific individuals of interest, or they can be used to de-anonymize entire participant cohorts. The threat of de-anonymization attacks can endanger the perceived confidentiality of responses by participants, and ultimately, lower the overall trust of potential participants into the research process due to privacy concerns.

scholarly journals Data Sharing in Psychology

Psychology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joy Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Data Repositories ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Explicit Consent ◽  
Meta Analyses

Narrowly defined, data sharing is the practice of making scientific research data available to other researchers. However, the term is often used to include a variety of open-science practices, including making data, methodology (e.g., coding scheme), analytic syntax, and other research materials available to other researchers, as well as the reuse of those resources by others. There are multiple avenues for data sharing, for example data repositories (either subscription-based or free) or direct request to the researcher. Data sharing is a fairly common practice in the life and earth sciences. Excepting a handful of longitudinal projects, psychology lacks this robust historical precedent for sharing data. In fact, in the not-so-distant past, institutional review boards typically required that data be destroyed after a preset period in order to protect participants’ privacy—and some still do. And many researchers still do not take the first step—modifying their informed consent procedures to include explicit consent to share. Although still not frequent, data sharing in psychology is becoming more common. In part, this trend is being driven by the requirements set by publications and funding agencies. For publications, data sharing is intrinsic to transparency and replication of study findings. For funders, data sharing ensures greater return on investment—that expensive and time-consuming primary data collection does not wind up sitting on a dusty shelf, but rather can be reused for secondary data analysis to answer new questions. In psychology as in other fields, technological improvements in storage capacity and computing power have also facilitated data sharing and reuse. While many psychologists are still concerned that data sharing will result in being “scooped” or found in error, there is increasing recognition of the benefits of data sharing. First, data repositories ensure that data are archived, and that the burden of preservation does not fall on the researcher or the researcher’s institution. Sharing also increases the pace of scientific progress, as researchers can build on each other’s work. For example, researchers can learn how other experts approached measurement or coding of a given outcome. In replication studies, inconsistent findings can point to contextual variations in the construct under study, rather than researcher error. And in a field where null findings are often difficult to publish, sharing allows these data to be included in meta-analyses across studies to examine broader impacts. Most importantly, data sharing enhances transparency, a key ingredient in the scientific process.

scholarly journals A Series of Meta-Analytic Tests of the Efficacy of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Franz Josef Woll ◽  
Felix D. Schönbrodt
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. Recent meta-analyses come to conflicting conclusions about the efficacy of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP). Our first goal was to reproduce the most recent meta-analysis by Leichsenring, Abbass, Luyten, Hilsenroth, and Rabung (2013) who found evidence for the efficacy of LTPP in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Our replicated effect sizes were in general slightly smaller. Second, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LTPP (lasting for at least 1 year and 40 sessions) to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. We focused on a transparent research process according to open science standards and applied a series of elaborated meta-analytic procedures to test and control for publication bias. Our updated meta-analysis comprising 191 effect sizes from 14 eligible studies revealed small, statistically significant effect sizes at post-treatment for the outcome domains psychiatric symptoms, target problems, social functioning, and overall effectiveness (Hedges’ g ranging between 0.24 and 0.35). The effect size for the domain personality functioning (0.24) was not significant ( p = .08). No signs for publication bias could be detected. In light of a heterogeneous study set and some methodological shortcomings in the primary studies, these results should be interpreted cautiously. In conclusion, LTPP might be superior to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Notably, our effect sizes represent the additional gain of LTPP versus other forms of primarily long-term psychotherapy. In this case, large differences in effect sizes are not to be expected.

Experimental deception: Science, performance, and reproducibility

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrianne John R. Galang
Keyword(s):  
Internal Validity ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Control Of Variables ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Using Data ◽  
And Control ◽  
Efficient Transmission ◽  
Experimental Deception

Experimental deception has not been seriously examined in terms of its impact on reproducible science. I demonstrate, using data from the Open Science Collaboration’s Reproducibility Project (2015), that experiments involving deception have a higher probability of not replicating and have smaller effect sizes compared to experiments that do not have deception procedures. This trend is possibly due to missing information about the context and performance of agents in the studies in which the original effects were generated, leading to either compromised internal validity, or an incomplete specification and control of variables in replication studies. Of special interest are the mechanisms by which deceptions are implemented and how these present challenges for the efficient transmission of critical information from experimenter to participant. I rehearse possible frameworks that might form the basis of a future research program on experimental deception and make some recommendations as to how such a program might be initiated.

scholarly journals How to Teach Open Science Principles in the Undergraduate Curriculum—The Hagen Cumulative Science Project

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Jekel ◽  
Susann Fiedler ◽  
Ramona Allstadt Torras ◽  
Dorothee Mischkowski ◽  
Angela Rachael Dorrough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Undergraduate Curriculum ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Community Benefits ◽  
Science Instructors ◽  
Thesis Work

The Hagen Cumulative Science Project is a large-scale replication project based on students’ thesis work. In the project, we aim to (a) teach students to conduct the entire research process for conducting a replication according to open science standards and (b) contribute to cumulative science by increasing the number of direct replications. We describe the procedural steps of the project from choosing suitable replication studies to guiding students through the process of conducting a replication, and processing results in a meta-analysis. Based on the experience of more than 80 replications, we summarize how such a project can be implemented. We present practical solutions that have been shown to be successful as well as discuss typical obstacles and how they can be solved. We argue that replication projects are beneficial for all groups involved: Students benefit by being guided through a highly structured protocol and making actual contributions to science. Instructors benefit by using time resources effectively for cumulative science and fulfilling teaching obligations in a meaningful way. The scientific community benefits from the resulting greater number of replications and teaching state-of-the-art methodology. We encourage the use of student thesis-based replication projects for thesis work in academic bachelor and master curricula.

scholarly journals Exploring the Challenges of Tertiary Students in Non-Laboratory Courses After the First Year of Emergency Remote Teaching

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 481-492
Author(s):  
Ferdinand Bulusan ◽  
Eva Marie ◽  
Jeng Jeng
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
First Year ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Educational Management ◽  
Spider Web ◽  
Laboratory Courses ◽  
Data Collection Technique

<p style="text-align: justify;">Shortly after the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic began, studies on the challenges faced by tertiary students during Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) became available. However, the data sets were harvested early, as many countries began implementing ERT in response to the pandemic in March 2020. Many recent studies have failed to distinguish between the challenges faced by students enrolled in the laboratory and non-laboratory courses. There is still a dearth of literature on the difficulties encountered by students enrolled in non-laboratory courses following the first year of ERT implementation. The purpose of this paper was to examine the various challenges faced by tertiary students enrolled in non-laboratory courses following the conclusion of the first year of ERT implementation. Contextualized in two state-owned higher education institutions in northern Luzon, this study employed a fundamental qualitative approach, with focus group discussions (FGDs) serving as the primary data collection technique. Five major themes emerged from the FGDs with 42 purposively selected tertiary students. These themes presented in the spider web illustration include (1) student-focused challenges, (2) instructional material-related challenges, (3) instructor-emanating challenges, (4) technology-related challenges, and (5) student support-related challenges. This article concludes that these issues must be dealt with immediately to facilitate the implementation of ERT in non-laboratory courses. These difficulties may also be dimensions of concerns about distance education, particularly in non-urban areas of the Philippines. The themes also provide some actual pictures of the student challenges in the initial year of ERT in college. This paper highlighted some implications for pedagogy and educational management, as well as future research directions.</p>

scholarly journals Psychology and open science in Africa: Why is it needed and how can we implement it?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soufian Azouaghe ◽  
Adeyemi Adetula ◽  
Patrick S. Forscher ◽  
Dana Basnight-Brown ◽  
Nihal Ouherrou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Western World ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Replication Crisis

The quality of scientific research is assessed not only by its positive impact on socio-economic development and human well-being, but also by its contribution to the development of valid and reliable scientific knowledge. Thus, researchers regardless of their scientific discipline, are supposed to adopt research practices based on transparency and rigor. However, the history of science and the scientific literature teach us that a part of scientific results is not systematically reproducible (Ioannidis, 2005). This is what is commonly known as the "replication crisis" which concerns the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, of which psychology is no exception.Firstly, we aim to address some aspects of the replication crisis and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). Secondly, we discuss how we can involve more labs in Africa to take part in the global research process, especially the Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA). For these goals, we will develop a tutorial for the labs in Africa, by highlighting the open science practices. In addition, we emphasize that it is substantial to identify African labs needs and factors that hinder their participating in the PSA, and the support needed from the Western world. Finally, we discuss how to make psychological science more participatory and inclusive.

scholarly journals Perhaps Psychology’s Replication Crisis is a Theoretical Crisis that is Only Masquerading as a Statistical One

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Green
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Significance Test ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Errors ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Important Challenge ◽  
Scientific Truth ◽  
Post Hoc

The “replication crisis” may well be the single most important challenge facing empirical psychological research today. It appears that highly trained scientists, often without understanding the potentially dire long-term implications, have been mishandling standard statistical procedures in the service of attaining statistical “significance.” Exacerbating the problem, most academic journals do not publish research that has not produced a “significant” result. This toxic combination has resulted in journals apparently publishing many Type I errors and declining to publish many true failures to reject H0. In response, there has been an urgent call from some psychologists that studies be registered in advance so that their rationales, hypotheses, variables, sample sizes, and statistical analyses are recorded in advance, leaving less room for post hoc manipulation. In this chapter, I argue that this “open science” approach, though laudable, will prove insufficient because the null hypothesis significance test (NHST) is a poor criterion for scientific truth, even when it is handled correctly. The root of the problem is that, whatever statistical problems psychology may have, the discipline never developed the theoretical maturity required. For decades it has been satisfied testing weak theories that predict, at best, only the direction of the effect, rather than the size of effect. Indeed, uncritical acceptance of NHST by the discipline may have served to stunt psychology’s theoretical growth by giving researchers a way of building a successful career without having to develop models that make precise predictions. Improving our statistical “hygiene” would be a good thing, to be sure, but it is unlikely to resolve psychology’s growing credibility problem until our theoretical practices mature considerably.

scholarly journals Video-Based Interviewing in Medicine: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajajee Selvam ◽  
Richard Hu ◽  
Reilly Musselman ◽  
Isabelle Raiche ◽  
Husein Moloo
Keyword(s):  
Current Literature ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Interview Process ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Careers in healthcare involve an extensive interview process as transitions are made from one level of training to the next. For physicians, interviews mark the gateway from entrance into medical school, acceptance into residency, fellowships, and subsequent job opportunities. Previous literature outlining the costs associated with face-to-face interviews and concerns regarding the climate crisis has triggered an interest in video-based interviews. Barriers to transitioning away from in person interviews include concerns regarding lack of rapport between applicants and interviewers, and applicants being less able to represent themselves. In a new era ushered in by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) where many of us have utilized virtual meetings more than any prior time both personally and for work, we wanted to consolidate the current literature on the use of video-based interviews in healthcare and summarize the findings. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted to explore the benefits and limitations of video-based interviews for both applicants and interviewers within healthcare fields, as well as the perceived barriers associated with transitioning away from face-to-face interviews. The scoping review methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley will be implemented. The search strategy developed by the authors in collaboration with an academic health sciences librarian will be conducted across four electronic databases (Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central, and PsycInfo) from 1947 to March 30, 2020 and supplemented by review of the grey literature and reference lists of included studies. The study selection process will be documented in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and reasons for exclusion following full text review will be recorded. The extracted data will be analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis. The protocol for this scoping review has been registered in Open Science Framework. Discussion: Despite previous literature on the costs associated with face-to-face interviews, there has been hesitancy with transitioning to video-based interviews due to concerns of lack of rapport between applicants and interviewers, and applicants being less able to represent themselves. While these limitations have been explored in previous studies, a succinct review of the current literature to guide effective restructuring of the interview process is lacking. With our scoping review, we hope to fill this gap in the literature to better understand barriers to transitioning from face-to-face interviews and directions for future research.

scholarly journals INFORMATION SUPPORT TOOLS FOR THE LIFE CYCLE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: DIGITALIZATION OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MASTERS

2021 ◽  
pp. 103-115
Author(s):  
Olena Kuzminska
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Information Support ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
International Labor ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Scholarly Communications

Education and science digitalization belongs to the priority areas of information society development. However, we can observe that while Ukraine enters the European educational and scientific space, Ukrainian scientists cannot yet efficiently compete in the international labor market. One of the reasons behind this is that Ukrainian scientists and researchers are not fully integrated into the world system of digital scholarly communication. To help researchers use digital tools supporting scholarly communication, many companies carry out various educational events to support open science and initiate international research and projects. Under modern conditions the digitalization of scientific communication went to the front-burner due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the forced transition to digital scholarly communications through the COVID-19 pandemic can help integrate young scientists, including masters of higher education, into the international scientific space. This article provides an analysis of tools to support scholarly communication developed within the «101 innovation of scholarly communication» project. The international survey demonstrates the tools that scientists prefer to use at each stage of the research. This paper characterizes the advantages of particular tools on different stages of the masters’ research process induced by the current tendency for scholarly communication digitalization and the limitations for masters’ research. During the work, we outlined the scope for future research and found it necessary to conduct an additional survey for the scholarly community.

scholarly journals A Series of Meta-Analytic Tests of the Efficacy of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Franz Josef Woll ◽  
Felix D. Schönbrodt
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy ◽  
Meta Analyses

Recent meta-analyses come to conflicting conclusions about the efficacy of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP). Our first goal was to reproduce the most recent meta-analysis by Leichsenring, Abbass, Luyten, Hilsenroth, and Rabung (2013) who found evidence for the efficacy of LTPP in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Our replicated effect sizes were in general slightly smaller. Second, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LTPP (lasting for at least one year and 40 sessions) to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. We focused on a transparent research process according to open science standards and applied a series of elaborated meta-analytic procedures to test and control for publication bias. Our updated meta-analysis comprising 191 effect sizes from 14 eligible studies revealed small, statistically significant effect sizes at post-treatment for the outcome domains psychiatric symptoms, target problems, social functioning, and overall effectiveness (Hedges’ g ranging between 0.24 and 0.35). The effect size for the domain personality functioning (0.24) was not significant (p = .08). No signs for publication bias could be detected. In light of a heterogeneous study set and some methodological shortcomings in the primary studies, these results should be interpreted cautiously. In conclusion, LTPP might be superior to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Notably, our effect sizes represent the additional gain of LTPP vs. other forms of primarily long-term psychotherapy. In this case, large differences in effect sizes are not to be expected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document