scholarly journals Preprints: a tool and a vehicle towards greater reproducibility in the life sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iratxe Puebla
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Science Practices

We have seen a number of initiatives arise in recent years aiming to tackle concerns around the reproducibility of published findings. Researchers in the life sciences now have a number of tools at their disposal to boost the reproducibility of their science and preprints have emerged as an instrumental element within this toolkit. Preprints broaden the when, by whom and how of the review and feedback on research compared to the journal publication process, help address publication bias, and can play an important role as a vehicle towards open science practices. Preprints hold further untapped potential to close the gap between discovery and dissemination, and to accelerate the path to a more reproducible research ecosystem.

scholarly journals Publishing open, reproducible research with undergraduates

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Feld Strand ◽  
Violet Aurora Brown
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Rapid Pace ◽  
Science Collaboration ◽  
Science Framework

In response to growing concern in psychology and other sciences about low rates of replicability of published findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), there has been a movement toward conducting open and transparent research (see Chambers, 2017). This has led to changes in statistical reporting guidelines in journals (Appelbaum et al., 2018), new professional societies (e.g, Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science), frameworks for posting materials, data, code, and manuscripts (e.g., Open Science Framework, PsyArXiv), initiatives for sharing data and collaborating (e.g., Psych Science Accelerator, Study Swap), and educational resources for teaching through replication (e.g., Collaborative Replications and Education Project). This “credibility revolution” (Vazire, 2018) provides many opportunities for researchers. However, given the recency of the changes and the rapid pace of advancements (see Houtkoop et al., 2018), it may be overwhelming for faculty to know whether and how to begin incorporating open science practices into research with undergraduates.In this paper, we will not attempt to catalogue the entirety of the open science movement (see recommended resources below for more information), but will instead highlight why adopting open science practices may be particularly beneficial to conducting and publishing research with undergraduates. The first author is a faculty member at Carleton College (a small, undergraduate-only liberal arts college) and the second is a former undergraduate research assistant (URA) and lab manager in Dr. Strand’s lab, now pursuing a PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. We argue that open science practices have tremendous benefits for undergraduate students, both in creating publishable results and in preparing students to be critical consumers of science.

scholarly journals Reproducible research into human semiochemical cues and pheromones: learning from psychology’s renaissance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristram D Wyatt
Keyword(s):  
Mate Choice ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Chemical Signals ◽  
Olfactory Cues ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Human Pheromones ◽  
Crisis In Psychology

As with other mammals, smell in the form of semiochemicals is likely to influence the behaviour of humans, as olfactory cues to emotions, health, and mate choice. A subset of semiochemicals, pheromones, chemical signals within a species, have been identified in many mammal species. As mammals, we may have pheromones too. Sadly, the story of molecules claimed to be ‘putative human pheromones’ is a classic example of bad science carried out by good scientists. Much of human semiochemicals research including work on ‘human pheromones’ and olfactory cues comes within the field of psychology. Thus, the research is highly likely to be affected by the ‘reproducibility crisis’ in psychology and other life sciences. Psychology researchers have responded with proposals to enable better, more reliable science, with an emphasis on enhancing reproducibility. A key change is the adoption of study pre-registration which will also reduce publication bias. Human semiochemicals research would benefit from adopting these proposals.

scholarly journals Reproducible research into human semiochemical cues and pheromones: learning from psychology’s renaissance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristram D Wyatt
Keyword(s):  
Mate Choice ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Chemical Signals ◽  
Olfactory Cues ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Human Pheromones ◽  
Crisis In Psychology

As with other mammals, smell in the form of semiochemicals is likely to influence the behaviour of humans, as olfactory cues to emotions, health, and mate choice. A subset of semiochemicals, pheromones, chemical signals within a species, have been identified in many mammal species. As mammals, we may have pheromones too. Sadly, the story of molecules claimed to be ‘putative human pheromones’ is a classic example of bad science carried out by good scientists. Much of human semiochemicals research including work on ‘human pheromones’ and olfactory cues comes within the field of psychology. Thus, the research is highly likely to be affected by the ‘reproducibility crisis’ in psychology and other life sciences. Psychology researchers have responded with proposals to enable better, more reliable science, with an emphasis on enhancing reproducibility. A key change is the adoption of study pre-registration which will also reduce publication bias. Human semiochemicals research would benefit from adopting these proposals.

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 Dawning of a new age? Economics journals’ data policies on the test bench

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Sven Vlaeminck
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
Research Organisations ◽  
Published Research ◽  
The Way

In the field of social sciences and particularly in economics, studies have frequently reported a lack of reproducibility of published research. Most often, this is due to the unavailability of data reproducing the findings of a study. However, over the past years, debates on open science practices and reproducible research have become stronger and louder among research funders, learned societies, and research organisations. Many of these have started to implement data policies to overcome these shortcomings. Against this background, the article asks if there have been changes in the way economics journals handle data and other materials that are crucial to reproduce the findings of empirical articles. For this purpose, all journals listed in the Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports edition for economics have been evaluated for policies on the disclosure of research data. The article describes the characteristics of these data policies and explicates their requirements. Moreover, it compares the current findings with the situation some years ago. The results show significant changes in the way journals handle data in the publication process. Research libraries can use the findings of this study for their advisory activities to best support researchers in submitting and providing data as required by journals.

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.

scholarly journals Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

2021 ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Research Uptake ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Science Policies

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are protransparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.

scholarly journals Make like a glass frog: In support of increased transparency in herpetology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Michael Marshall ◽  
Colin Strine
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Research Uptake ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Science Policies

Across many scientific disciplines, direct replication efforts and meta-analyses have fuelled concerns on the replicability of findings. Ecology and evolution are similarly affected. Investigations into the causes of this lack of replicability have implicated a suite of research practices linked to incentives in the current publishing system. Other fields have taken great strides to counter incentives that can reward obfuscation –chiefly by championing transparency. But how prominent are pro-transparency (open science) policies in herpetology journals? We use the recently developed Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor to assess the transparency promotion of 19 herpetology journals, and compare the TOP scores to broader science. We find promotion of transparent practices currently lacking in many herpetological journals; and encourage authors, students, editors, and publishers to redouble efforts to bring open science practices to herpetology by changing journal policy, peer-review, and personal practice. We promote an array of options –developed and tested in other fields– demonstrated to counter publication bias, boost research uptake, and enable more transparent science, to enrich herpetological research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document