scholarly journals Open Science Practices for Software Engineering Controlled Experiments and Quasi-Experiments

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
André F. R. Cordeiro ◽  
Edson OliveiraJr
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
Controlled Experiments ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
Experimentation In Software Engineering ◽  
Science Framework

In this vision paper, we present how Open Science practices can be adopted to prospectively support promoting software engineering controlled experiments and quasi-experiments. As experimentation in software engineering has gained extraordinary attention and increased in the last decade, we as com- munity should focus on the openness of experiment artifacts and processes to every citizen, especially those artifacts produced with public and government funding. Such openness might bring several benefits towards evolving this area based on well-reported experiments, artifacts, processes, shared data, and experiences gathered up. In view of this, we envision an open science framework for software engineering controlled experiments and quasi-experiments. In addition, we provide a research agenda, which is intended to be accomplished in the next five years.

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 Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

10.28945/4031 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 179-199
Author(s):  
Megan Potterbusch ◽  
Gaetano R Lotrecchiano
Keyword(s):  
New Technology ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Theory ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Assisted Technologies

Aim/Purpose: This paper explores the implications of machine-mediated communication on human interaction in cross-disciplinary teams. The authors explore the relationships between Open Science Theory, its contributions to team science, and the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting open science principles. Background: Open Science Theory impacts many aspects of human interaction throughout the scholarly life cycle and can be seen in action through various technologies, which each typically touch only one such aspect. By serving multiple aspects of Open Science Theory at once, the Open Science Framework (OSF) serves as an exemplar technology. As such it illustrates how Open Science Theory can inform and expand cognitive and behavioral dynamics in teams at multiple levels in a single tool. Methodology: This concept paper provides a theoretical rationale for recommendations for exploring the connections between an open science paradigm and the dynamics of team communication. As such theory and evidence have been culled to initiate a synthesis of the nascent literature, current practice and theory. Contribution: This paper aims to illuminate the shared goals between open science and the study of teams by focusing on science team activities (data management, methods, algorithms, and outputs) as focal objects for further combined study. Findings: Team dynamics and characteristics that will affect successful human/machine assisted interactions through mediators of workflow culture, attitudes about ownership of knowledge, readiness to share openly, shifts from group-driven to user-driven functionality, group-organizing to self-organizing structures, and the development of trust as teams regulate between traditional and open science dissemination. Recommendations for Practitioners: Participation in open science practices through machine-assisted technologies in team projects/scholarship should be encouraged. Recommendation for Researchers: The information provided highlights areas in need of further study in team science as well as new primary sources of material in the study of teams utilizing machine-assisted methods in their work. Impact on Society: As researchers take on more complex social problems, new technology and open science practices can complement the work of diverse stakeholders while also providing opportunities to broaden impact and intensify scholarly contributions. Future Research: Future investigation into the cognitive and behavioral research conducted with teams that employ machine-assisted technologies in their workflows would offer researchers the opportunity to understand better the relationships between intelligent machines and science teams’ impacts on their communities as well as the necessary paradigmatic shifts inherent when utilizing these technologies.

scholarly journals Does the privacy paradox exist? Comment on Yu et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Dienlin ◽  
Ye Sun
Keyword(s):  
Research Agenda ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Model ◽  
Privacy Concerns ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Privacy Paradox ◽  
Privacy Risks ◽  
And Behavior

In their meta-analysis on how privacy concerns and perceived privacy risks are related to online disclosure intention and behavior, Yu et al. (2020) conclude that “the ‘privacy paradox’ phenomenon [...] exists in our research model” (p. 8). In this comment, we contest this conclusion and present evidence and arguments against it. We find three areas of problems: (1) flawed logic of hypothesis testing; (2) erroneous and implausible results; (3) questionable decision to use only the direct effect of privacy concerns on disclosure behavior as evidence in testing the privacy paradox. In light of these issues and to help guide future research, we propose a research agenda for the privacy paradox. We encourage researchers to (1) go beyond the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), (2) engage in open science practices, (3) refine theoretical explications, (4) consider confounding, mediating, and boundary variables, and (5) improve the rigor of causal inference. Overall, while we value this meta-analytic effort by Yu et al., we caution its readers that, contrary to the authors’ claim, it does not offer evidence in support of the privacy paradox.

scholarly journals Conducting a Meta-Analysis in the Age of Open Science: Tools, Tips, and Practical Recommendations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moreau ◽  
Beau Gamble
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Video Tutorials ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Psychology researchers are rapidly adopting open science practices, yet clear guidelines on how to apply these practices to meta-analysis remain lacking. In this tutorial, we describe why open science is important in the context of meta-analysis in psychology, and suggest how to adopt the three main components of open science: preregistration, open materials, and open data. We first describe how to make the preregistration as thorough as possible—and how to handle deviations from the plan. We then focus on creating easy-to-read materials (e.g., search syntax, R scripts) to facilitate reproducibility and bolster the impact of a meta-analysis. Finally, we suggest how to organize data (e.g., literature search results, data extracted from studies) that are easy to share, interpret, and update as new studies emerge. For each step of the meta-analysis, we provide example templates, accompanied by brief video tutorials, and show how to integrate these practices into the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q8stz/).

Publikasi Akademik Sepanjang 2019

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adib Rifqi Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Science Framework

Berikut ini beberapa publikasi saya pada 2019 ini. Penting atau tidak, saya menganggap bahwa publikasi hanyalah efek samping riset. Di luar publikasi ini, saya juga masih aktif sebagai penulis media daring, seperti Qureta.com, Selasar.com, dan SantriMilenial.net serta mengunggah beberapa artikel preprint melalui layanan Open Science Framework (OSF), EdArxiv.org, dan Research Papers in Economics (RePEc).

Journal Editor and Associate Editor Perspectives on Research Reproducibility and Open Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 074193252110172
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Maggin
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Education School ◽  
Special Education School ◽  
Insight Into

Interest in transparent and open science is increasing in special education, school psychology, and related disciplines. Proponents for open science reforms provide evidence that researchers in special education, and the broader social sciences, engage in practices that mitigates its credibility and reduces the validity of information disseminated to practitioners and policymakers. In light of these issues, this article reports on a survey of journal editors-in-chief and associate editors to gain insight into concerns regarding research reproducibility, and the familiarity and viability of open science for improving research credibility. Results indicate that respondents were concerned about research reproducibility, were moderately familiar with open science practices, and viewed many as effective for improving research credibility. Finally, respondents supported the use of journals to encourage open science practices though there was little support for requiring their use. Findings are discussed in relation to open science and implications for research and practice.

scholarly journals Genetic and Transcriptomic Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Current Situation and the Road Ahead

Cells ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1030
Author(s):  
Julie Lake ◽  
Catherine S. Storm ◽  
Mary B. Makarious ◽  
Sara Bandres-Ciga
Keyword(s):  
Neurodegenerative Diseases ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Disease Diagnosis ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
The Road ◽  
Current State ◽  
Molecular Complexity ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

Neurodegenerative diseases are etiologically and clinically heterogeneous conditions, often reflecting a spectrum of disease rather than well-defined disorders. The underlying molecular complexity of these diseases has made the discovery and validation of useful biomarkers challenging. The search of characteristic genetic and transcriptomic indicators for preclinical disease diagnosis, prognosis, or subtyping is an area of ongoing effort and interest. The next generation of biomarker studies holds promise by implementing meaningful longitudinal and multi-modal approaches in large scale biobank and healthcare system scale datasets. This work will only be possible in an open science framework. This review summarizes the current state of genetic and transcriptomic biomarkers in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, providing a comprehensive landscape of recent literature and future directions.

scholarly journals Recommendations for an Open Science approach to welding process research data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cagtay Fabry ◽  
Andreas Pittner ◽  
Volker Hirthammer ◽  
Michael Rethmeier
Keyword(s):  
Domain Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Welding Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Fusion Welding ◽  
File Format ◽  
Data Format ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Community

AbstractThe increasing adoption of Open Science principles has been a prevalent topic in the welding science community over the last years. Providing access to welding knowledge in the form of complex and complete datasets in addition to peer-reviewed publications can be identified as an important step to promote knowledge exchange and cooperation. There exist previous efforts on building data models specifically for fusion welding applications; however, a common agreed upon implementation that is used by the community is still lacking. One proven approach in other domains has been the use of an openly accessible and agreed upon file and data format used for archiving and sharing domain knowledge in the form of experimental data. Going into a similar direction, the welding community faces particular practical, technical, and also ideological challenges that are discussed in this paper. Collaboratively building upon previous work with modern tools and platforms, the authors motivate, propose, and outline the use of a common file format specifically tailored to the needs of the welding research community as a complement to other already established Open Science practices. Successfully establishing a culture of openly accessible research data has the potential to significantly stimulate progress in welding research.

scholarly journals Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document