From a Wash Post article on evidence humans were in N. America earlier than previously thought. I myself have a mixed-feelings middle-ground view on peer review, but I'm in a very different field.
"The peer-review process is designed to help validate scientific claims, but Lowery argues that in archaeology it often leads to a circle-the-wagon mentality, allowing scientists to wave away evidence that doesn’t support the dominant paradigm. He says he isn’t seeking formal publishing routes because “life’s too short,” comparing this aspect of academic science to “the dumbest game I’ve ever played.”"
measured within reviewer uncertainty (~ 1/ confidence) in journal paper reviews
predictions of greater reviewer uncertainty: gender, if the paper was a protocol
NOT predictive: reviewer experience, time taken on review, reviewer nationality, paper version (first submission vs revision), paper length, readability
Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01389-7#MetaScience
A good discussion of downsides of publication bias. I only wish negative results'd not be described as being "messy" or "ugly". Such a view is part of the problem @openscience
Aspiring to greater intellectual humility in science
Rink Hoekstra & Simine Vazire, 2021
"We provide a set of recommendations on how to increase intellectual humility in research articles and highlight the central role peer reviewers can play in incentivizing authors to foreground the flaws and uncertainty in their work, thus enabling full and transparent evaluation of the validity of research."
Making the circumcision controversy controversial: Going meta and taking aim at the messenger(s): Reply to Wamai et al.,
de Camargo Jr et al., 2015, Global Public Health
"For those of us who study the use of rhetoric in science, their commentary offers a fascinating example of many of the well-documented observations made by authors working in Science and Technology Studies."
Join our webinar on April 10 and gain insights into the current state of open science adoption. Hear from researchers, funders, and publishers as we explore innovative initiatives and metrics shaping open science practices.
Now online: over three hours of constructive and engaging critiques of metascience and scientific reform practices, featuring Sven Ulpts, myself, Tom Hostler, Stephan Guttinger, @smirandafield, @nicole_c_nelson and @devezer. Grab some popcorn and enjoy!
Last week I attended the 6th Perspectives on Scientific Error Conference at @TUEindhoven
I learned so much! About #metascience#preregistration#replicability#qrp questionable research practices, methods to detect data fabrication, #peerreview, #poweranalysis artefacts in #ML machine learning...
I'm impressed by the commitment of participants to improve science through error detection & prevention. Thanks to the organizers Noah van Dongen, @lakens@annescheel Felipe Romero and @annaveer
An interesting development: UKRI has "pre-announced" a round of #metascience research grants that "will support projects using scientific methods to deepen our understanding of how different structures, incentives, and funding practices within the Research and Development (R&D) system shape scientific research outputs and career outcomes".
I'm on the latest episode of Brain Inspired talking about #Neuroscience, #SpikingNeuralNetworks, #MachineLearning and #Metascience! Thanks Paul Middlebrooks (not on Mastodon I think) for the invite and the extremely fun conversation. For the explanation of why this picture you'll have to listen to the episode. 😉
Also, if you're not yet listening to Brain Inspired you should be - and support Paul on Patreon. He provides this free for the community with no adverts. What a hero!
"We argue that: (1) metascience is an imaginative design practice, exploring an enormous design space for social processes; (2) that exploration aims to find new social processes which unlock latent potential for discovery; (3) decentralized change must be possible, so outsiders with superior ideas can't be blocked by established power centers..."
People who are interested in #OpenScience and #Metascience should definitely consider attending @CenterforOpenScience's free virtual conference in March. It's promising to be an amazing event!
Context: APA's PsycNET is chronically inaccessible to me. To diagnose this, I need to figure out the scope of the problem. (Want more context? See my replies to either one of the polls.)
Registration for #SIPS2024 is now open! There are options for in person and online attendance, and there are funds to help with attendance (apply by Jan 31):
As a reminder, submissions for workshops, hackathons, unconference sessions, posters, lightning talks, and roundtables are open until January 31 as well! If you're new to the SIPS format, we have a handy guide. #OpenScience#Metascience
Looks like an article may be retracted as a result of a ltr to the editor we wrote.
This reminds me that people who spot such things often (usually?) aren't credited by the journal.
Looked at COPE retraction guidelines - they don't seem to recommend crediting anyone. That should be changed! @retractionwatch#metascience
I'm not the hiring manager on any of these positions, but if you have any questions about working at @CenterforOpenScience, I'm happy to answer them! Please feel free to pass along to anyone who you think might be interested!