Podcasts about open science framework

Episode NotesEpisode SummaryIntroduction to Open Science – Asier Moneva introduces open science, emphasizing transparency and replicability as essential to modern research.Importance of Transparency – He explains how transparency builds trust, enabling other researchers to assess rigor and replicate findings accurately.Preregistration and Registered Reports – Asier discusses these practices, which require researchers to specify methodologies and hypotheses before data collection to reduce bias.Challenges in Adoption – He notes that implementing open science practices can be challenging due to academic pressures and resource limitations.The “Publish or Perish” Culture – We highlight how the pressure to publish quickly can conflict with the time-intensive requirements of open science.Academic Incentives and Misaligned Goals – We critique the academic reward system that often favors quantity over quality, which can detract from scientific rigor.Advantages for Public Accessibility – Open science also enhances public accessibility, making research available beyond academia and helping inform public policy.Ethical Considerations in Research – Asier emphasizes that open science fosters ethical research practices by reducing questionable practices like p-hacking and selective reporting.Benefits of Open Science for Collaboration – The approach encourages collaboration across disciplines and institutions, providing a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.Real-World Example of Retraction – He mentions a case where a research paper was retracted due to lack of transparency, illustrating the importance of open science practices.Role of Preprints in Open Science – Asier advocates for preprints as a way to share research and receive feedback before formal publication.Challenges with Platform Fragmentation – He observes that the proliferation of research-sharing platforms can hinder accessibility if findings are scattered across multiple sources.Future of Registered Reports – Asier sees registered reports as a future standard, as they align research design with ethical and rigorous science.Open Science as a Solution to Publication Bias – Open science practices help address publication bias by promoting the dissemination of all research findings, regardless of outcomes.Closing Thoughts on Transparency – Open science is about ensuring reproducibility and holding science accountable, aiming to make research as transparent and accessible as possible.About Our Guest:Asier Monevahttps://asiermoneva.comhttps://nscr.nl/en/medewerker/asier-moneva/https://www.thuas.com/research/research-groups/team-cybercrime-cybersecurityhttps://github.com/amonevahttps://osf.io/7ce24/Resources and References Mentioned in This Episode:The Open Science Framework (OSF)The OSF is an open-source platform supporting transparent and reproducible research across disciplines.The Open Science Framework:https://osf.io/Paper Introducing Registered ReportsThis foundational paper outlines the concept of registered reports, a publishing model aimed at reducing bias and enhancing research rigor.Paper introducing "registered reports":https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-001.htmlRetraction Case StudyA recent retraction of a notable article on the replicability of social-behavioral research findings offers insights into challenges within open science practices.RETRACTED ARTICLE: High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01749-9Retraction Note: High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01997-3Podcast episode discussing the retraction in depth:https://open.spotify.com/episode/3rygrbUNocfCEEGd1Byn0V?si=vJDuzQT3S7yJqDEUMycF1w&t=178Other:This episode was recorded in a hotel lobby corner with music playing in the background. If the audio sounds a little unusual at times it is because of the noise removal being used to remove that noise being combined with other ‘sound enhancement' features. I had to go back in and play around with the audio directly before I was even a little happy.  The tools work well but they are a little unpredictable.  I am increasingly wary of ‘it just works' audio editing tools. I would have left it in, but the bots chasing copyright infringement are ravenous and indiscriminate. 

In this Papers Podcast, Dr. Kenny Chiudiscusses his JCPP Advances paper ‘Social anxiety symptoms and their relationship with suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in adolescents: A prospective study' (https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12249). Kenny is the lead author of the paper. There is an overview of the paper, methodology, key findings, and implications for practice. Discussion points include: Insight into the dataset used, which originated from the Wellcome Trust NSPN (Neuroscience in Psychiatry Network) study. The questionnaire measures used for social anxiety symptoms, generalised anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation. How the researchers dealt with missing data – a common feature of longitudinal cohort studies due to various reasons – and how they tried to account for this to test their hypothesis. The researcher's experience of pre-registering the analysis on the Open Science Framework. Insight into the analytic models used to analyse the data. Implications of the findings for clinicians and other researchers. In this series, we speak to authors of papers published in one of ACAMH's three journals. These are The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP); The Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) journal; and JCPP Advances. #ListenLearnLike

This episode discusses the principles, practices, and technologies associated with open science and underscores the critical role that various stakeholders, including researchers, funders, publishers, and institutions, play in advancing it. Our guest today is Brian Nosek, the co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science and a professor at the University of Virginia, who focuses on research credibility, implicit bias, and aligning practices with values. Brian also co-developed the Implicit Association Test and co-founded Project Implicit and the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science.  Additional resources: Center for Open Science: https://www.cos.io/ The Open Science Framework: https://www.cos.io/products/osf FORRT (Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training): https://forrt.org/ The Turing Way: https://book.the-turing-way.org/  CITI Program's “Preparing for Success in Scholarly Publishing” course: https://about.citiprogram.org/course/preparing-for-success-in-scholarly-publishing/ CITI Program's “Protocol Development and Execution: Beyond a Concept” course: https://about.citiprogram.org/course/protocol-development-execution-beyond-a-concept/ CITI Program's “Technology Transfer” course: https://about.citiprogram.org/course/technology-transfer/ 

Open Science ist ja schön und gut, aber wie transportiere ich das ganze neue Wissen? Diese Frage stellen sich gerade viele Dozierende und Personen aus der Open Science. Die Gestaltung der Open Science Lehre ist ein maßgeblicher Baustein auf dem Weg die Prinzipien allgemeingültig und zum Standard zu machen. In dieser Folge geht es darum, wie man Open Science am besten lehren und lernen kann. Gemeinsam mit zwei Gästinnen bespricht Luise Tipps, wo man etwas über OS lernen kann und geben einen Ausblick in die Zukunft. Stay positive! Musik: Schlaraffel Schnitt und Post-Production: Helena Mehler und Luise Hönig Moderation und Production: Kai Krautter und Luise Hönig Kooperation: Open Science AG (PsyFako)   Gästinnen: Dr. Johanna GerekeDr. Anne-Sophie Waag Quellen: FORRT Lexikon: https://forrt.org/ Wikimedia: https://www.wikimedia.de/ Blog: http://www.hypothesis.org/ Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ Replication Wiki: https://replication.uni-goettingen.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Bitss: https://www.bitss.org/

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Eradicating rodenticides from U.S. pest management is less practical than we thought, published by Holly Elmore on March 24, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The link goes to the Open Science Framework preprint of the full report. Executive Summary Rodenticide poisons are cruel and reducing their use would likely represent an improvement in wild animal welfare. This report explores the reasons why rodenticides are used, under what circumstances they could be replaced, and whether they are replaceable with currently available alternatives. As summarized in the table below, agricultural use of rodenticides is well-protected by state and federal laws and that seems unlikely to change, but the use of rodenticides in food processing and conservation would likely be reduced if there were an adequate alternative such as solid form rodent birth control. Continued innovation of reactive tools to eliminate rodent infestations should reduce the use cases where rodenticides are the most cost-effective option for residential customers or public health officials, but will not eliminate their availability to handle major infestations. This research is a project of Rethink Priorities. It was written by Holly Elmore. If you're interested in RP's work, you can learn more by visiting our research database. For regular updates, please consider subscribing to our newsletter. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How meat-free meal selection varies with menu options: an exploration, published by Sagar K Shah on February 14, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary Increasing consumption of meat-free meals can help reduce demand for factory farmed animal products and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. But relatively little research has been done on how meat-free meal selection is influenced by menu options, such as the availability of meat-analogue options or different types of meat. We conducted a preregistered reanalysis of data from a series of hypothetical discrete choice experiments from Brachem et al. (2019). We explored how meat-free meal selection by 1348 respondents (mostly German students) varied across 26 different menus, depending on the number of meat-free options and whether any options contained fish/poultry meat or meat-analogues. Menus consisted of five options (of which, two or three were meat-free) and were composed using images and descriptions of actual dishes available at restaurants at the University of Göttingen. While our work was motivated by causal hypotheses, our reanalysis was limited to detecting correlations and not causal effects. Specific limitations include: Examining hypotheses that the original study was not designed to evaluate. De facto observational design, despite blinded randomization in the original study. Possible non-random correlations between the presence of poultry/fish or meat-analogue menu options and the appealingness of other dishes. Analysis of self-reported, hypothetical meal preferences, rather than actual behavior. Meat-analogues in menus not reflecting prominent products attracting significant financial investment. Notwithstanding, our reanalysis found meat-free meal selection odds were: higher among menus with an extra meat-free option (odds ratio of 2.3, 90% CI [1.8 to 3.0]). lower among menus featuring poultry or fish options (odds ratio of 0.7, 90% CI [0.6 to 0.9]). not significantly associated with the presence of meat-analogues on a menu (odds ratio of 1.2 (90% CI [0.9 to 1.6])) in our preregistered meat-analogue definition. Estimates varied across analogue definitions, but were never significantly different from 1. Despite the many limitations, these findings might slightly update our beliefs to the extent we believe correlations would be expected if causation were occurring. The poultry/fish option correlation highlights the potential for welfare losses from substitution towards small-bodied animals from menu changes as well as shifts in consumer preferences. Given the study didn't feature very prominent meat analogues, the absence of a correlation in this reanalysis cannot credibly be used to refute a belief that high-quality analogues play an important role in reducing meat consumption. But when coupled with the strong correlation on an additional meat-free option, we think the reanalysis highlights the need for further research on the most effective ways to encourage selection of meat-free meals. It remains an open question whether, at the margin, it would be more cost-effective to advocate for more menu options featuring meat-analogues specifically, or for more meat-free options of any kind. You can read the full post on the Rethink Priorities website, and also see the pre-print and code via the Open Science Framework.. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of Science Technology & Policy memo ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. They also cover the implications of this memo for scientific publishing, as well as the mechanics of culture change in science. Open Science Framework hits half a million users (https://www.cos.io/blog/celebrating-a-global-open-science-community) The White house memo (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf) Brian on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BrianNosek) Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, August 31) "161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/A7D86 Special Guest: Brian Nosek.

Only 1% of first year PhD students become research professors.  This creates a hypercompetitive environment where scientists will do whatever it takes to get funding, even if that means tweaking statistical analyses to make their findings seem more significant. But decentralized science is working to address this egregious misalignment of incentives and reward science done the right way.  Patrick Joyce is the Cofounder and COO of ResearchHub, a Reddit-style forum that allows anyone to share, discuss and curate scientific papers—and earn ERC-20 tokens for doing so.  On this episode of Boost VC, Patrick joins us to discuss the misalignment of incentives in science and describe the problem with using bibliometrics to determine who receives funding. Patrick explains why decentralizing science is so important, exploring how DeSci will increase the adoption of open science practices and accelerate innovation in the space. Listen in to understand how DeSci can pressure large academic journals to pay content creators for their work and learn how ResearchHub is leveraging Web3 to make capital available to scientists.  Topics Covered How Patrick defines sciencePursuit of knowledgeVerifiable results What's behind the replication crisis in scienceHypercompetitive job marketQuality judged by bibliometrics Why decentralizing science is importantTweak analyses to maximize perceived impactNot honest, transparent or reproducibleOnly most cited scientists receive funding Patrick's take on the first breakthrough for DeSciIncrease adoption of open science practicesNo longer career risk to share work in open What drives Patrick's conviction around DeSciSuccess not based on work ethic, intelligenceLittle innovation in drugs for mental health How ResearchHub rewards quality scienceAllows anyone to share and discuss papersEarn ERC-20 tokens for participation How Patrick builds trust in the scientific communityProvide funding and publishing outletsHelp meet goals of open science What success looks like for decentralized sciencePaywall journals provide open access optionsPay science content creators for work Why the science incentive structure hasn't changedPrevious attempts not fundablePirate organizations like Sci-Hub not legal Patrick's take on what makes publishers the enemyResponsible to own incentive to make moneyCharge scientists to publish, subscription fees Patrick's uniting purpose for the DeSci communityWeb3 offers ROI to invest in scienceMakes capital available to scientists How Patrick defines success for ResearchHubTake power away from bibliometricsCreate rockstar scientists who define culture  Connect with Patrick Joyce ResearchHub https://www.researchhub.com/  ResearchHub on Twitter https://twitter.com/researchhub  ResearchHub on Discord https://discord.com/invite/ZcCYgcnUp5ResearchHub on Medium https://medium.com/researchhubResearchHub on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/ResearchHub/ResearchHub on GitHub https://github.com/ResearchHub Resources Brian Armstrong & Patrick Joyce on The Sheekey Science Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FmhHLPrUIUClarivate Analytics https://clarivate.com/OpenAlex https://openalex.org/r/medicalstudent https://www.reddit.com/r/medicalstudent/r/ImmunoPsychiatry https://www.reddit.com/r/ImmunoPsychiatry/eLife https://elifesciences.org/Open Science Framework https://www.cos.io/Nature Neuroscience https://www.nature.com/neuro/Chris Hill on Boost VC DeSci EP02 https://www.boost.vc/podcastAuthorea https://www.authorea.com/F1000Research https://f1000research.com/Sci-Hub https://sci-hub.se/Stack Overflow https://stackoverflow.com/Hindawi https://www.hindawi.com/MetaMask https://metamask.io/Fast Grants https://fastgrants.org/Kaggle https://www.kaggle.com/ Connect with Boost VC Boost VC Website https://www.boost.vc/Boost VC on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/boostvc/Boost VC on Twitter https://twitter.com/BoostVCBoost VC on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/boost_vc/ 

We are delighted to be conversing with Prof Dani Prieto-Alhambra, Professor of Pharmaco and Device Epidemology, NDORMS, University of Oxford, UK, and part-time Professor of Real World Evidence, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, and Research Coordinator for EHDEN. In this penultimate episode of season 2, Dani returns to the podcast (he also was in episode #2 of season 1) to discuss his perspective on evidence generation and conducting research with real world data today and a vision for tomorrow. We start with exploring the differences (or not) between pharmaco and device epidemiology from Dani's experience, then go on to re-evaluating the research response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including inherent difficulties, and in particular evolving research in areas such as 'Long COVID' and sub-acute COVID that his group is leading. Clearly, there are implications for not only COVID-19, for e.g., vaccine use and safety, but also more widely for medical and health research, and in catching up with much that was challenged due to the pandemic. We cover the upcoming research priorities, inclusive of plans for study-a-thons and evidence-a-thons in EHDEN, based on a call for study proposals within the programme. Following this Dani outlines how he sees research methods and collaborations changing now, for the better, and hopefully permanently, in using federated networks, distributed network analysis across geographies, supported by new platforms and technologies. He goes on to explain the use of study-a-thons and evidence-a-thons in EHDEN and OHDSI, and their emerging role in rapid analysis work to meet the challenge of responding to diverse research needs. In the last third of this episode we discuss the paradigm shift we are seeing in terms of the creative disruption of the open science agenda and OHDSI research framework in EHDEN, in Europe, but also globally, inclusive of the Global South. Specific challenges such as reproducibility and transparency are also coming to the fore with our new methods in being able to be truly open, and with a need to collaborate. We take Dani back to his first exposure to OHDSI, the positive impact on his own career, but also the need to train and support a new generation of researchers where this paradigm shift today will be routine for them tomorrow. Moreover, and with COVID-19 in mind, we have changed science for the better, but we need to reinvigorate faith from certain communities in science globally. The views expressed by the participants are personal and not necessarily reflective of their organisations.

U ovoj epizodi Radio Galaksiji imamo dve gošće sa Odeljenja za psihologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu i iz Laboratorije za istraživanje individualnih razlika (LIRA).U gostima su nam bile prof. dr Iris Žeželj i doc. dr Danka Purić, a pričali smo o istraživanjima upitnog i problematičnog zdravstvenog ponašanja, psihološkim osnovama sklonosti ka verovanju i praktikovanju tradicionalne, alternativne i komplementarne medicine i mnogim drugim temama kojima se Iris i Danka sa ostalima iz tima bave kroz projekat Reason4Health. Govorili smo o analizi sadržaja medijskih napisa o tradicionalnoj, komplementarnoj i alternativnoj medicini, rezultatima koje je ovaj tim dobio kroz fokus grupe sa lekarima i fokus grupe sa praktičarima alternativne medicine, ali i budućim temama poput istraživanja zdravstvenog ponašanja pacijenata, njihovog odnosa prema alternativnoj medicini, upitnom ponašanju nepridružavanja zdravstvenim savetima i tretmanima. Naravno, pošto nam je važno da pričamo i o metodologiji i pošto stalno postavljamo pitanje "Kako se istražuje?", pričali smo i o tome na koji način se ovakva pojava u psihologiji istražuje, tj. kakve se sve metode i instrumenti koriste da bi se došlo do merljivih informacija o zdravstvenom ponašanju. Na kraju, razgovarali smo o tome kako iracionalni mentalni sklop (sistem iracionalnih obrazaca mišljenja i iracionalnih uverenja) može da predstavlja važan faktor za sklonost ka upitnim i problematičnim zdravstvenim ponašanjima, kao i svojevrsnu poveznicu između psiholoških dispozicija poput sklonosti prepoznavanja pravila tamo gde ih nema, a konačno i kako se ta saznanja mogu iskoristiti da se to stanje u društvu promeni.  Linkovi za dalje istraživanje: projekat Reason4Healthprojekat Reason4Health na Open Science Framework platformi (izveštaji, rezultati, itd)Izveštaj sa fokus grupa sa interesnim grupamaLaboratorija za istraživanje individualnih razlika (LIRA)Support the show

The papers behind the pod:1. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601 & https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.679952. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.8056793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98356-3It's the 3rd Thursday of January – happy new year! You're listening to 3 Minute 3Rs, your monthly recap of efforts to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research. Of course, we focus on those three Rs, but many have suggested adding a fourth R to the list: reproducibility. Designing experiments with reproducibility in mind is a key aspect of reducing unnecessary animal use, as well as being good for advancing science.In 2013 the Center of Open Science and Science Exchange began a collaboration to investigate the reproducibility of 193 experiments from 50 high-impact cancer biology papers. Over eight years of repeated experiments, they found that they could only reproduce 50 experiments from 23 papers, generally due to a lack of detail about the methods used or resources being unavailable. 15 of those 50 repeated experiments used animals, and while just over half of them at least partially confirmed the original results, the repeated results were not always statistically significant. Experimental design was also an issue: only one of the original animal experiments used randomization and none used blinding or calculated a sample size before the study began.Papers describing these results are now available in eLife, with all the relevant data available on the Open Science Framework website and more Replication Studies to come from this collaboration. As the reproducibility crisis continues to rumble on, why not check them out and put designing more robust experiments at the top of your agenda?Next, let's look at how training rats can help make fMRI a less stressful experience. Functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI is a powerful non-invasive procedure that is used to assess brain function and connectivity. However, fMRI research in animals is often confounded due to the physical restraint and loud noises that occur during recordings as these induce stress which can alter information processing and cognition.An article from Frontiers in Neuroscience describes a protocol for habituating rats to fMRI that also avoids the need for surgical head restraint. Rats were gradually trained via 18 sessions over 3 weeks beginning with basic handling phase. After following this protocol, fMRIs in awake rats were successfully conducted without inducing increased stress and still achieving stable images with very low motion artifacts.To learn more about this rat refinement, read the full paper online. Finally, playpens for mice – could they be a viable option for refinement when home cage space is limited? Good environmental enrichment improves the quality of life for laboratory mice by providing increased opportunities to carry out natural behaviours such as running, climbing and burrowing. However, due to space requirements, cost and sanitation constraints many facilities worldwide still use standard housing, which has been associated with potential welfare problems. In their publication in Scientific Reports, Ratuski et al show temporary access to playpens could be an effective method to provide mice housed in standard cages with space and structures to facilitate natural behaviors. In this study, female mice were given access to playpens three times a week for several weeks. Mice in the playpens were more active, compared to mice in conventional cages and over time, the animals entered the playpen more quickly and showed increased anticipatory behaviors before accessing the playpen. All indicating the mice found access to playpens rewarding. Want to learn more? Follow the link in the description. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Evidence from two studies of EA careers advice interventions, published by Jamie_Harris on the AI Alignment Forum. Many thanks to Lauren Mee, David Reinstein, Brenton Mayer, Aaron Gertler, Alex Holness-Tofts, Lynn Tan, Vaidehi Agarwalla, David Moss, and Renee Bell for providing feedback on drafts of this writeup, as well as all who provided feedback on the studies themselves. Summary Animal Advocacy Careers (AAC) ran two longitudinal studies aiming to compare and test the cost-effectiveness of our one-to-one advising calls and our online course. Various forms of these two types of careers advice service have been used by people seeking to build the effective altruism (EA) movement for years, and we expect the results to be informative to EA movement builders, as well as to AAC. We interpret the results as tentative evidence of positive effects from both services, but the effects of each seem to be different. Which is more effective overall depends on your views about which sorts of effects are most important; our guess is that one-to-one calls are slightly more effective per participant, but not by much. One-to-one calls seem substantially more costly per participant, which makes the service harder to scale. There therefore seems to be a tradeoff between costs and apparent effects per participant. We'd guess that the online course was (and will be, once scaled up) slightly more cost-effective, all things considered, but the services might just serve different purposes, especially since the applicants might be different for the different services. Background Animal Advocacy Careers (AAC) ran a longitudinal study testing the effects of our ~1 hour one-to-one careers advising calls, which operated in a similar style to calls given by 80,000 Hours and the organisers of local effective altruism (EA) groups across the world. Over roughly the same time period, we ran a second study using very similar methodology that tested the effects of our ~9 week online course, which taught some core content about effective animal advocacy, effective altruism, and impact-focused career strategy and culminated in support to develop a career plan, either via a group workshop or by redirecting to planning materials by 80,000 Hours. Each study was designed as a randomised controlled trial,[1] and pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (here and here), although a few methodological difficulties mean that we shouldn't interpret the results as giving very conclusive answers. Despite these difficulties, we think that the studies provide useful evidence both for AAC and others focusing on building the effective altruism movement (i.e. the community striving to help others as much as possible using the best evidence available) to help us prioritise our time and resources. We'll be sharing more about the methodological lessons from the studies in a forthcoming post called “EA movement building: Should you run an experiment?” The findings are also written up in the style of a formal academic paper, viewable here. That version provides more detail on the methodology (participants, procedure, and instruments) and contains extensive appendices (predictions, full results, anonymised raw data, R code, and more). In the rest of this post, we summarise some of the key results and takeaways. Which service has larger effects? The ideal evaluation of whether a career advice intervention genuinely increases a participant's expected impact for altruistic causes would be very challenging and expensive.[2] So instead, we designed and collected data on four metrics that we expected to be useful indicators of whether people were making changes in promising directions: “Attitudes,” e.g. views on cause prioritisation, inclination towards effective altruism. “Career plans,” e.g. study plans, internship plans, j...

Facebook announces the Deepfake Detection Challenge, a rolling contest to develop technology to detect deepfakes. The US Senate passes the Deepfake Report Act, bipartisan legislation to understand the risks posed by deepfake videos. And US Representatives Hurd and Kelly announced a new initiative to develop a bipartisan national AI strategy with the Bipartisan Policy Center. In research, AI allows a paralyzed person to “handwrite” using his mind. From the University of Grenoble, a paralyzed man is able to walk using a brain-controlled exoskeleton. From the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, researchers use a neural network to reconstruct human thoughts from brain waves in real time using electroencephalography. A report from Elsa Kania and Sam Bendett looks at technology collaborations between Russian and China in A New Sino-Russian High-Tech Partnership. In another response to the National Security Commission on AI, Margarita Konaev publishes With AI, We’ll See Faster Fights, But Longer Wars on the War on the Rocks. James, Witten, Hastie, and Tibshirani release An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Open Science Framework makes THINGS available, an object concept and object image database of nearly 14 GB, over 1800 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images. And finally, Janelle Shane explains why the danger of AI is Weirder Than You Think. Click here to visit our website and explore the links mentioned in the episode.   

oday with have Brian Nosek on the podcast. Nosek is co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science (http://cos.io/) that operates the Open Science Framework (http://osf.io/). The Center for Open Science is enabling open and reproducible research practices worldwide. Brian is also a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia. He received his Ph.D. from Yale University in 2002. He co-founded Project Implicit (http://projectimplicit.net/), a multi-university collaboration for research and education investigating implicit cognition–thoughts and feelings that occur outside of awareness or control. Brian investigates the gap between values and practices, such as when behavior is influenced by factors other than one’s intentions and goals. Research applications of this interest include implicit bias, decision-making, attitudes, ideology, morality, innovation, and barriers to change. Nosek applies this interest to improve the alignment between personal and organizational values and practices. In 2015, he was named one of Nature’s 10 and to the Chronicle for Higher Education Influence list. In this episode we discuss: The genesis of Project Implicit The current state of the field of implicit bias Overuses of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) The common desire people have for simple solutions The potential for misuse of the IAT for real-world selection How hard it is to study human behavior What the IAT is really capturing How the degree to which the IAT is trait or state-like varies by the topic you are investigating Cultural influences on the IAT Brian’s criticism of implicit bias training The latest state of the science on implicit bias How our ideologies creep in even when we are trying to be unbiased The difference between implicit attitudes and conscious attitudes  What would an equality of implicit associations look like? Why bias is not necessarily bad The genesis of The Reproducibility Project What are some classic psychological studies that haven’t replicated? The importance of having compassion for the scientist The importance of having the intellectual humility of uncertainty The importance of cultivating the desire to get it right (instead of the desire to be right) What is open science? What is #BroOpenScience? How hostility on social media can cause us to lose the view of the majority The importance of balancing getting it right with being kind to others

Jonathan and Chris interview Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology and the co-founder and director of the Center for Open Science. They discuss problems and solutions in modern scientific research, such as committing scientists… to stick to a protocol.    Table of contents. 2:00 The culture of science.  4:18 Publications as currency for career advancement.  7:53 What researchers tell each other at the bar.  10:22 Cynicism.  12:48 The solution to climate change (not really).  18:24 The paper is advertising for the research.  22:16 Weaknesses of the peer review process.  23:58 One data set, many scientists, different conclusions.  27:29 Resistance to sharing.  29:52 The road to the Center for Open Science.  37:49 Signs of success.  44:10 The generational gap in openness.  46:55 Registered reports.    LINKS:   The Center for Open Science website: http://www.cos.io Project Implicit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ For scientists, the Open Science Framework: http://www.osf.io   Theme music: "Troll of the Mountain Swing" by the Underscore Orkestra.   To contribute to The Body of Evidence, go to our Patreon page at: http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/.

Joe and Eric talk about Open Science and how it can help reshape the field of the social sciences. If you are interested in your own account on the Open Science Framework or ORCID follow these links: https://osf.io and https://orcid.org

Dan and James discuss how to deal with the problem of scientists who start talking about topics outside their area of expertise. They also discuss what they would do differently if they would do their PhDs again Here's what they cover... The podcast will now be permanently archived on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zj7y3/) James did a talk at the Sound Education conference on podcasting for early career researchers. Here's the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26t6660_f-A) if you want to see him squirm uncomfortably in his chair for 20 minutes and/or hear his thoughts our approach to podcasting The temptation for academics to believe their own press and to have their thoughts reinforced by the praise they get Keeping a handle on what you know and don't know Nassim Nicholas Taleb (https://twitter.com/nntaleb) has FANS The "Pete Evans" effect, James' solution, that we should eat Pete Evans (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-think-i-have-a-solution-i-m-going-to-eat-pete-evans-7e2da6f3967f), pesca-pescaterianism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-ZBJ-Kw2E), and the spectacularly bad advice that we should stare into the sun (https://www.sciencealert.com/please-don-t-stare-at-the-sun-even-if-pete-evans-says-it-s-good-for-you) You should follow gynecologist Jennifer Gunter on Twitter (https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter) How much money would you pay for 100,000 engaged twitter followers? Here's the tweet (https://twitter.com/ImHardcory/status/1090213113352372224) James was referring to Should researchers have something like a Hippocratic Oath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath)? How would we police this? Researchers are not good at admitting they're wrong, do we need to approach retractions differently? Would a bounty system, in which journals offer rewards, for finding errors in their papers, work well? The "Loss of confidence (https://lossofconfidence.com)" project, and Rebecca Willen's CV (https://rmwillen.info/publications/) The "Nobel disease" (http://skepdic.com/nobeldisease.html) Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes) Episode citation and permanent link Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, February 4) "Promiscuous expertise", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VYCAH (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VYCAH)

We had conversations with Christopher Jackson and Jean-Sébastien Caux, two researchers who have started open access publishing platforms. They both told us that academics should be more in charge of the publishing system than they currently are, because publishing is too important for academia to be left at the discretion of the commercial players. Christopher Jackson is a professor of Basin Analysis at Imperial College in London. He has been one of the initiators of EarthArxiv (built on the Open Science Framework. Jean-Sébastien Caux is professor of theoretical Condensed Matter Physics at the University of Amsterdam and a recipient of ERC-advanced grant. He has founded the open-source publishing platform SciPost.org. What role do you think the researchers should play in the publishing industry? What personal initiatives have you taken or are planing to take? How can researchers help each other in promoting academic-lead open-source publishing? Please feel welcome to engage in the discussion on twitter (twitter.com/R2OSpodcast) or on the portal of the Open Science Community Utrecht (openscience-utrecht.com/r2os-episode-3/) where you can also find all the show notes.

Lab Director David Yokum and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science, Brian Nosek, discuss how the core principles of research are not part of daily practice, and they offer some ideas of how we might make them. ****************************** About our guest: Brian Nosek is co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science that operates the Open Science Framework. COS is enabling open and reproducible research practices worldwide. Brian is also a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia. He received his Ph.D. from Yale University in 2002. He co-founded Project Implicit, a multi-university collaboration for research and education investigating implicit cognition--thoughts and feelings that occur outside of awareness or control. Brian investigates the gap between values and practices, such as when behavior is influenced by factors other than one's intentions and goals. Research applications of this interest include implicit bias, decision-making, attitudes, ideology, morality, innovation, barriers to change, open science, and reproducibility. In 2015, he was named one of Nature's 10 and to the Chronicle for Higher Education Influence list.

In the final chapter of “Mindware,” Nisbett assures the reader that we’re smarter than we were before started the book, and that we’ll now recognise mistakes in the wild. Are you, dear listener, less likely to make the errors in thinking that we’ve been discussing here? When are you likely to make mistakes? When should you rely on other people’s judgements about a domain? There seems to be an element of politeness when interacting with people who make claims, but is it wrong to, say, ask your doctor how often a diagnosis is wrong? Being sceptical about your own claims and expertise seems to be important in making everyday decisions, so how can we develop this epistemic modesty? Does knowing about experimental methodology help you make better decisions? Does is make you more sceptical? Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone asked to see the evidence before important policy decisions were made? How about an Open Science Framework for public policy? Reading: Mindware by Richard Nisbett, “Keeping It Real” and “The Tools of the Lay Scientist” Guests: Jason Tangen, Rachel Searston, Ruben Laukkonen, Gianni Ribeiro, Jeremy Nash, Brooklyn Corbett, Josephine Echberg, Joshua Adie, Kirsty Kent, Melissa Lane, and Ryan Metcalfe. Learn more at think101.org.

There's a relatively new movement in science called the “Open Science Framework” where researchers put all their cards on the table and make predictions before collecting a single data point. Will it change the way that people conduct experiments? Where do you draw the line between science and mere observation? Carefully controlled experiments trump multiple regression analyses, so why are they often treated equally? Why is the notion of ”wiggling events" so critical in experimentation? Can experimental psychologists calibrate their measurements in the same way that astronomers calibrate their telescopes? Reading: Mindware by Richard Nisbett, “Experiments natural and experiments proper” and “Eekonomics.” Guests: Jason Tangen, Rachel Searston, Ruben Laukkonen, Gianni Ribeiro, Jeremy Nash, and Josephine Echberg. Learn more at think101.org.

How can we make the scientific endeavor more open and transparent? Dr. Brian Nosek is taking on that very question as the executive director of the Center for Open Science, a non-profit technology company developing software that stands to revolutionize the practice of science. The Science Soapbox team chats with Dr. Nosek about the nature of scientific capital-T Truth, the dawn of the “Science Internet,” and why the graduate students of the future should be so jazzed about his Open Science Framework. For show notes, visit sciencesoapbox.org/podcast and subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.

Wie üblich gibt es auch in dieser Episode wieder Neuigkeiten von der deutschen Science-Crowdfunding-Plattform Sciencestarter.de, dieses Mal allerdings unter dem Blickwinkel scheiternder Projekte. Darüber hinaus gibt es ein paar Neuigkeiten aus dem Bereich Open Access, unter anderem Studien die die Effekte von Open Access Publishing beleuchten. Und zu guter Letzt gibt es ein paar News zu Open Science, besonders mit dem Hinweis auf das mittlerweile in der Betaphase befindliche Open Science Framework.

Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how incentives in academic life create a tension between truth-seeking and professional advancement. Nosek argues that these incentives create a subconscious bias toward making research decisions in favor of novel results that may not be true, particularly in empirical and experimental work in the social sciences. In the second half of the conversation, Nosek details some practical innovations occurring in the field of psychology, to replicate established results and to publicize unpublished results that are not sufficiently exciting to merit publication but that nevertheless advance understanding and knowledge. These include the Open Science Framework and PsychFileDrawer.

Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how incentives in academic life create a tension between truth-seeking and professional advancement. Nosek argues that these incentives create a subconscious bias toward making research decisions in favor of novel results that may not be true, particularly in empirical and experimental work in the social sciences. In the second half of the conversation, Nosek details some practical innovations occurring in the field of psychology, to replicate established results and to publicize unpublished results that are not sufficiently exciting to merit publication but that nevertheless advance understanding and knowledge. These include the Open Science Framework and PsychFileDrawer.

Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how incentives in academic life create a tension between truth-seeking and professional advancement. Nosek argues that these incentives create a subconscious bias toward making research decisions in favor of novel results that may not be true, particularly in empirical and experimental work in the social sciences. In the second half of the conversation, Nosek details some practical innovations occurring in the field of psychology, to replicate established results and to publicize unpublished results that are not sufficiently exciting to merit publication but that nevertheless advance understanding and knowledge. These include the Open Science Framework and PsychFileDrawer.

Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how incentives in academic life create a tension between truth-seeking and professional advancement. Nosek argues that these incentives create a subconscious bias toward making research decisions in favor of novel results that may not be true, particularly in empirical and experimental work in the social sciences. In the second half of the conversation, Nosek details some practical innovations occurring in the field of psychology, to replicate established results and to publicize unpublished results that are not sufficiently exciting to merit publication but that nevertheless advance understanding and knowledge. These include the Open Science Framework and PsychFileDrawer.