1,721,141 research outputs found
An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science.
No full textReproducibility is a defining feature of science. However, because of strong incentives for innovation and weak incentives for confirmation, direct replication is rarely practiced or published. The Reproducibility Project is an open, large-scale, collaborative effort to systematically examine the rate and predictors of reproducibility in psychological science. So far, 72 volunteer researchers from 41 institutions have organized to openly and transparently replicate studies published in three prominent psychological journals from 2008. Multiple methods will be used to evaluate the findings, calculate an empirical rate of replication, and investigate factors that predict reproducibility. Whatever the result, a better understanding of reproducibility will ultimately improve confidence in scientific methodology and findings
Project Orchid: A Conceptual 3D Open Science Collaboration Platform for Multi-National Clinical Innovation Programs
No full text16:00
Kimberly HARDING, President of Monarch Innovation Partners, Inc. Focus: Health/Medicine 11th. Conference
Project Orchid: A Conceptual 3D Open Science Collaboration Platform for Multi-National Clinical Innovation Programs.-
Kimberly HARDING, President of Monarch Innovation Partners, Inc. Focus: Health/MedicinePresentaciones sobre BigData BigNetworks impartidas desde la Reunión CUDI Primavera 2015, conferencia numero 11 impartida por Kimberly HARDING sobre “Project Orchid: A Conceptual 3D Open Science Collaboration Platform for Multi-National Clinical Innovation Programs”
The Reproducibility Project: A model of large-scale collaboration for empirical research on reproducibility.
Full text linkThe goal of science is to accumulate knowledge that answers questions such as “How do things work?” and “Why do they work that way?” Scientists use a variety of methodologies to describe, predict, and explain natural phenomena. These methods are so diverse that it is difficult to define a unique scientific method, although all scientific methodologies share the assumption of repeatability (Hempel & Oppenheim, 1948; Kuhn, 1962; Popper, 1934; Salmon, 1989). In this chapter, we first briefly review why replications are highly valued but rarely published. Then we describe a collaborative effort — the Reproducibility Project — to estimate the rate and predictors of reproducibility in psychological science. Finally, we detail how we are conducting this project as a large-scale, distributed, open collaboration. A description of the procedures and challenges may assist and inspire other teams to conduct similar projects in other areas of science
#scidata15 - Jeremey Frey - From e-Science to Open Science collaboration around data
No full text<p>Talk given at #scidata15 on 23/10/15</p>
<p>Jeremey Frey - From e-Science to Open Science collaboration around data</p><p>#scidata15 is an annual event ran by Scientific Data to promote the
opportunities and advantages of open research data. Find out more:</p>http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-better-science-through-better-data-201
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
No full textAccepted ManuscriptReproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes science
is unknown. Following a structured protocol, we conducted 100 replications of studies
published in three psychology journals. Replication effects (M = .198, SD = .255) were half
the magnitude of original effects (M = .396, SD = .193) representing a substantial decline
effect. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had significant results (p < .05). Thirty-six
percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95%
confidence interval of the replication effect size; 38% of effects were subjectively rated to
have replicated the original result; and, if no bias in original results is assumed, 70% of the
meta-analytic combinations were significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that
replication success is better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by
characteristics of the original and replication teams. In sum, a large portion of replications did
not reproduce evidence supporting the original results despite using high-powered designs
and original materials when available. The open dataset provides a basis for hypothesis
generation on the causes of irreproducibility
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
