The file-drawer problem (unpublished negative findings) is a major challenge to transparency goals. "Registered reports" provide preregistration plus review & commentary; they increase transparency by ensuring publication regardless of result. /6 https://cos.io/rr/
-
Show this thread
-
Tool building and science translates to policy through organizations like
@improvingpsych and journal guidelines & initiatives (e.g., badges). Funder initiatives for openness also are policy targets. /7 https://cos.io/our-services/top-guidelines/ … https://grants.nih.gov/policy/sharing.htm …https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/badges …1 reply 2 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
But making policy based on scientific evidence is always tricky, and polices may have unintended effects, or reveal further weaknesses. Case study: in one of our studies, open data policies revealed further weaknesses in analytic reproducibility. /8 http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/8/180448 …pic.twitter.com/DiQcP20Dtm
1 reply 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Open access is an important policy frontier: without access to the literature, results are only verifiable (or readable!) by those lucky enough to have subscriptions. Preprints and "green" OA initiatives address this issue. /9 https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51996/what-is-the-difference-between-green-and-gold-open-access … http://psyarxiv.org pic.twitter.com/dDvflOvvjS
1 reply 4 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Transparency, verifiability (and the skepticism that comes with them) can be uncomfortable. Why am *I* being verified and not someone else? Why don't you trust me? I'm an expert! To me, these feelings are very understandable (I have them myself sometimes). /10
1 reply 3 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Some ways I gently push back: 1) appeals to the shared project, rather than the individual (we're in this together). 2) appeals to the values (nullius in verba again!). 3) argument from the counterfactual: would it be better not to know we're wrong? /11http://sometimesimwrong.typepad.com/wrong/2016/02/end-of-the-world.html …
1 reply 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
There is a lot of change happening, and change can be disorienting. But I'm very optimistic about psychology and science more broadly, and very glad that I'm working at this time and not another. /end
4 replies 5 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @mcxfrank
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
2 replies 4 retweets 12 likes -
are there Open Science initiatives doing something about diversity or inclusion?
4 replies 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @PratherLab @o_guest
Olivia and I were just discussing this. In the context of
@improvingpsych I think this would be great. My take is that D/I is important everywhere but I am less sure of other institutional ways to pursue it in open science? (Other than acknowledging importance)?5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
I'd have a look at this for a start! https://sparcopen.github.io/opencon-dei-report/ …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

