Resources
Contents:
- Integrity
- Reproducibility
- Data analysis
- Research evaluation (DORA)
- Research ethics
- Publishing
- Open science
- Peer review
- Institutional change
- Resource hubs
Integrity
Research integrity: a landscape study
“There is a tension between researchers’ strong sense of personal values to uphold research integrity and systemic pressures that risk undermining these values.”
UKRIO 2020 webinar series on Research Integrity
Towards a research integrity culture at universities: from recommendations to implementation
Reproducibility
Science Has Been in a "Replication Crisis" for a Decade. Have We Learned Anything?
“We have a system whose incentives keep pushing bad research even as we understand more about what makes for good research.”
In praise of replication studies and null results
Rein in the four horsemen of reproducibility
“Researchers are less likely to write up studies that show no effect, and journal editors are less likely to accept them. Consequently, no one can learn from them, and researchers waste time and resources on repeating experiments, redundantly.”
Systemizing Effective Practice, Embedding it in Standard Practice
A manifesto for reproducible science | Nature Human Behaviour
“one analysis estimates that 85% of biomedical research efforts are wasted”
Data analysis
Scientists rise up against statistical significance
“These common practices show how reliance on thresholds of statistical significance can mislead us.”
Research evaluation (DORA)
Five better ways to assess science
The 5 Hong Kong Principles:
- Assess responsible research practices
- Value complete reporting
- Reward the practice of open science (open research)
- Acknowledge a broad range of research activities
- Recognise essential other tasks like peer review and mentoring
Research ethics
Publishing
Committee on publication ethics
Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations
Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
An important study and the lead author makes some good suggestions regarding the review process. However, it is a pity that they suggest that we should fix the women - 'institutions should encourage female researchers to stand up for their results'. Surely we should be encouraging all authors to be more objective in their writing and let the readers make a judgement on novelty in the absence of spin.
Open science
https://www.orion-openscience.eu/publications/training-materials/201902/podcasts
Registered reports: peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices
Peer review
Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM
Institutional change
Institutions can retool to make research more rigorous
Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk
Resource hubs