Curate Science - Crowdsourcing the Transparency of Empirical Research.
Curate Science is a platform to crowdsource the credibility of scientific research by curating its transparency, analytic reproducibility, analytic robustness, and replicability.
Excited to release initial beta for
's new author pages. Featured authors:
Imagine a future where all article's transparency and replication info is nicely labeled & linked this way!
's theoretical framework published online
's meta-science journal AMPSS: "A Unified Framework to Quantify the Credibility of Scientific Findings"
Looking for a full-stack developer (w/ expertise in Python/Django & ReactJS) to implement next round of features at
, Transparency labels for science!
Apply by June 9 (12AM EST). USD$5K contract, work to be completed within 5 weeks
Now published at AMPPS, "A Unified Framework to Quantify the Credibility of Scientific Findings" by
See also, Curate Science:
that's in part precisely what
is currently doing, and we've just received a 2-year
grant to scale up the platform see
to search among 137 articles reporting 1161 replications of 205 effects in psychology. feedback welcome!
Boxplots of effect sizes (Cohen’s d) by sample size of Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister (1998), Self-control as limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns, Ego depletion, and replications of their findings (N = 39). Data from
(LeBel et al., 2017, June 13).
seeking feedback from the research community on next batch of features/feature improvements to be implemented at
(from a researcher's perspective labeling transparency of one's articles). see
send feedback via github, Twitter, email
looking for code contributions for front-end minor issues for open-source curation platform
a Python/Django API app w/ React front-end) see
please forward/ping anyone you know who may be interested/able
Boxplots of absolute effect size (r) by sample size of The Substitutability of Physical and Social Warmth in Daily Life (Bargh & Shalev, 2012) and replications of their findings (N = 17). Data from
(E. P. LeBel et al., 2017, June 13)
Reported effect sizes (Cohen’s d) by sample size of Vohs, Mead, & Goode (2006) The psychological consequences of money and replications of their findings (N = 42). Data from
(LeBel et al., 2017, June 13).
well said! And that's part of Curate Science's vision: give public credit to researchers who take the extra effort to report their research more transparently, even if only a *tad* more transparently. New homepage redesign (check it out
), more coming soon!
A list of potential train wrecks - substantial list of studies based on irreplaceable results - can be found on
this is great! Woll & Schönbrodt (2018) is now 1st preregistered meta on
. it is also 1st meta to comply with a relevant reporting standard (APA's MARS reporting standards for metas), as indicated by reporting standard badge & popup (we'll soon add PRISMA)
yup, we're curating and linking availability of public code at
; currently N=79 articles have "earned" the public code badge/label (us the public code filter on the right to search within this set of articles).
- you can thank
for this wonderful page.
Etienne P. LeBel
and this is (in part) why
awards open/public code badges (labels and links public code to associated article)! see