"Are we willing to reserve bold claims of discovery for findings that are transparently reported and withstand the scrutiny and verification that transparency invites?" Transparency is just a means. asks if we're ready for what it enables
"...we should not assume that transparent research is good research. But we don’t have to — that’s the point of transparency."
Two bonzer pieces by to see in the new year: “A toast to the error detectors” “Do We Want to Be Credible or Incredible?”
Great article: "most of the literature continues to make bold claims of groundbreaking discoveries based on research that receives little scrutiny — often b/c what we’d need to scrutinize it (e.g., data, code, materials, prereg. plan) isn’t available."
I generally quite like this piece from : let’s hype only to what we can verify! This bit, IMO, unnecessarily frames fields that have been turning an eye to science’s workings for decades as mere underlings to the new metascientists.
"Do we want to be credible or incredible?" Great piece by going into 2020 - on why transparency should not be a nice extra, but integral to research evaluation. relevant for #opensciece discussion at cc
This excellent piece on transparency and scrutiny reminded me of the contrasting experiences I had last year reviewing three manuscripts that varied in transparency. 1/4
“In a system in which opacity is the acceptable default, there is no way to survive as a transparent researcher.” ht
1/ On Jan 1, my APS membership expired, ’s term as Editor in Chief of Psych Science ended (I miss his leadership and vision already), and a column I wrote for the APS observer came out
Excellent piece from about why #psychology should continue increasing transparency--and the long-term benefits that will accrue.