Neuroscience
A number of scientists have been vocal proponents of study pre-registration, in which detailed methodological and statistical plans for an experiment are registered in advance of data collection. The admirable goal is to eliminate questionable research practices such as failing to report all of a study's dependent measures, deciding whether to collect more data after looking to see whether the results are significant, and selectively reporting studies that 'worked.' Along these lines, the journal Cortex has recently launched a new type of article called Registered Reports, largely through the efforts of Dr Chris Chambers:
Many of these same researchers are also strong advocates for publication reform, some even calling for journals to be eliminated altogether in favor of post-publication, crowd-sourced review and reputation ranking. But supporters of both pre-registration and the Open Science Framework haven't yet utilized its capability to submit their new work (as opposed to the Reproducibility Project for replications).
Since calls for pre-registration of basic research studies have been ongoing for years, perhaps its proponents have been too conservative with taking matters into their own hands. One might even say there's a distinct lack of risk-taking among the strongest believers. What's to prevent them from pre-registering studies in public databases or on their own blogs (without formal peer review but perhaps soliciting comments)? Or publishing a Study Protocol in a BMC journal (like @SallyScientist did)?
You know, Unilaterally Raising the Scientific Standard... Jona Sassenhagen has already done this by registering his study in the German Clinical Trials Register. Why haven't more followed suit? Or maybe they have, and I just don't know about it. If that's the case, please enlighten me in the comments.
- Institutional Review Boards And Open Access Publishing
The New York Times has an article about whether the rules for Human Subjects protection, enforced by Institutional Review Boards, have in fact gone overboard (in terms of onerous regulations that protect no one): As Ethics Panels Expand Grip, No Field...
- Peer Review Trial And Debate At Nature
Omni Brain links to a new feature at Nature: a 3 month trial period of "open" peer review. For those who opt to submit their papers under this track, authors can choose to have their submissions posted on a preprint server for open comments, in parallel...
- Anonymous Peer Review Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry
The Neurocritic has been feeling reproved this past week, so it's time to post an oldie but goodie about the arbitrary nature of peer review, published in Brain (full-text available free). Might as well take up gambling. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility...
- Disclosure Of Clinical Trials: Ongoing Debate
Today's New York Times provides a report about the ongoing debate concerning clinical-trials findings and the ability to balance favorable against unfavorable findings in an environment where unfavorable findings do not easily come to the fore: Expected...
- Peer Review: Solemn Duty Or Merely Extra Work?
The other day on Twitter I saw Rolf Zwaan tweeting about Collabra's policy of rewarding reviewers with credit that can be traded in for credit for organisational article processing fees (APC) budgets, into Collabra's fee waiver account, or for...
Neuroscience
The Pre-Registration Challenge
Open Science Framework - There have been no registrations.
A number of scientists have been vocal proponents of study pre-registration, in which detailed methodological and statistical plans for an experiment are registered in advance of data collection. The admirable goal is to eliminate questionable research practices such as failing to report all of a study's dependent measures, deciding whether to collect more data after looking to see whether the results are significant, and selectively reporting studies that 'worked.' Along these lines, the journal Cortex has recently launched a new type of article called Registered Reports, largely through the efforts of Dr Chris Chambers:
Unlike conventional publishing models, Registered Reports split the review process into two stages. Initially, experimental methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and reviewed before data are collected. Then, if peer reviews are favourable, we offer authors “in-principle acceptance” of their paper. This guarantees publication of their future results providing that they adhere precisely to their registered protocol. Once their experiment is complete, authors then resubmit their full manuscript for final consideration.
Many of these same researchers are also strong advocates for publication reform, some even calling for journals to be eliminated altogether in favor of post-publication, crowd-sourced review and reputation ranking. But supporters of both pre-registration and the Open Science Framework haven't yet utilized its capability to submit their new work (as opposed to the Reproducibility Project for replications).
Since calls for pre-registration of basic research studies have been ongoing for years, perhaps its proponents have been too conservative with taking matters into their own hands. One might even say there's a distinct lack of risk-taking among the strongest believers. What's to prevent them from pre-registering studies in public databases or on their own blogs (without formal peer review but perhaps soliciting comments)? Or publishing a Study Protocol in a BMC journal (like @SallyScientist did)?
You know, Unilaterally Raising the Scientific Standard... Jona Sassenhagen has already done this by registering his study in the German Clinical Trials Register. Why haven't more followed suit? Or maybe they have, and I just don't know about it. If that's the case, please enlighten me in the comments.
- Institutional Review Boards And Open Access Publishing
The New York Times has an article about whether the rules for Human Subjects protection, enforced by Institutional Review Boards, have in fact gone overboard (in terms of onerous regulations that protect no one): As Ethics Panels Expand Grip, No Field...
- Peer Review Trial And Debate At Nature
Omni Brain links to a new feature at Nature: a 3 month trial period of "open" peer review. For those who opt to submit their papers under this track, authors can choose to have their submissions posted on a preprint server for open comments, in parallel...
- Anonymous Peer Review Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry
The Neurocritic has been feeling reproved this past week, so it's time to post an oldie but goodie about the arbitrary nature of peer review, published in Brain (full-text available free). Might as well take up gambling. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility...
- Disclosure Of Clinical Trials: Ongoing Debate
Today's New York Times provides a report about the ongoing debate concerning clinical-trials findings and the ability to balance favorable against unfavorable findings in an environment where unfavorable findings do not easily come to the fore: Expected...
- Peer Review: Solemn Duty Or Merely Extra Work?
The other day on Twitter I saw Rolf Zwaan tweeting about Collabra's policy of rewarding reviewers with credit that can be traded in for credit for organisational article processing fees (APC) budgets, into Collabra's fee waiver account, or for...