Tag: peer review

Posted on

Open Code and Peer Review

Dr. Stephen Eglen from Code check

In this episode, we are talking about “open code” or “open source” and the benefits of making your code available in a peer review process and having it checked.

Our guest is Dr. Stephen Eglen from the department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge.

Together with Dr. Daniel Nüst, from the University of Münster, he has created Code Check – an open-science- initiative to facilitate the sharing of computer programs and results presented in scientific publications.

Continue reading “Open Code and Peer Review”

Posted on

Should you write on Wikipedia?

Picture of Trond Trosterud, our guest at Open Science Talk. Trosterud talks about Wikipedia.

So what should we make of Wikipedia?  We all know that as a student you should be careful about using Wikipedia as a cited source. There is no guarantee that the information is correct.  However, there is no denying that most of us use Wikipedia on a regular basis: When looking up stats on your favorite football player, reading up on your next vacation spot, yes even learning the basics of a field you didn’t study.

In many ways it’s brilliant, and there are good reasons why it’s one of the most used webpages on the internet.

But the question is: Should academics spend their time contributing to Wikipedia? In 2011 the Guardian wrote an article on this: Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics. Clearly, one can see the positive arguments for doing so. The public would have access to information from people who have spent their life studying a specific field, and there are some great communicators and good writers at universities who could explain difficult topics to readers.

Continue reading “Should you write on Wikipedia?”

Posted on

Preregistration In Science

Making Science great again

Why is it important to preregister research studies? According to associate professor Matthias Mittner, at the research group for cognitive neurosciences at UiT the Arctic University of Norway, there are good reasons for doing this:

  1. You can get good feedback from reviewers on an early stage.
  2. You get a time stamp on your idea.
  3. The result is more trustworthy, and you avoid data drudging,  like p-fishing, or post hoc storytelling/HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known).
  4. You also increase the credibility of the reports you produce.

Continue reading “Preregistration In Science”

Posted on

Bad Science

Bullied into Bad Science

In this episode of Open Science Talk we are joined by the founder of the campaign #bulliedintobadscience, Corina Logan.

Logan, who is a Senior Researcher at the Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, explains what she means by “Bad Science”, including important terms like P-hacking/data fishing and HARKing. She also talks about how Open Science could help in the fight against bad science.

Continue reading “Bad Science”

Posted on

Implementing DORA

What follows from signing DORA?

In this episode, we try to explain what The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is, and what happens after you have signed the declaration?

The guest of this episode is Kenneth Ruud. He is a professor of theoretical chemistry. He is also Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research at UIT – The Arctic University of Norway.

Ruud gives us an insight into how this declaration will change his organization and what challenges they are facing.

Continue reading “Implementing DORA”