56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)

56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)

Dan and James are joined by Chris Chambers (Cardiff University) to discuss the Registered Reports format. Here’s an overview of what they covered: What is a registered report and why should we implement them? [1:47] The impact of conscious and unconscious bias on scientific publication [6:17] Common objections to registered reports [8:21] The slippery slope fallacy [14:33] The advantages of registered reports for early career researchers [15:47] The generational divide for embracing methodological reforms [19:13] The launch of registered reports in 2013 [23:30] The “tone debate” in psychology [24:50] Dealing with publishing decisions as an early career researcher [27:30] Using registered reports to disarm your research rivals [30:52] A peek behind the curtain of peer-review [34:40] How do we convince journals to take up the registered report format? [36:28] Using registered reports for meta-analysis [38:40] What’s something that Chris has changed his mind about recently? [43:14] What’s Chris’ favourite failure? [48:23] Chris’ opinion of Wales [51:49] Links The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Psychology-Scientific/dp/0691158908 Chris Chambers on Twitter @chrisdc77 Dorothy Bishop’s blog on how registered reports provides better control of the publication timeline http://deevybee.blogspot.no/2016/03/better-control-of-publication-time-line.html The Startup Scientist podcast https://shows.pippa.io/startupscientist Startup scientist on Twitter @Startup_sci The open science pyramid (slide 8) https://osf.io/yq59d/ The Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology “power posing” issue http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrsp20/2/1?nav=tocList Dan on Twitter @dsquintana James on Twitter @JamesHeathers Music credits Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Chris Chambers.

Avsnitt(195)

187: What started the replication crisis era?

187: What started the replication crisis era?

We chat about the events that started the replication crisis in psychology and Dorothy Bishop's recent resignation from the Royal Society Links * The resignation blogpost (http://deevybee.blogspot.com...

3 Dec 202455min

186: Evaluating journal quality

186: Evaluating journal quality

In this episode we chat about a Nordic approach for evaluating the journal quality and how we should be teaching undergraduates to evaluate journal and article quality Links * The Norwegian journal re...

13 Nov 202443min

185: The Retraction

185: The Retraction

We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake. Link...

4 Okt 20241h 8min

184: A race to the bottom

184: A race to the bottom

Open access articles have democratized the availability of scientific research, but are author-paid publication fees undermining the quality of science? The preprint by Morgan and Smaldino - https://...

5 Sep 202448min

183: Too beautiful to be true

183: Too beautiful to be true

Dan and James discuss a paper describing a journal editor's efforts to receive data from authors who submitted papers with results that seemed a little too beautiful to be true Main edisode takeaways ...

3 Aug 202445min

182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?

182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?

Dan and James answer a listener question on what practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields. Here are the main takeaways: Keeping laboratory records and u...

2 Juli 202451min

181: Down the rabbit hole

181: Down the rabbit hole

We discuss how following citation chains in psychology can often lead to unexpected places, and how this can contribute to unreplicable findings. We also discuss why team science has taken longer to c...

3 Juni 202442min

180: Consortium peer reviews

180: Consortium peer reviews

Dan and James discuss why innovation in scientific publishing is so hard, an emerging consortium peer review model, and a recent replication of the 'refilling soup bowl' study. Other things they cover...

2 Maj 202450min

Populärt inom Vetenskap

svd-nyhetsartiklar
dumma-manniskor
p3-dystopia
kapitalet-en-podd-om-ekonomi
allt-du-velat-veta
rss-ufo-bortom-rimligt-tvivel-2
rss-vetenskapsradion
doden-hjarnan-kemisten
rss-vetenskapsradion-2
det-morka-psyket
paranormalt-med-caroline-giertz
sexet
rss-odla
rss-spraket
bildningspodden
rss-experimentet
medicinvetarna
dumforklarat
har-vi-akt-till-mars-an
barnpsykologerna