The FX/90: A proposal in response to a low Reynolds Number station keeping mission

The FX/90 is a remotely piloted vehicle designed to fly at Reynolds numbers below 2 x 10 to the 5th power. Several applications exist for this type of flight, such as low altitude flight of very small aircraft. The design presented here allows investigation into the unique problems involved in low Reynolds number flight, which will, in turn, further understanding of this flight regime. The aircraft will operate in a steady flight environment, free from significant atmospheric turbulence and weather effects. The F-90 has a 39 in. fuselage which is constructed of balsa and plywood. The landing gear for the aircraft is a detachable carriage on which the aircraft rests. The aerodynamic planform is a rectangular wing (no taper or sweep) with a chord of 9 in., a wingspan of 72 in., and is constructed entirely out of styrofoam. The propulsion system is a puller configuration mounted on the front of the fuselage. It consists of an Astro 05 engine and a 10-6 two bladed propeller. Control of the aircraft is accomplished through the use of two movable control surfaces: elevators for pitch control, and a rudder for yaw control. The aircraft is soundly constructed, highly maneuverable, and adequately powered. Furthermore, the investigation into alternative technologies, most notably the styrofoam wing and the detachable landing gear, holds promise to improve the performance of the aircraft

Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology

Replicability of findings is at the heart of any empirical science. The aim of this article is to move the current replicability debate in psychology towards concrete recommendations for improvement. We focus on research practices but also offer guidelines for reviewers, editors, journal management, teachers, granting institutions, and university promotion committees, highlighting some of the emerging and existing practical solutions that can facilitate implementation of these recommendations. The challenges for improving replicability in psychological science are systemic. Improvement can occur only if changes are made at many levels of practice, evaluation, and reward. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. </jats:p

An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact.

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects

Investigating variation in replicability

Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect

The sexual and reproductive rights and benefit derived from sexual and reproductive health services of people with physical disabilities in South Africa: beliefs of non-disabled people

There is a body of theoretical work, and some empirical research, which suggests that non-disabled people assume people with physical disabilities not to be suitable romantic partners, not have sexual drives or desires, or not be sexually active. Access to sexual and reproductive health services for the latter group is a challenge: it has been proposed that people with physical disabilities face barriers to sexual health care access which are structural (such as inaccessible health care provider offices) as well as social (such as health care providers suggesting that people with physical disabilities should not procreate). The present paper explores non-disabled South Africans’ beliefs concerning the degree to which individuals have sexual and reproductive rights, and benefit from sexual and reproductive healthcare, for people with physical disabilities and people without disability. Using a survey, we asked 1,989 South Africans to estimate the degree to which people with physical disabilities and people without disability have sexual rights, and benefit from sexual and reproductive healthcare services, respectively. Respondents were more likely to support the idea that the population without disability were deserving of sexual rights compared to people with physical disabilities. Respondents were also more likely to rate the degree to which people with physical disability benefit from sexual and reproductive healthcare as less than that for people without physical disabilities. These findings provide some of the first empirical support that nondisabled people perceive people with physical disabilities as having fewer sexual and reproductive rights, and deriving less benefit from sexual and reproductive health services, than the population without disability. To have diminished sexual rights, and benefit less from sexual and reproductive healthcare, we suggest, evinces a negation of the sexual and reproductive needs and capacity of people with physical disabilities

Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)