Title TBA: Revising the Abstract Submission Process.

Academic conferences are among the most prolific scientific activities, yet the current abstract submission and review process has serious limitations. We propose a revised process that would address these limitations, achieve some of the aims of Open Science, and stimulate discussion throughout the entire lifecycle of the scientific work

Registered reports: an early example and analysis

© 2019 Wiseman et al.The recent ‘replication crisis’ in psychology has focused attention on ways of increasing methodological rigor within the behavioral sciences. Part of this work has involved promoting ‘Registered Reports’, wherein journals peer review papers prior to data collection and publication. Although this approach is usually seen as a relatively recent development, we note that a prototype of this publishing model was initiated in the mid-1970s by parapsychologist Martin Johnson in the European Journal of Parapsychology (EJP). A retrospective and observational comparison of Registered and non-Registered Reports published in the EJP during a seventeen-year period provides circumstantial evidence to suggest that the approach helped to reduce questionable research practices. This paper aims both to bring Johnson’s pioneering work to a wider audience, and to investigate the positive role that Registered Reports may play in helping to promote higher methodological and statistical standards.Peer reviewe

Self-other differences in student drinking norms research: the role of impression management, self-deception and measurement methodology

Background: Data-driven student drinking norms interventions are based on reported normative overestimation of the extent and approval of an average student’s drinking. Self-reported differences between personal and perceived normative drinking behaviors and attitudes are taken at face value as evidence of actual levels of overestimation. This study investigates whether commonly used data collection methods and socially desirable responding may inadvertently impede establishing 'objective' drinking norms. Methods: UK students [N=421; 69% female; Mean age 20.22 years (SD = 2.5)] were randomly assigned to one of three versions of a drinking norms questionnaire: The standard multi-target questionnaire assessed respondents' drinking attitudes and behaviors (frequency of consumption, heavy drinking, units on a typical occasion) as well as drinking attitudes and behaviors for an ‘average student’. Two deconstructed versions of this questionnaire assessed identical behaviors and attitudes for participants themselves or an 'average student'. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding was also administered. Results: Students who answered questions about themselves and peers reported more extreme perceived drinking attitudes for the average student compared with those reporting solely on the ‘average student’. Personal and perceived reports of drinking behaviors did not differ between multi- and single-target versions of the questionnaire. Among those who completed the multi-target questionnaire, after controlling for demographics and weekly drinking, socially desirable responding was related positively with the magnitude of difference between students’ own reported behaviors/attitudes and those perceived for the average student. Conclusions: Standard methodological practices and socially desirable responding may be sources of bias in peer norm overestimation research

Proceedings of the Paris Open Science European Conference

For more than twenty years, the international research community has affirmed its support for open and collaborative practices that improve the quality, transparency, reproducibility and inclusiveness of science. In France, this orientation has been reflected in the adoption of two National Plans for Open Science, in 2018 and 2021. In this context and on the occasion of the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, France organised the Open Science European Conference (OSEC) on 4 and 5 February 2022. This conference on the transformation of the research and innovation ecosystem in Europe was an opportunity to address in particular transparency in health research, the future of scientific publishing and the opening of codes and software produced in a scientific context, but also the necessary transformations of research assessment, summarised in the Paris Call presented during the event and calling for the creation of a coalition of actors committed to reforming the current system. This international event was organised was organised by the French Académie des sciences, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), the High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcéres), the National Research Agency (ANR), the University of Lorraine and the University of Nantes.For more than twenty years, the international research community has affirmed its support for open and collaborative practices that improve the quality, transparency, reproducibility and inclusiveness of science. In France, this orientation has been reflected in the adoption of two National Plans for Open Science, in 2018 and 2021. In this context and on the occasion of the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, France organised the Open Science European Conference (OSEC) on 4 and 5 February 2022. This conference on the transformation of the research and innovation ecosystem in Europe was an opportunity to address in particular transparency in health research, the future of scientific publishing and the opening of codes and software produced in a scientific context, but also the necessary transformations of research assessment, summarised in the Paris Call presented during the event and calling for the creation of a coalition of actors committed to reforming the current system. This international event was organised was organised by the French Académie des sciences, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), the High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcéres), the National Research Agency (ANR), the University of Lorraine and the University of Nantes

Using Bayes Factors to evaluate evidence for no effect: examples from the SIPS project

Aims: To illustrate how Bayes Factors are important for determining the effectiveness of interventions. Method: We consider a case where inappropriate conclusions were publicly drawn based on significance testing, namely the SIPS Project (Screening and Intervention Programme for Sensible drinking), a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial in each of two healthcare settings and in the criminal justice system. We showhow Bayes Factors can disambiguate the non-significant findings from the SIPS Project and thus determine whether the findings represent evidence of absence or absence of evidence. We show how to model the sort of effects that could be expected, and how to check the robustness of the Bayes Factors. Results: The findings from the three SIPS trials taken individually are largely uninformative but, when data from these trials are combined, there is moderate evidence for a null hypothesis (H0) and thus for a lack of effect of brief intervention compared with simple clinical feedback and an alcohol information leaflet (B = 0.24, p = 0.43). Conclusion: Scientists who find non-significant results should suspend judgment – unless they calculate a Bayes Factor to indicate either that there is evidence for a null hypothesis (H0) over a (welljustified) alternative hypothesis (H1), or else that more data are needed

False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading

In research on eye movements in reading, it is common to analyze a number of canonical dependent measures to study how the effects of a manipulation unfold over time. Although this gives rise to the well-known multiple comparisons problem, i.e. an inflated probability that the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected (Type I error), it is accepted standard practice not to apply any correction procedures. Instead, there appears to be a widespread belief that corrections are not necessary because the increase in false positives is too small to matter. To our knowledge, no formal argument has ever been presented to justify this assumption. Here, we report a computational investigation of this issue using Monte Carlo simulations. Our results show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, false positives are increased to unacceptable levels when no corrections are applied. Our simulations also show that counter-measures like the Bonferroni correction keep false positives in check while reducing statistical power only moderately. Hence, there is little reason why such corrections should not be made a standard requirement. Further, we discuss three statistical illusions that can arise when statistical power is low, and we show how power can be improved to prevent these illusions. In sum, our work renders a detailed picture of the various types of statistical errors than can occur in studies of reading behavior and we provide concrete guidance about how these errors can be avoided

Open Science NL Work programme 2024-2025

Open Science NL fonctionnera sur la base de cycles stratégiques de deux ans. Tous les deux ans, un programme de travail sera établi décrivant comment le budget disponible sera dépensé et quels instruments de financement seront développés dans ce cycle. Ce modèle s’inspire de la procédure suivie par la Commission Européenne. L’avantage des cycles courts de deux ans est qu’ils permettent les nouveaux défis à traduire rapidement dans les instruments de financement. Les programmes de travail d’Open Science NL sont les buts et les objectifs stratégiques formulés dans ce document qui présente le premier programme de travail, couvrant les années 2024 et 2025

Actes des Journées européennes de la science ouverte

Depuis plus de vingt ans, la communauté scientifique internationale affirme son soutien à la science ouverte comme fondement d’une recherche plus collaborative, transparente, intègre et proche de la société. Cette orientation s’est notamment traduite en France par l’adoption de deux Plans nationaux pour la science ouverte, en 2018 et 2021. Dans cette dynamique et à l’occasion de la présidence française du Conseil de l’Union européenne, la France a organisé les 4 et 5 février 2022 les Journées européennes de la science ouverte (OSEC). Cette conférence sur la transformation de l’écosystème de la recherche et de l’innovation en Europe a été l’occasion d’aborder en particulier la transparence des recherches en santé, l’avenir de l’édition scientifique et l’ouverture des codes et logiciels produits dans un contexte de recherche, mais aussi les transformations nécessaires de l’évaluation de la recherche, synthétisées dans l’Appel de Paris présenté lors de ces Journées et appelant à la création d’une coalition d’acteurs engagés pour une réforme du système actuel. Cet événement international a été organisé avec le soutien de l’Académie des sciences, du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), de l’Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM), du Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur (Hcéres), de l’Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR), de l’Université de Lorraine et de l’Université de Nantes

Open education and educational resources, open access to scholarly publications. National policy and executive plan by the higher education and research community for 2021–2025: Policy component for open access to theses

The Declaration for Open Science and Research states that "In the research community, responsible openness is a part of everyday research throughout the research process, and research organisations have assessment practices, incentives, and services in place to support this." This also applies to the thesis process, and this policy component on open access to theses applies to all theses completed in higher education institutions (bachelor’s and master’s theses at universities and universities of applied sciences, advanced studies theses, licentiate theses, and doctoral theses).  Open science enables a broader use of research results by the research community and society, thus increasing the impact of research as well as the level of scholarship and innovation in society. Openness and the transparency of the process are also intended to support the quality of research. In the context of universities of applied sciences, a thesis is a task that requires and demonstrates expertise and takes into account aspects of the challenges of working life, thus making openness particularly useful from a professional point of view. The policy component on open access to theses has been developed to serve these basic objectives from the perspective of theses.The Declaration for Open Science and Research states that "In the research community, responsible openness is a part of everyday research throughout the research process, and research organisations have assessment practices, incentives, and services in place to support this." This also applies to the thesis process, and this policy component on open access to theses applies to all theses completed in higher education institutions (bachelor’s and master’s theses at universities and universities of applied sciences, advanced studies theses, licentiate theses, and doctoral theses).  Open science enables a broader use of research results by the research community and society, thus increasing the impact of research as well as the level of scholarship and innovation in society. Openness and the transparency of the process are also intended to support the quality of research. In the context of universities of applied sciences, a thesis is a task that requires and demonstrates expertise and takes into account aspects of the challenges of working life, thus making openness particularly useful from a professional point of view. The policy component on open access to theses has been developed to serve these basic objectives from the perspective of theses.The Declaration for Open Science and Research states that "In the research community, responsible openness is a part of everyday research throughout the research process, and research organisations have assessment practices, incentives, and services in place to support this." This also applies to the thesis process, and this policy component on open access to theses applies to all theses completed in higher education institutions (bachelor’s and master’s theses at universities and universities of applied sciences, advanced studies theses, licentiate theses, and doctoral theses).  Open science enables a broader use of research results by the research community and society, thus increasing the impact of research as well as the level of scholarship and innovation in society. Openness and the transparency of the process are also intended to support the quality of research. In the context of universities of applied sciences, a thesis is a task that requires and demonstrates expertise and takes into account aspects of the challenges of working life, thus making openness particularly useful from a professional point of view. The policy component on open access to theses has been developed to serve these basic objectives from the perspective of theses