Category Archives: reproducible research

Guest Post: Leading international studies journal takes replication seriously, by Joseph Young

Transparency and data access – these public goods are crucial principals for science. But why don’t researchers implement them? Political scientist Joseph K. Young discusses incentives for reproducibility, and how he is tracking down old replication data for the leading international studies journal ISQ.
Continue reading

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

What is a failed replication?

failed replicationA lot of original authors are concerned about their reputation when their work is replicated, and the replication fails. But when can we actually label a replication as “failed”? And how should we deal with unhappy original authors who feel ‘bullied’? Continue reading

Against publication bias: Politics journal invites pre-registered papers

After fields like Psychology have explored pre-registration of studies, now Political Science follows the trend for more transparency in research. A high ranking journal, Comparative Political Studies, plans a special issue in which all papers have to be pre-registered and are submitted without the results section. I asked Michael Findley, one of the editors behind the initative, about publication bias and transparency in the field. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , ,

Guest Post: Publishing a replication? Definitely worth repeating, by Chris Hartgerink

Chris Hartgerink is a research master student at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. I invited him to write a guest post about his experience of publishing a replication project. It turns out that, among many other aspects of doing a replication study, one of the main take away points was that a replicator must be reproducible as well. He explains here why it is important to always have a second assessor on all the analysis code before submitting to a journal.
Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Guest Post: Two simple things to make your research more reproducible, by Thomas Wallis

In this guest post, experimental psychologist Thomas Wallis (University of Tübingen) proposes two simple ideas how you can make your work more reproducible.
Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Guest Post: Be a better scientist – how to make your scientific output more credible, by Thomas Leeper

Thomas Leeper, a political scientist at Aarhus University, recently wrote about where to store your replication data. In his second post, he explains what kind of data to archive, and why that makes you a better scientist. His post is packed with concrete steps and state-of-the-art software tips.
Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

Methods vs Insights #4: The four stages of a project (and the fifth you should avoid)

Reproducibility is one of the hardest stages in a research project. Here are tips for writing successful papers in any field, re-blogged from the Scientific B-Sides Blog.

Scientific B-sides

Methods vs Insights is back. Today with a discussion of general research practice.

Most projects in my lab take years from start to finish. So it is important for me to manage the expectations my students and postdocs may have. Here is a plot I have developed to discuss the different stages of a scientific project with them and to prepare them for what’s ahead.

The four stages of a scientific project: Explore! Dig! Refine! Sell! And the stage you want to avoid: Waste! Plus the prevalent emotion in each stage and the key skill you will need to successfully navigate it. The four stages of a scientific project: Explore! Dig! Refine! Sell! And the stage you want to avoid: Waste! Plus the prevalent emotion in each stage and the key skill you will need to successfully navigate it. (x-axis it time, y-axis is work you’ve put in.)

View original post 1,352 more words

Tagged , ,