“How do you encourage researchers to share the data underlying their publications? The journal Psychological Science introduced a digital badge system in 2014 to signify when authors make the data and related materials accompanying their articles openly available. Criteria to earn the Open Data badge include (1) sharing data via a publicly accessible repository with a persistent identifier, such as a DOI, (2) assigning an open license, such as CC-BY or CC0, allowing reuse and credit to the data producer, and (3) providing enough documentation that another researcher could reproduce the reported results (Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices project on the Open Science Framework)….”
“There’s this idea that open science will attract more ‘disciples’ if it comes across as having a more positive, inclusive tone. Goodness me, what a load of honking bullshit this is. Open science will attract individual adopters for three reasons: (1) when scientists grow a conscience and appreciate that their public mission demands transparency and reproducibility; (2) when scientists decide to take advantage of individual incentives (career and social) for being open (e.g. Registered Reports, joining SIPS etc.); (3) when funders, journals and institutions make it a requirement. All of these are in progress. The cold embrace of open science by gatekeepers and regulators is in the post – it is only a matter of time before transparent, reproducible practices will be required if you want to spend public money. That’s why I tell early career researchers to get ahead now because the ground is shifting under your feet….”
“The American Psychological Association, the nonprofit publisher of 90 psychology journals, has entered a partnership with the Center for Open Science to offer open science badges to authors, create an APA data repository to ease sharing and designate a preferred preprint server for APA journal articles.”
Abstract: In this article, we explore the state of the OA market and the current situation with respect to offsetting deals in the Netherlands. We then offer a case study of the LingOA model for a transition to open access, backed by a consortial funding mechanism: the Open Library of Humanities (OLH). We also suggest how this approach can be extended into new disciplinary spaces (in particular, mathematics and psychology, where there is already some willingness from editors).
A recent takedown notice from the American Psychological Association (APA):
“I write on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA) to bring to your attention the unauthorized posting of final published journal articles to your institutional website. Following the discussion below, a formal DMCA takedown request is included with URLs to the location of these articles. As a reminder, authors of articles published by APA are able to post the final accepted, pre-formatted versions of their articles on their personal websites, university repositories, and author networking sites (see Internet Posting Guidelines here: http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/posting.aspx). Similarly, APA complies with funder guidelines to post final accepted manuscripts into appropriate repositories when research is funded by a federal agency….”
“In this unflinchingly candid manifesto, Chris Chambers draws on his own experiences as a working scientist to reveal a dark side to psychology that few of us ever see. Using the seven deadly sins as a metaphor, he shows how practitioners are vulnerable to powerful biases that undercut the scientific method, how they routinely torture data until it produces outcomes that can be published in prestigious journals, and how studies are much less reliable than advertised. He reveals how a culture of secrecy denies the public and other researchers access to the results of psychology experiments, how fraudulent academics can operate with impunity, and how an obsession with bean counting creates perverse incentives for academics. Left unchecked, these problems threaten the very future of psychology as a science–but help is here.
Outlining a core set of best practices that can be applied across the sciences, Chambers demonstrates how all these sins can be corrected by embracing open science, an emerging philosophy that seeks to make research and its outcomes as transparent as possible….”
“Psychological Science is now introducing some minor changes designed to increase the frequency and ease with which editors and reviewers of submissions can access data and materials as part of the peer-review process. I anticipate that, in addition to enhancing the review process, these changes will further increase the percentage of Psychological Science articles for which researchers can quickly and easily access data and materials postpublication. The changes we are introducing are tweaks and nudges, not radical shifts. In the following, I explain the changes and why they are worth undertaking.”
Abstract: Background: Suicidal patients often visit healthcare professionals in their last month before suicide, but medical practitioners are unlikely to raise the issue of suicide with patients because of time constraints and uncertainty regarding an appropriate approach. Introduction: A brief tool called the e-PASS Suicidal Ideation Detector (eSID) was developed for medical practitioners to help detect the presence of suicidal ideation (SI) in their clients. If SI is detected, the system alerts medical practitioners to address this issue with a client. The eSID tool was developed due to the absence of an easy-to-use, evidence-based SI detection tool for general practice. Material and Methods: The tool was developed using binary logistic regression analyses of data provided by clients accessing an online psychological assessment function. Ten primary healthcare professionals provided advice regarding the use of the tool. Results: The analysis identified eleven factors in addition to the Kessler-6 for inclusion in the model used to predict the probability of recent SI. The model performed well across gender and age groups 18–64 (AUR 0.834, 95% CI 0.828–0.841, N?=?16,703). Healthcare professionals were interviewed; they recommended that the tool be incorporated into existing medical software systems and that additional resources be supplied, tailored to the level of risk identified. Conclusion: The eSID is expected to trigger risk assessments by healthcare professionals when this is necessary. Initial reactions of healthcare professionals to the tool were favorable, but further testing and in situ development are required.