35: A manifesto for reproducible science
Dan and James discuss a new paper in the inaugural issue of Nature Human Behaviour, "A manifesto for reproducible science".
\n\nSome of the topics covered:
\n\n- \n
- What's a manfesto for reproducibility doing in a Nature group journal? \n
- Registered reports \n
- The importance of incentives to actually make change happen \n
- What people should report vs. what they actually report \n
- A common pitfall of published meta-analyses \n
- The reliance of metrics in hiring decisions and the impact of open science practices \n
- Tone police \n
- How do we transition to open science practices? \n
- SSRN preprints being bought by Elsevier \n
- Authors getting gouged by copyediting costs (and solutions) \n
- Does being 'double-blind' extend to doing your analysis blind \n
- Trial monitoring is expensive \n
Links
\n\nThe paper
\nhttp://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021
Our paper on reporting standards in heart rate variability
\nhttp://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v6/n5/full/tp201673a.html
Equator guidelines
\nhttp://www.equator-network.org
Facebook page
\n\nhttps://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/
\n\nTwitter account
\n\n