ReproducibiliTea February 11th 11:00 – 12:00: Reflexivity as an Open Science Tool?

We will be tackling the question of how to use reflexivity in our research process, and how reflexivity could aid open science practices.  

Reflexivity is the process by which the researcher continually and explicitly engages in self-awareness and analysis of personal influences on the research process. Reflexivity on the part of the researcher allows them to question and adapt their interpretations, based on issues that arise during the study” (p.5 Field & Derksen, 2020). Practicing reflexivity throughout the research process, could help to produce an honest and critical account of the research process and potentially increase the quality of your interpretations and conclusions. 

Do you agree? And if yes, how to get started practicing reflexivity? How could it help in your personal journey towards more open science? Let’s discuss next week. 

For a bit of thought stimulating background, please read “Experimenter as automaton; experimenter as human: exploring the position of the researcher in scientific research (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13194-020-00324-7) from Sarahanne M. Field and Maarten Derksen. 


Date/time: Thursday February 11, 2021 from 11:00 – 12:00
Location: http://meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euo

ReproducibiliTea: Does open science make you leave academia? (14.00 – 15.00, 28-1-2021!)

Does Open Science make you leave academia?, While open science practices can have many benefits, there are also downsides. Besides time investments and limited resources, learning about why open science is important can make you unsure of current research practices and (overly) sceptical of existing literature. Ultimately, promising researchers can become disheartened by the status quo, and decide to leave academia altogether. In our session we’ll discuss these issues and how to deal with them. We’ll add a personal touch, so come join us and share your thoughts!
As intro/background reading please have a look at Reflections on my PhD and building sustainable science | by Chris Hartgerink | Medium

ReproducibiliTea January 14, 11-12.00: What would you do to improve open science?

Dear all,


We hope that you all had a good start of the new year! Below are three announcements from your favorite Tea brewers:


To begin with, the next ReproducibiliTea meeting is on January 14, 2021 (yes, that’s in 3 days already!). We ‘d like to have a discussion about how to improve Open Science. If you had money (say, 50.000 euros), what would you do with it to enhance (Open) Science in general? The topic is inspired by the recent launch of a new NWO funding instrument (https://www.nwo.nl/en/news/new-funding-instrument-stimulate-open-science). We’ll have a brainstorm on big ideas (what would you do with 50.000 euros?) and while we’re at it, address smaller goals as well. What are your Open Science goals for 2021? Keep on reading!

[blog] Open Research Award: Celebrating openness … and randomness?

Recently, the Open Science Community Groningen (OSCG) and the University of Groningen Library (UB) collaboratively set up a yearly returning Open Research Award, with the first awards being awarded October 2020. The goal of the Open Research Award is to (1) raise awareness and promote Open Research [1] practices, for example, pre-registration or Open Access publishing; (2) and incentivize incorporating Open Research in research by acknowledging and rewarding it. In this blog, we will play devil’s advocate so that we can cover pros and cons of introducing an Open Research Award and its uptake of a modified lottery.

Continue reading “[blog] Open Research Award: Celebrating openness … and randomness?”

[Blog] Silly… and unethical scientists

Silly… and unethical scientists

When scientists and non-scientists are confronted with similar problems, you may expect those smart scientists to handle the problems more sensibly than non-scientists. However, in this blog, I show that the opposite may be true and that scientists all too often go for solutions that are silly… and unethical. Continue reading “[Blog] Silly… and unethical scientists”