Featured

OSCG-Groningen Reprohack 11 November 13.00-17.00

Attention for Reproduction and Reproducibility of research is becoming increasingly important in scientific research. Therefore we invite you to join us in the OSCG-Groningen Reprohack on 11 November from 13.00-17.00 CET.

What is a Reprohack?
In a Reprohack (Reproducibility-Hackathon), participants try to reproduce the research output of other researchers, who may be other participants of the Reprohack or other researchers whoe made their data and code publicly available. During this workshop, participants will go through a research article in groups and try to reproduce the results as listed in the article using the code and data belonging to the article. This will give insight into whether the research is sufficiently transparent, clear, and reproducible. At the end of the workshop, we share our experiences and give feedback to authors to improve the reproducibility of their research.

There are two ways to participate:
1) As an author: You can test if your own research can be reproduced by others during the Reprohack. You will get feedback at the end of the event. You may decide to only provide your research or to participate in reproducing the work of others as well.
2) As an Reproducer: You can propose research to be reproduced that includes code and data to be used during the Reprohack. Or you can help in trying to reproduce the research of others attending the Reprohack. In this way, you can improve your skills and learn from each other to create reproducible research.

If you would like to participate, please fill in this form.

Recognizing and rewarding open research practices

A short summary of the discussion about letting go of the Journal Impact Factor

Several Dutch articles about Recognition & Recognition were published last summer, including:

  • ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

In response to the news that impact factors of scientific journals are no longer included in the evaluation of scientists at the University Utrecht, 171 scientists (including 141 professors) warned that the new recognition and reward movement will harm Dutch science (Poot et al., 2021).

Utrecht announced, among other things, that they are abandoning performance figures based on journal-related metrics (including the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and H-index), and will focus on team science and ‘open science’ instead. The opinion piece by Poot et al (2021) argues that the JIF is an imperfect, but good enough parameter for scientific quality. The signatories also believe that one cannot simply change the way researchers are evaluated, especially because the JIF (but also things like h-index) are internationally used and recognized measures for which, according to the signatories, there is no good (quantitative) alternative. They warn that the omission of measurable evaluation criteria will have negative consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of (young) Dutch scientists and make the evaluation process more political and arbitrary.

This opinion piece was criticized not only by established researchers but also by younger researchers. In various responses, more than 400 researchers stated that they did not find the JIF a representative measure to assess (young) scientists because the duties of the modern scientist consist of much more than just writing scientific publications (e.g., Algra et al., 2021). In line with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the academics called for a reassessment of the role of bibliometric indicators in the assessment of research and the abandonment of the JIF as a measure of individual quality.

In addition, also members of Open Science Communities from all over the Netherlands state that to date there is no scientific literature showing that the JIF is correlated with the quality of individual scientists (Fijten et al., 2021). In fact, they cite articles showing that scientific articles in journals with a higher JIF are on average of lower quality (Bhattacharya & Packalenbrembs, 2018; Brembs, 2018). With regard to the possible negative consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of (young) Dutch scientists, the group emphasizes that the new recognition and appreciation, contrary to what is stated by Poot et al. (2021), is in line with a broad international trend. The DORA statement has been signed by more than 20.000 individuals and organizations from 148 different countries, and major national and international research funders (e.g. NWO, ERC, NIH) are saying goodbye to assessment based on journal metrics. The new recognition and reward movement could therefore have positive consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of (young) Dutch scientists.

The discussion shows that not everyone agrees on how scientists should be recognized and rewarded. At the moment, many universities are working to give shape to a vision on how to reshape how to reward and recognize researchers, including the University of Groningen.

Do you want to know more about this topic?

On 28 October 2021 there will be a panel discussion on recognizing and rewarding open research practices during the Celebrating Openness event, with an introduction by Professor Cisca Wijmenga (Rector of the University of Groningen and chair of the recognizing and appreciating Groningen committee).

Panelists:

  • Dr Flávio Eiró (Faculty of Arts)
  • Prof. Marian Joëls (Faculty of Medical Sciences)
  • Dr Marijke Leliveld (Faculty of Economics and Business)
  • Merle-Marie Pittelkow (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)
  • Prof. Mladen Popovic (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies)
  • Chair: Dr Tina Kretschmer (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)

Vera E. Heininga & Maurits Masselink, co-founders of the OSCG

References

Algra at el. (2021) ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

Bhattacharya, J., & Packalen, M. (2020). Stagnation and scientific incentives (No. w26752). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Brembs, B. (2018). Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 12, 37

Fijten et al. (2021) ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

Poot et al. (2021) ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide


[Dutch translation]

Erkennen en waarderen van open onderzoekspraktijken:  de discussie rondom het loslaten van de Journal Impact Factor

Afgelopen zomer verschenen er diverse artikelen over Erkenning & Waarderen, waaronder:

  • ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide
  • ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

Als reactie op het nieuws dat de Universiteit Utrecht impact factoren van wetenschappelijke tijdschriften niet meer worden meegenomen in de evaluatie van wetenschappers, waarschuwden 171 wetenschappers (waaronder 141 hoogleraren) dat het nieuwe erkennen en waarderen de Nederlandse wetenschap zal schaden (Poot et al., 2021). 

Utrecht kondigde onder andere aan dat zij prestatiecijfers gebaseerd op journal gerelateerde metrics loslaten (o.a. de Journal Impact Factor (JIF), en H-index), en in plaats daarvan inzetten op team science en ‘open science’. In het opiniestuk van Poot et al (2021) wordt aangedragen dat de JIF een niet-perfecte, maar goed genoege, parameter is voor wetenschappelijke kwaliteit. Ook vinden de ondertekenaars dat men niet zomaar de manier waarop onderzoekers geëvalueerd worden kunnen veranderen, met name omdat de JIF (maar dus ook dingen als h-index) internationaal gebruikte en erkende maten zijn waarvoor, volgens de ondertekenaars, geen goed (kwantitatief) alternatief bestaat. Het achterwege laten van meetbare evaluatiecriteria zal negatieve gevolgen hebben voor de internationale erkenning en waardering van (jonge) Nederlandse wetenschappers en het beoordelingsproces politieker en willekeuriger maken, zo waarschuwen zij.

Op dit opiniestuk kwam veel kritiek, niet alleen van gevestigde onderzoekers, maar ook opvallend veel van  jongere onderzoekers. In verschillende reacties lieten meer dan 400 onderzoekers weten de JIF geen representatieve maat te vinden om (jonge) wetenschapper op te beoordelen omdat het takenpakket van de moderne wetenschapper uit veel meer bestaat dan enkel het schrijven van wetenschappelijke publicaties. In lijn met de San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), pleitten de academici voor een herijking van de rol van bibliometrische indicatoren bij de beoordeling van onderzoek en het loslaten van de JIF als maat voor individuele kwaliteit.

Deze jonge onderzoekers werden bijgestaan door veel leden van Open Science Communities uit heel Nederland. Zij laten weten dat er tot op heden geen wetenschappelijke literatuur is die laat zien dat de JIF gecorreleerd is aan kwaliteit van individuele wetenschappers. Sterker nog, ze citeren artikelen waaruit blijkt dat wetenschappelijke artikelen in tijdschriften met een hogere JIF gemiddeld van lagere kwaliteit zijn (Bhattacharya & Packalenbrembs, 2018; Brembs, 2018). Met betrekking tot de eventuele negatieve gevolgen voor de internationale erkenning en waardering van (jonge) Nederlandse wetenschappers benadrukt de groep dat het nieuwe erkennen en waarderen, in tegenstelling tot wat wordt gesteld door Poot et al. (2021), juist aansluit bij een brede internationale trend. De DORA verklaring is ondertekend door ruim 20.000 individuen en organisaties uit 148 verschillende landen, en grote nationale en  internationale onderzoeksgeldverstrekkers (bijv. NWO, ERC, NIH) nemen afscheid van beoordeling op basis van journal metrics.   Het nieuwe erkennen en waarderen zou dus juist positieve gevolgen kunnen hebben voor de internationale erkenning en waardering van (jonge) Nederlandse wetenschappers.

De discussie laat blijken dat niet iedereen het eens is over hoe wetenschappers erkent en gewaardeerd zouden moeten worden. Op dit moment zijn veel universiteiten bezig om vorm te geven een erkennen en waarderen visie, waaronder ook de Universiteit Groningen. 

Wil je meer weten over dit onderwerp? 

Op 28 oktober 2021 is er een paneldiscussie over het erkennen en waarderen van open onderzoekspraktijken tijdens het ‘Celebrating Openness’ event, met een inleiding door Professor Cisca Wijmenga (Rector of the University of Groningen en voorzitter van de erkennen en waarderen commissie Groningen).

Panelists:

  • Dr Flávio Eiró (Faculty of Arts)
  • Prof. Marian Joëls (Faculty of Medical Sciences)
  • Dr Marijke Leliveld (Faculty of Economics and Business)
  • Merle-Marie Pittelkow (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)
  • Prof. Mladen Popovic (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies)
  • Chair: Dr Tina Kretschmer (Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences)

Vera E. Heininga & Maurits Masselink, co-founders of the OSCG

References

Algra at el. (2021) ‘We moeten af van telzucht in de wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

Bhattacharya, J., & Packalen, M. (2020). Stagnation and scientific incentives (No. w26752). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Brembs, B. (2018). Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 12, 37

Fijten et al. (2021) ‘Waarom de nieuwe Recognition & Rewards excellente wetenschap juist een boost geeft’ – Recognition & Rewards

Poot et al. (2021) ‘Nieuwe Erkennen en waarderen schaadt Nederlandse wetenschap’ – ScienceGuide

ReproducibiliTEA is back

ReproducibiliTEA will be back on Monday Sep 20th. For this first session of the new academic year, we are inviting all of you to brainstorm with us about the new topics for the upcoming sessions.

First, we are interested in what Open Science is for you. You are our main target population and we would like to gain more insight into your understanding and ideas of Open Science to better target our sessions to your needs. Second, we would like to brainstorm about themes for next sessions. What have you learned so far? What do you want to learn more about? Are there topics you need help with, you want to discuss with colleagues. Aspects you would like to evaluate more critically?

Everyone is welcome to join the discussion, from newcomers to old hands. It is possible to attend on campus (max 15 people). But you can attend online as well. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcr

Upcoming schedule:

DateTimeLocationTopicCheck it out
Sept 2014.00-15.00(CET)Sign up for attendance or meet online. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcrReset ReproTea (brainstorm about new themes for 2021-2022)
October 4th14.00-15.00(CET)Sign up for attendance or meet online. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcrPower calculations
October 18th14.00-15.00(CET)Sign up for attendance or meet online. More info here: https://tinyurl.com/wwphrbcrMisconceptions about pregistration and registered reports 

OSCG workshop: Are you unintentionally p-hacking?


In research it is common to use p-values to decide whether an effect is found in a study or not. But can the p-value be trusted? It turns out that more often than researchers realize, it cannot!

Too often researchers unintentionally p-hack their results to their favored outcome. The fact p-hacking (most often) happens unintentional is scary, it means that it potentially can happen to all of us.

In this workshop by Maurits Masselink, you will learn what p-hacking is, how it happens, how to spot it, and importantly, what researchers can do to prevent it from happening as best as possible.

When? 24th of June, 13:00-14:30 CEST
Where? https://meet.google.com/yua-dumt-okt
For whom? Open to all

FEEL FREE TO JOIN!

Bio: Maurits Masselink is a postdoctoral researcher working at the UMCG. His research interests are in psychology, psychiatry and research methodology. Maurits is a strong advocator of Open Science practices and is one of the founders of the Open Science Community Groningen (OSCG). The OSCG aims to facilitate large-scale adoption of open, reproducible and responsible science practices within the University of Groningen (UG) and the University Medical Center (UMCG). For more information and to join the OSCG visit the website www.openscience-groningen.nl

Online workshop 27 May 14:00-15:00: The Future is Open!

The future is open! 
How Open Science Communities can help transition towards Open Science as the future modus operandi

Join our online workshop 27 May 14:00-15:00 CEST: ‘The future is open! How Open Science Communities can help transition towards Open Science as the future modus operandi’ by Vera Heininga

In this talk, Vera Heininga will first discuss what she understands by Open Science (what is it, but also above all: what is it not?). Then she will discuss Open Science Communities (OSCs), what it entails exactly and how OSCs in the Netherlands can help / support researchers in the transition to Open Science. For the latter, she will draw on a recent article that was recently accepted by the journal “Science and Public Policy” (see the preprint here: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/7gct9/download).

Bio:
Vera Heininga is the Open Science coordinator of the University of Groningen. She is a great fan of Open Science, meaning that she: loves research transparency; pre-registers her confirmatory analyzes a priori; uses Open Workflow Tools (e.g., R Markdown); publishes in Open Access journals; and makes her well-annotated programming code publicly available. Vera is also an interdisciplinary postdoc at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences of the University of Groningen, and co-founder of the Open Science Community Groningen (OSCG).

For whom: Students, researchers, policy makers, support staff

Click here to join the online workshop

Upcoming ReproducibiliTea meetings

DateTimeLocationTopicCheck it out
May 20, 202114:00 15:00meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euoEditorial policies and open science: Special guests: Rafaele Huntjens, Kai EpstudeKai’s editorial: https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000303;
Rafaële’s editorial: https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/science/article/pii/S0005791621000148;
Nudging Open Science paper: https://psyarxiv.com/zn7vt/
June 3, 202111:00 12:00meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euoDr. Serge Horbachh: Building a Myth or The importance of proper referencinghttps://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/aqyhg/
June 17, 202114:00 15:00meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euoThe role of academic libraries in nudging open science – special guest: Giulia TrentacostiNudging Open Science paper: https://psyarxiv.com/zn7vt/

Open call for the Open Research Award 2021

Open call for the Open Research Award 2021

We invite you to submit your case study now! 

The University of Groningen Library (UB) and the Open Science Community Groningen launch the 2nd annual Open Research Award. The award celebrates the many ways in which academics make their research more accessible, transparent or reproducible.

What?
600 words on your success or failure to use ‘open’ research practices.

How?
Via this submission form
(https://www.rug.nl/library/open-research-award/submission)

When?
Now, up until September 1st!

We welcome the submission of no more than 600 words in length that discuss the use of one or more open practices in the conduct of research and/or communication of outputs to achieve specific research aims or solve particular problems.

The case studies ideally explore the challenges of making open choices as well as those that celebrate positive experiences and successful open science practices.  Staff members and students can submit case studies. All submissions will be screened for eligibility by a jury. All eligible cases receive an Open Research Award certificate. In addition, three eligible cases will be randomly drawn by the jury; each of which will receive 500 euros to be used for research material, travel costs etc. For more information check the webpage https://www.rug.nl/library/open-research-award/ or contact us via openresearchaward@rug.nl

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!