|Date||Time||Location||Topic||Check it out|
|May 20, 2021||14:00 15:00||meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euo||Editorial policies and open science: Special guests: Rafaele Huntjens, Kai Epstude||Kai’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, 2021||11:00 12:00||meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euo||Dr. Serge Horbachh: Building a Myth or The importance of proper referencing||https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/aqyhg/|
|June 17, 2021||14:00 15:00||meet.google.com/ecp-hbzy-euo||The role of academic libraries in nudging open science – special guest: Giulia Trentacosti||Nudging Open Science paper: https://psyarxiv.com/zn7vt/|
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
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
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!
New year, new decade – new initiative! You are warmly invited to the kick-off of the ReproducibiliTea meetings at the faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences. Continue reading “13 February 2020: First ReproducibiliTea @ BSS”
Preparation: follow these steps, (approx. 15 min): https://hampei.github.io/rstuff/install_quick.html & bring your laptop!
Thursday, January 23rd, 10.00 – 11.00.
Location: UMCG, Triadebuilding entrance 24, room k1.25
More and more, researchers are required to share code and enable others to reproduce their results. However, most of us have received little (if any) training on how to code properly, effectively and efficiently, deal with version control, or encounter reproducibility issues due to updating R-packages. On top of that, it can be really scary to share your code, warts and all, even if you think you’ve done a good job. Luckily there are various tools and software to help.
In this workshop, Henk van der Veen, senior software engineer at Roqua, will give an overview how to create and share code in a way that let’s other people (including future you) easily contribute to or reproduce your results. The focus will be on the packrat package in R and github repositories, as two steps in the coding chain. Henk will discuss advantages of a code repository, and explain about branches, pull requests, coding style and code reviews. Bring your laptop to play around with these technologies, and if there is enough time we might do a coding exercise.
IMPORTANT: To make sure we don’t spend 20 minutes on installing everything in the beginning, if you plan to bring your laptop and try the software, please follow these steps before the session (approx. 15 min): https://hampei.github.io/rstuff/install_quick.html. If you run into trouble/have any questions contact me (Daan) or Henk.
Science; why the best is not yet good enough.
Science is currently our best way of acquiring knowledge. It is the continuing process that has brought us – amongst others – our understanding that the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Industrial Revolution, and modern Medicine, while surely in a few years, it will also bring us hoverboards. Continue reading “ReproducibiliTea Groningen BLOGPOST #1: Science; why the best is not yet good enough”
That is just my cup of tea!
Open Science and Reproducibility journal-discussion-and-workshop club!
The meetings are organized every other Thursday and open to all who want to know and learn more about open science practices.
Location: UMCG, Triadebuilding entrance 24, k1.25, 14.00 – 15.00