Thread by @WlliamCrozierIV

Back from a great #apls2018. Lots of cool research, and I learned a lot. However, I did notice that almost no one referenced #openscience. A thread about why it’s important 1/N

By open science I mean: open materials, open data, and pre-reg (any and all combinations). I went to a ton of talks, and only saw two that referenced it. s/o to exceptions from @RBMichaelPsyc and Aria Amrom who pre-registered via @OSFramework. 2/N

I'm a bit biased b/c all of my work is open/pre-reg’d. All projects in the symposium I organized are open/pre-reg’d. We posted OSF links in our slides. I’m not bringing this up to brag or get credit. I get #openscience is hard, n hope to start discussion, not chastise. 3/N

(Shameless plug: Why Memory Matters: Problems (and Solutions) in Criminal Investigations. osf.io/8dfn5 slides and project links included. Sorry @dstephenlindsay for not making it public earlier! Feedback appreciated! @RabbitSnore @f_alceste @cardenas_s_a 4/N)

To the extent that good science is open science (extensively, I think), lack of open science at the conf bugs me – suggests the work presented isn’t produced with best practices. Now, maybe people are doing it but not posting it. But even not mentioning it is still a problem. 5/N

For open science to be really effective, it needs to be the new norm. This means more than just journals giving badges (tho props to LHB for getting engaged) - needs to be at conf too. It needs to be expected, tacitly rewarded, and perhaps overtly rewarded as well. 6/N

Open science takes work. It takes time, effort, planning, and a bit of bravery. It carries a cost that is necessary for good science. But is there a reward? Maybe people respected our symposium more, or maybe a job search member noticed my work and I’ll benefit down the road 7/N

But maybe not. If I DIDNT open science my work, I’d see no reason to change: I can publish faster, perhaps worse but more exciting=publishable work, if I save time and aim for journals that are still accepting non-open work (which I assume is most) 8/N

If the societies/confs don’t embrace it, emphasis on journal pubs is too down stream. In job apps, is it likely a search committee is going to 1) care about open science, 2) notice which pubs are in open science-emphasized journals and 3) value those pubs over non-open pubs? 9/N

quotes an SPSP panel on student perspective of open science - this thread discusses some of the high costs that current young scientists can suffer from doing things the right way.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @siminevazire view original on Twitter

10/N

Societies, like @APLS41, should be valuing open science at the ground level of empirical proliferation: conf presentations. Senior members should be encouraging it in their labs before confs, and valuing it in work at the confs (thnx to @DerynStrange for doing exactly this) 11/N

Large scale, this makes #openscience the norm. So even if there aren’t direct benefits (e.g., greater chance of talk/publication acceptance, tho see below) there are professional boons (collaboration, attention drawn to work, greater visibility of your best practices). 12/N

That’s why even if psychologists are doing open science but not including it in presentations, it’s a problem that it isn’t being publicly recognized. Should be self-promoted (brag on yoself!), promoted by members, and by leadership 13/N

If I’m a grad student, I learned nothing about an essential component to conducting research. Yet we are supposed to learn about conducting research. Many talks advertise new paradigms at confs, so the message is: what paradigm is important, but process is less important. 14/N

If I’m an early academic/ ECR who doesn’t do open science, I see no reason to change what I’m doing. Either consciously ("why do all this extra work?") or inadvertently by never seeing #openscience modeled or mentioned ("what's open science, anyways?") 15/N

I’ll admit I’ve never organized a conf before, but a few solutions strike me as easy and painless: 1) talk/poster applications encouraging open science work, with a box for links (eg, OSF links) not part of the word limit. Publish those in conf programs with abstracts. 16/N

That will promote visibility of the work AND the practice. Function AND fashion. Hell, the Haiku Crew (@JeffKukucka @jenperillo @ADPerillo) can tweet their haikus and include the 10-character link right after their haiku (they def have the character space) 17/N

2) organize workshops/webinars/guides/accept symposiums on #openscience practices. Pre-conf and at-conf. Could be tailored for specific fields, such as exp materials for case materials, confessions, eyew and lineup stimuli. I bet would increase collaboration and citations 18/N

3) consider open science practice recognition for talks and posters. Could be student-specific, @APLSsc. 4) encourage (require?) open science for confs and submissions. Even just posting slides: shallow use with the process would, I think, really help. Empirical question tho 19/N

To clarify, I’m not here to criticize. #Openscience can be hard, overwhelming, and a bit scary - esp for students. There is variation in what can be made available. It takes time to learn (you could be writing!!) so I’m not saying strict, exclusionary guidelines. 20/N

But in my experience, open science wasn’t even a discussion point at the conf - and it should be. I hope that next year, I can have spontaneous conversations about open science with people who aren’t my normal collaborators - comparing stories, practices, and projects 21/N

I think it would be good for both @APLS41 , and the individual members, if presented research was expected to be open and transparent, and was produced with best-practice. END

Note: Curses! That osf link is to the first project. Here's to the overall symposium: osf.io/hm5vn/