Open Science seeks to make research processes and outputs more accessible, transparent, and inclusive, ensuring that scientific findings can be freely shared, scrutinised, and built-upon by researchers and others. To date, there has been no …
Science studies scholars have shown that the management of natural complexity in lab settings is accomplished through a mixture of technological standardization and tacit knowledge by lab workers. Yet these strategies are not available to researchers …
Practices that introduce systematic bias are common in most scientific disciplines, including toxicology. Selective reporting of results and publication bias are two of the most prevalent sources of bias and lead to unreliable scientific claims. …
We have written about a few of the open science practices, some of which are becoming the norm, such as preregistration (and whether it prevents creativity). I’ve also been invited a few times to give classes and workshops to introduce various …
Peer review is broken. Reviewer comments often lack constructiveness, clarity, and consistency. For decades, educational scholarship has provided evidence-based, theoretically informed, and robust interventions for the provision of effective …
‘Open Science’ advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between …
The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is most often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that …
Research funding systems fundamentally influence how science operates. This paper aims to analyze the allocation of competitive research funding from different perspectives: How reliable are decision processes for funding? What are the economic costs …