contributors
Latest
Redressing imbalances in the kind of research that gets done and who gets credit for it
If we want good work to get done, we should credit those who do it. In science, researchers are credited predominantly via authorship on publications. But many contributions to modern research are not recognized with authorship, due in part to the high bar imposed by the authorship criteria of many journals. “Contributorship” is a more inclusive framework for indicating who did what in the work described by a paper, and many scientific journals have recently implemented versions of it. I will consider the motivation for and specifics of this change, describe the tenzing tool we created to facilitate it, and how we might want to support and shape the shift toward contributorship
Why does online collaboration work? Insights into sequential collaboration
The last two decades have seen a rise in online projects such as Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap in which people collaborate to create a common product. Contributors in such projects often work together sequentially. Essentially, the first contributor generates an entry (e.g., a Wikipedia article) independently which is then adjusted in the following by other contributors by adding or correcting information. We refer to this way of working together as sequential collaboration. This process has not yet been studied in the context of judgment and decision making even though research has demonstrated that Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap yield very accurate information. In this talk, I give first insights into the structure of sequential collaboration, how adjusting each other’s judgments can yield more accurate final estimates, which boundary conditions need to be met, and which underlying mechanisms may be responsible for successful collaboration. A preprint is available at https://psyarxiv.com/w4xdk/
Lessons from the credibility revolution – social thermoregulation as a case study
The goal of this talk is to first provide a realization of why the replication crisis is omnipresent and then point to several tools via which the listener can improve their own work. To do so, I will go through our own work on social thermoregulation, point out why I thought changes were necessary, discuss which shortcomings we have in our own work, which measures we have taken to reduce those shortcomings, which tools we have relied on to do so, and which steps I believe we still need to make. Specifically, I will go through the following points: Major replication failures and data fabrication in the field of psychology; Replication failures of social thermoregulation studies; Realization that many of our studies were underpowered; Realization that many of our studies were very narrow in scope (i.e., in undergraduate students and mostly in EU/US); Realization that a lot of our measures were not independently validated. I will show these for our own work (but will also show why, via a meta-analysis, we have enough confidence to proceed with social thermoregulation research). Throughout the talk I will point you to the following tools that facilitate our work: Templates for exploratory and confirmatory research and for meta-analyses (developed for our work, but easily adaptable for other programs). I will also show you how to fork our templates; A lab philosophy; A research milestones sheet for collaborations and overviews; Excel sheet for contributorship; A tutorial for exploratory research; I would recommend listeners to read through this chapter before the talk (I will repeat a lot of that work, but I will go into greater depth). own work. To do so, I will go through our own work on social thermoregulation, point out why I thought changes were necessary, discuss which shortcomings we have in our own work, which measures we have taken to reduce those shortcomings, which tools we have relied on to do so, and which steps I believe we still need to make.
contributors coverage
3 items