statcheck is a program that checks for errors in statistical reporting in APA-formatted documents. It was originally written in the R programming language. statcheck/web is a web-based implementation of statcheck. Using statcheck/web, you can check any PDF for statistical errors without installing the R programming language on your computer.

This webinar will introduce the integration of JASP Statistical Software (https://jasp-stats.org/) with the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io). The OSF is a free, open source web application built to help researchers manage their workflows. The OSF is part collaboration tool, part version control software, and part data archive. The OSF connects to popular tools researchers already use, like Dropbox, Box, Github, Mendeley, and now is integrated with JASP, to streamline workflows and increase efficiency.

Open Science accelerates the discovery of cures and advances new knowledge by improving the rigor and transparency of research and resusabilty of resulting data, materials, and code. But acceleration requires efficiency in managing the research lifecycle with integrated tools that work together to reduce the burden on investigators to manage, collaborate, and share as they work.

OSF provides the interface for research collaboration, with increased efficiency for the research team through integrated storage provider tools and citation managers.

Get familiar with the OSF project interface, understand how it can accelerate collaboration, transparency, sharing, and reuse of research outputs, and take a deep dive into integrations that connect directly into OSF for efficiency in researcher workflows.

Visit osf.io and help.osf.io to learn more.

Openness in research can lead to greater reproducibility, an accelerated pace of discovery, and decreased redundancy of effort. In addition, open research ensures equitable access to knowledge and the ability for any community to assess, interrogate, and build upon prior work. It also requires open infrastructure and distributed access; but few institutions can provide all of these services alone. Providing a trustworthy network for perpetual availability of research data is critical to ensuring reproducibility, transparency, and ongoing inquiry.

Increased attention on the importance of open research and data sharing has led to a proliferation of platforms to store data, materials, etc., with limited technical integration. This can hinder data sharing, but also complicate coordination with local library expertise and services, thus hampering curation and long-term stewardship.

For example, the open source OSF enables researchers to directly create and manage research projects and integrates with other tools researchers use (Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, etc.), but lacks the ability to archive that material locally at a researcher’s institution. Long-term stewardship and preservation requires multiple copies of data archived in different locations, and creating archives seamlessly would be ideal.

COS and IA are working together to address these preservation and stewardship challenges by providing open, cooperative infrastructure to ensure long-term access and connection to research data, and by supporting and promoting adoption of open science practices to enhance research reproducibility as well as data sharing and reuse.

In this webinar, attendees will learn about both the technical and practical aspects of this collaborative project connecting the researcher tool OSF and the preservation system of Internet Archive. We demonstrate how researchers can improve the openness and reproducibility of their research through preregistration, and how those preregistrations are preserved with Internet Archive. We answer questions and explore use cases for how this powerful workflow can support library curation and stewardship of open research.

Replication is the cornerstone of a cumulative science. However, new tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, interdisciplinary approaches, and the complexity of the questions being asked are complicating replication efforts, as are increased pressures on scientists to advance their research. As full replication of studies on independently collected data is often not feasible, there has recently been a call for reproducible research as an attainable minimum standard for assessing the value of scientific claims. This requires that papers in experimental science describe the results and provide a sufficiently clear protocol to allow successful repetition and extension of analyses based on original data. The importance of replication and reproducibility has recently been exemplified through studies showing that scientific papers commonly leave out experimental details essential for reproduction, studies showing difficulties with replicating published experimental results, an increase in retracted papers, and through a high number of failing clinical trials. This has led to discussions on how individual researchers, institutions, funding bodies, and journals can establish routines that increase transparency and reproducibility. In order to foster such aspects, it has been suggested that the scientific community needs to develop a “culture of reproducibility” for computational science, and to require it for published claims. We want to emphasize that reproducibility is not only a moral responsibility with respect to the scientific field, but that a lack of reproducibility can also be a burden for you as an individual researcher. As an example, a good practice of reproducibility is necessary in order to allow previously developed methodology to be effectively applied on new data, or to allow reuse of code and results for new projects. In other words, good habits of reproducibility may actually turn out to be a time-saver in the longer run. We further note that reproducibility is just as much about the habits that ensure reproducible research as the technologies that can make these processes efficient and realistic. Each of the following ten rules captures a specific aspect of reproducibility, and discusses what is needed in terms of information handling and tracking of procedures. If you are taking a bare-bones approach to bioinformatics analysis, i.e., running various custom scripts from the command line, you will probably need to handle each rule explicitly. If you are instead performing your analyses through an integrated framework (such as GenePattern, Galaxy, LONI pipeline, or Taverna), the system may already provide full or partial support for most of the rules. What is needed on your part is then merely the knowledge of how to exploit these existing possibilities.

Course summary
A minimal standard for data analysis and other scientific computations is that they be reproducible: that the code and data are assembled in a way so that another group can re-create all of the results (e.g., the figures in a paper). The importance of such reproducibility is now widely recognized, but it is still not so widely practiced as it should be, in large part because many computational scientists (and particularly statisticians) have not fully adopted the required tools for reproducible research.

In this course, we will discuss general principles for reproducible research but will focus primarily on the use of relevant tools (particularly make, git, and knitr), with the goal that the students leave the course ready and willing to ensure that all aspects of their computational research (software, data analyses, papers, presentations, posters) are reproducible.

Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals.

Central location housing curriculum materials and planning tools for trainers of the COS Introduction to Open and Reproducible Research workshop.

Several fields of science are experiencing a "replication crisis" that has negatively impacted their credibility. Assessing the validity of a contribution via replicability of its experimental evidence and reproducibility of its analyses requires access to relevant study materials, data, and code. Failing to share them limits the ability to scrutinize or build-upon the research, ultimately hindering scientific progress.Understanding how the diverse research artifacts in HCI impact sharing can help produce informed recommendations for individual researchers and policy-makers in HCI. Therefore, we surveyed authors of CHI 2018–2019 papers, asking if they share their papers' research materials and data, how they share them, and why they do not. The results (N = 460/1356, 34% response rate) show that sharing is uncommon, partly due to misunderstandings about the purpose of sharing and reliable hosting. We conclude with recommendations for fostering open research practices.This paper and all data and materials are freely available at https://osf.io/csy8q

Background: Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature. Objective: This study aimed to determine the quality and transparency of the literature in dermatology journals by evaluating for the presence of 8 indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices. Methods: By implementing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of publications in dermatology journals from the National Library of Medicine catalog. Our search included articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. After generating a list of eligible dermatology publications, we then searched for full text PDF versions by using Open Access Button, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Publications were analyzed for 8 indicators of reproducibility and transparency—availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocol, preregistration, conflict of interest statement, funding statement, and open access—using a pilot-tested Google Form. Results: After exclusion, 127 studies with empirical data were included in our analysis. Certain indicators were more poorly reported than others. We found that most publications (113, 88.9%) did not provide unmodified, raw data used to make computations, 124 (97.6%) failed to make the complete protocol available, and 126 (99.2%) did not include step-by-step analysis scripts. Conclusions: Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety. Solutions to increase the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of dermatology research are warranted. More robust reporting of key methodological details, open data sharing, and stricter standards journals impose on authors regarding disclosure of study materials might help to better the climate of reproducible research in dermatology. [JMIR Dermatol 2019;2(1):e16078]

Current concerns about reproducibility in many research communities can be traced back to a high value placed on empirical reproducibility of the physical details of scientific experiments and observations. For example, the detailed descriptions by 17th century scientist Robert Boyle of his vacuum pump experiments are often held to be the ideal of reproducibility as a cornerstone of scientific practice. Victoria Stodden has claimed that the computer is an analog for Boyle’s pump – another kind of scientific instrument that needs detailed descriptions of how it generates results. In the place of Boyle’s hand-written notes, we now expect code in open source programming languages to be available to enable others to reproduce and extend computational experiments. In this paper we show that there is another genealogy for reproducibility, starting at least from Euclid, in the production of proofs in mathematics. Proofs have a distinctive quality of being necessarily reproducible, and are the cornerstone of mathematical science. However, the task of the modern mathematical scientist has drifted from that of blackboard rhetorician, where the craft of proof reigned, to a scientific workflow that now more closely resembles that of an experimental scientist. So, what is proof in modern mathematics? And, if proof is unattainable in other fields, what is due scientific diligence in a computational experimental environment? How do we measure truth in the context of uncertainty? Adopting a manner of Lakatosian conversant conjecture between two mathematicians, we examine how proof informs our practice of computational statistical inquiry. We propose that a reorientation of mathematical science is necessary so that its reproducibility can be readily assessed.

The Turing Way project is open source, open collaboration, and community-driven. We involve and support a diverse community of contributors to make data science accessible, comprehensible and effective for everyone. Our goal is to provide all the information that researchers and data scientists in academia, industry and the public sector need to ensure that the projects they work on are easy to reproduce and reuse.

The UKRN primer series is designed to introduce a broad audience to important topics in open and reproducible scholarship. Each primer includes an overview of the topic in the introductory “What?” section, reasons for undertaking these practices in the “Why?” section, followed by a longer “How?” section that provides guidance on how to do that open research behaviour practically. Throughout the primers there are embedded explanatory weblinks, and at the end of each is a collated list of links to useful further resources.

Software Carpentry lesson on how to use the shell to navigate the filesystem and write simple loops and scripts. The Unix shell has been around longer than most of its users have been alive. It has survived so long because it’s a power tool that allows people to do complex things with just a few keystrokes. More importantly, it helps them combine existing programs in new ways and automate repetitive tasks so they aren’t typing the same things over and over again. Use of the shell is fundamental to using a wide range of other powerful tools and computing resources (including “high-performance computing” supercomputers). These lessons will start you on a path towards using these resources effectively.

This lesson is part of the Software Carpentry workshops that teach how to use version control with Git. Wolfman and Dracula have been hired by Universal Missions (a space services spinoff from Euphoric State University) to investigate if it is possible to send their next planetary lander to Mars. They want to be able to work on the plans at the same time, but they have run into problems doing this in the past. If they take turns, each one will spend a lot of time waiting for the other to finish, but if they work on their own copies and email changes back and forth things will be lost, overwritten, or duplicated. A colleague suggests using version control to manage their work. Version control is better than mailing files back and forth: Nothing that is committed to version control is ever lost, unless you work really, really hard at it. Since all old versions of files are saved, it’s always possible to go back in time to see exactly who wrote what on a particular day, or what version of a program was used to generate a particular set of results. As we have this record of who made what changes when, we know who to ask if we have questions later on, and, if needed, revert to a previous version, much like the “undo” feature in an editor. When several people collaborate in the same project, it’s possible to accidentally overlook or overwrite someone’s changes. The version control system automatically notifies users whenever there’s a conflict between one person’s work and another’s. Teams are not the only ones to benefit from version control: lone researchers can benefit immensely. Keeping a record of what was changed, when, and why is extremely useful for all researchers if they ever need to come back to the project later on (e.g., a year later, when memory has faded). Version control is the lab notebook of the digital world: it’s what professionals use to keep track of what they’ve done and to collaborate with other people. Every large software development project relies on it, and most programmers use it for their small jobs as well. And it isn’t just for software: books, papers, small data sets, and anything that changes over time or needs to be shared can and should be stored in a version control system.

This webinar will introduce the concept of version control and the version control features that are built into the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io). The OSF is a free, open source web application built to help researchers manage their workflows. The OSF is part collaboration tool, part version control software, and part data archive. The OSF connects to popular tools researchers already use, like Dropbox, Box, Github and Mendeley, to streamline workflows and increase efficiency. This webinar will discuss how keeping track of the different file versions is important for efficient reproducible research practices, how version control works on the OSF, and how researchers can view and download previous versions of files.

In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers’ tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.

More researchers are preregistering their studies as a way to combat publication bias and improve the credibility of research findings. Preregistration is at its core designed to distinguish between confirmatory and exploratory results. Both are important to the progress of science, but when they are conflated, problems arise. In this webinar, we discuss the What, Why, and How of preregistration and what it means for the future of science. Visit cos.io/prereg for additional resources.

Replications are inevitably different from the original studies. How do we decide whether something is a replication? The answer shifts the conception of replication from a boring, uncreative, housekeeping activity to an exciting, generative, vital contributor to research progress.

This video is the first in a series of videos related to the basics of power analyses. All materials shown in the video, as well as content from the other videos in the power analysis series can be found here: https://osf.io/a4xhr/