Archiving for the Future is a free training course designed to teach language documenters, activists, and researchers how to organize, arrange, and archive language documentation, revitalization, and maintenance materials and metadata in a digital repository or language archive. Then entire course can be completed in approximately 3-5 hours.

This course was developed by the staff of the Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America at the University of Texas at Austin in consultation with representatives of various DELAMAN (https://www.delaman.org/) archives and other digital data repositories in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and Cameroon.

The course material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-1653380 (September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2020). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

In this study, we examined participants' choice behavior in a sequential risk-taking task. We were especially interested in the extent to which participants focus on the immediate next choice or consider the entire choice sequence. To do so, we inspected whether decisions were either based on conditional probabilities (e.g., being successful on the immediate next trial) or on conjunctive probabilities (of being successful several times in a row). The results of five experiments with a simplified nine-card Columbia Card Task and a CPT-model analysis show that participants' choice behavior can be described best by a mixture of the two probability types. Specifically, for their first choice, the participants relied on conditional probabilities, whereas subsequent choices were based on conjunctive probabilities. This strategy occurred across different start conditions in which more or less cards were already presented face up. Consequently, the proportion of risky choices was substantially higher when participants started from a state with some cards facing up, compared with when they arrived at that state starting from the very beginning. The results, alternative accounts, and implications are discussed.

This unit explores the various ways information and ideas about climate change are presented through a variety of media. This includes the evaluation of social media posts, research into climate change issues, and an exploration of contemporary art and artists. This was designed and taught in an honors 9th grade English Language Arts Classroom by Dr. Tavia Quaid in response to student interest in climate change and to reinforce key information literacy skills.

This unit explores the various ways information and ideas about climate change are presented through a variety of media. This includes the evaluation of social media posts, research into climate change issues, and an exploration of contemporary art and artists. 

There is broad interest to improve the reproducibility of published research. We developed a survey tool to assess the availability of digital research artifacts published alongside peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g. data, models, code, directions for use) and reproducibility of article results. We used the tool to assess 360 of the 1,989 articles published by six hydrology and water resources journals in 2017. Like studies from other fields, we reproduced results for only a small fraction of articles (1.6% of tested articles) using their available artifacts. We estimated, with 95% confidence, that results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of all 1,989 articles. Unlike prior studies, the survey tool identified key bottlenecks to making work more reproducible. Bottlenecks include: only some digital artifacts available (44% of articles), no directions (89%), or all artifacts available but results not reproducible (5%). The tool (or extensions) can help authors, journals, funders, and institutions to self-assess manuscripts, provide feedback to improve reproducibility, and recognize and reward reproducible articles as examples for others.

In this simulation of a doctor's office, students play the roles of physician, nurse, patients, and time-keeper, with the objective to improve the patient waiting time. They collect and graph data as part of their analysis. This serves as a hands-on example of using engineering principles and engineering design approaches (such as models and simulations) to research, analyze, test and improve processes.

ARDC curate a collection of resources for researchers, librarians and eResearch professionals. The topics covered by resources and guides range from ethics and sensitive data to managing data; from research data policy and licensing to training and teaching research data management skills.

A Software Carpentry lesson to learn how to use Make Make is a tool which can run commands to read files, process these files in some way, and write out the processed files. For example, in software development, Make is used to compile source code into executable programs or libraries, but Make can also be used to: run analysis scripts on raw data files to get data files that summarize the raw data; run visualization scripts on data files to produce plots; and to parse and combine text files and plots to create papers. Make is called a build tool - it builds data files, plots, papers, programs or libraries. It can also update existing files if desired. Make tracks the dependencies between the files it creates and the files used to create these. If one of the original files (e.g. a data file) is changed, then Make knows to recreate, or update, the files that depend upon this file (e.g. a plot). There are now many build tools available, all of which are based on the same concepts as Make.

Scientific data and tools should, as much as possible, be free as in beer and free as in freedom. The vast majority of science today is paid for by taxpayer-funded grants; at the same time, the incredible successes of science are strong evidence for the benefit of collaboration in knowledgable pursuits. Within the scientific academy, sharing of expertise, data, tools, etc. is prolific, but only recently with the rise of the Open Access movement has this sharing come to embrace the public. Even though most research data is never shared, both the public and even scientists in their own fields are often unaware of just much data, tools, and other resources are made freely available for analysis! This list is a small attempt at bringing light to data repositories and computational science tools that are often siloed according to each scientific discipline, in the hopes of spurring along both public and professional contributions to science.

There are several important elements to digital preservation, including data protection, backup and archiving. In this lesson, these concepts are introduced and best practices are highlighted with case study examples of how things can go wrong. Exploring the logistical, technical and policy implications of data preservation, participants will be able to identify their preservation needs and be ready to implement good data preservation practices by the end of the module.

Students use their senses to describe what the weather is doing and predict what it might do next. After gaining a basic understanding of weather patterns, students act as state park engineers and design/build "backyard weather stations" to gather data to make actual weather forecasts.

Background: The reproducibility policy at the journal Biostatistics rewards articles with badges for data and code sharing. This study investigates the effect of badges at increasing reproducible research. Methods: The setting of this observational study is the Biostatistics and Statistics in Medicine (control journal) online research archives. The data consisted of 240 randomly sampled articles from 2006 to 2013 (30 articles per year) per journal. Data analyses included: plotting probability of data and code sharing by article submission date, and Bayesian logistic regression modelling. Results: The probability of data sharing was higher at Biostatistics than the control journal but the probability of code sharing was comparable for both journals. The probability of data sharing increased by 3.9 times (95% credible interval: 1.5 to 8.44 times, p-value probability that sharing increased: 0.998) after badges were introduced at Biostatistics. On an absolute scale, this difference was only a 7.6% increase in data sharing (95% CI: 2 to 15%, p-value: 0.998). Badges did not have an impact on code sharing at the journal (mean increase: 1 time, 95% credible interval: 0.03 to 3.58 times, p-value probability that sharing increased: 0.378). 64% of articles at Biostatistics that provide data/code had broken links, and at Statistics in Medicine, 40%; assuming these links worked only slightly changed the effect of badges on data (mean increase: 6.7%, 95% CI: 0.0% to 17.0%, p-value: 0.974) and on code (mean increase: -2%, 95% CI: -10.0 to 7.0%, p-value: 0.286). Conclusions: The effect of badges at Biostatistics was a 7.6% increase in the data sharing rate, 5 times less than the effect of badges at Psychological Science. Though badges at Biostatistics did not impact code sharing, and had a moderate effect on data sharing, badges are an interesting step that journals are taking to incentivise and promote reproducible research.

Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.

This course is conducted as an artificial intelligence programming contest in Java. Students work in teams to program virtual robots to play Battlecode, a real-time strategy game. Optional lectures are provided on topics and programming practices relevant to the game, and students learn and improve their programming skills experientially. The competition culminates in a live Battlecode tournament.
This course is offered during the Independent Activities Period (IAP), which is a special 4-week term at MIT that runs from the first week of January until the end of the month.

We revisit the results of the recent Reproducibility Project: Psychology by the Open Science Collaboration. We compute Bayes factors—a quantity that can be used to express comparative evidence for an hypothesis but also for the null hypothesis—for a large subset (N = 72) of the original papers and their corresponding replication attempts. In our computation, we take into account the likely scenario that publication bias had distorted the originally published results. Overall, 75% of studies gave qualitatively similar results in terms of the amount of evidence provided. However, the evidence was often weak (i.e., Bayes factor < 10). The majority of the studies (64%) did not provide strong evidence for either the null or the alternative hypothesis in either the original or the replication, and no replication attempts provided strong evidence in favor of the null. In all cases where the original paper provided strong evidence but the replication did not (15%), the sample size in the replication was smaller than the original. Where the replication provided strong evidence but the original did not (10%), the replication sample size was larger. We conclude that the apparent failure of the Reproducibility Project to replicate many target effects can be adequately explained by overestimation of effect sizes (or overestimation of evidence against the null hypothesis) due to small sample sizes and publication bias in the psychological literature. We further conclude that traditional sample sizes are insufficient and that a more widespread adoption of Bayesian methods is desirable.

Bayesian hypothesis testing presents an attractive alternative to p value hypothesis testing. Part I of this series outlined several advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing, including the ability to quantify evidence and the ability to monitor and update this evidence as data come in, without the need to know the intention with which the data were collected. Despite these and other practical advantages, Bayesian hypothesis tests are still reported relatively rarely. An important impediment to the widespread adoption of Bayesian tests is arguably the lack of user-friendly software for the run-of-the-mill statistical problems that confront psychologists for the analysis of almost every experiment: the t-test, ANOVA, correlation, regression, and contingency tables. In Part II of this series we introduce JASP (http://www.jasp-stats.org), an open-source, cross-platform, user-friendly graphical software package that allows users to carry out Bayesian hypothesis tests for standard statistical problems. JASP is based in part on the Bayesian analyses implemented in Morey and Rouder’s BayesFactor package for R. Armed with JASP, the practical advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing are only a mouse click away.

Experienced Registered Reports editors and reviewers come together to discuss the format and best practices for handling submissions. The panelists also share insights into what editors are looking for from reviewers as well as practical guidelines for writing a Registered Report. ABOUT THE PANELISTS: Chris Chambers | Chris is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff University, Chair of the Registered Reports Committee supported by the Center for Open Science, and one of the founders of Registered Reports. He has helped establish the Registered Reports format for over a dozen journals. Anastasia Kiyonaga | Anastasia is a cognitive neuroscientist who uses converging behavioral, brain stimulation, and neuroimaging methods to probe memory and attention processes. She is currently a postdoctoral researcher with Mark D'Esposito in the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. Before coming to Berkeley, she received her Ph.D. with Tobias Egner in the Duke Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. She will be an Assistant Professor in the Department of Cognitive Science at UC San Diego starting January, 2020. Jason Scimeca | Jason is a cognitive neuroscientist at UC Berkeley. His research investigates the neural systems that support high-level cognitive processes such as executive function, working memory, and the flexible control of behavior. He completed his Ph.D. at Brown University with David Badre and is currently a postdoctoral researcher in Mark D'Esposito's Cognitive Neuroscience Lab. Moderated by David Mellor, Director of Policy Initiatives for the Center for Open Science.

Companion Site for Harvard Medical School Canvas Network MOOC Best Practices for Biomedical Research Data Management. This Open Science Framework project site includes all the materials contained in the Canvas course including: readings and resources; slide presentations; video lectures; activity outlines; research case studies and questions; and quiz questions with answer guide.

Biomedical research today is not only rigorous, innovative and insightful, it also has to be organized and reproducible. With more capacity to create and store data, there is the challenge of making data discoverable, understandable, and reusable. Many funding agencies and journal publishers are requiring publication of relevant data to promote open science and reproducibility of research.

In order to meet to these requirements and evolving trends, researchers and information professionals will need the data management and curation knowledge and skills to support the access, reuse and preservation of data.

This course is designed to address present and future data management needs.

Ever need to help a researcher share and archive their research data? Would you know how to advise them on managing their data so it can be easily shared and re-used? This workshop will cover best practices for collecting and organizing research data related to the goal of data preservation and sharing. We will focus on best practices and tips for collecting data, including file naming, documentation/metadata, quality control, and versioning, as well as access and control/security, backup and storage, and licensing. We will discuss the library’s role in data management, and the opportunities and challenges around supporting data sharing efforts. Through case studies we will explore a typical research data scenario and propose solutions and services by the library and institutional partners. Finally, we discuss methods to stay up to date with data management related topics.