top of page

Journal Clubs

ReproducibiliTea is a global network of journal clubs that meet to discuss issues, papers, and ideas about improving science, including reproducibility, open science, meta-research, philosophy of science, and research methods. More info on ReproducibiliTea here: https://reproducibilitea.org/.

Sign up for the Melbourne ReproducibiliTea mailing list: https://forms.gle/Kz2G2m8sYdkGFWYi7

Melbourne ReproducibiliTea Next Meeting Details and List of Previous Papers

Zoom link: https://unimelb.zoom.us/j/82890839824?pwd=VkpxOW4wRitrR0FFVVM2eGRjaVJsdz09 

Password: ReproTea

Meeting #13: June 27th, 4pm

Presenter: Ze Freeman

Paper: Pownall (2024) Is replication possible in qualitative research? A response to Makel et al. (2022) Educational Research and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2314526

Meeting #12: May 30th, 4pm

Presenter: Beth Clarke

Blog post: Von Hippel, P. (2023, November 15). When Does Science Self-Correct? Lessons from a Replication Crisis in Early 20th Century Chemistry [Substack newsletter]. The Good Science Project. https://goodscience.substack.com/p/when-does-science-self-correct-lessons?publication_id=1010915&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=b6147

Meeting #11: April 22nd, 4pm

Presenter: Job Fransen

Paper: Hostler, T. (2024). Research assessment using a narrow definition of “research quality” is an act of gatekeeping: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022). Meta-Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2023.3764

Pdf available here

Meeting #10: March 28th, 4pm

Presenter: Simine Vazire

Paper: Stefan, A. M., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2023). Big little lies: A compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 220346. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220346 

Pdf available here

– No January & February meeting (Summer break) –

2023

 

– No December meeting (Summer break) –

Meeting #9: November 30th, 4pm

Presenter: Beth Clarke

Paper: Ivimey-Cook, E. R., Pick, J. L., Bairos-Novak, K. R., Culina, A., Gould, E., Grainger, M., Marshall, B. M., Moreau, D., Paquet, M., Royauté, R., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Silva, I., & Windecker, S. M. (2023). Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 36, 1347–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14230

Pdf available here

Meeting #8: October 26th, 4pm

Presenter: Abdullah Sajjad

Paper: Yarkoni, T. (October, 2018). No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you. https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/ 

Pdf available here

Meeting: September 28th, 4pm was cancelled.

Meeting #7: August 31st, 4pm

Presenter: Peter Hayes

Paper: Schoenegger, P. & Pils, R (2023). Social sciences in crisis: on the proposed elimination of the discussion section. Synthese, 202(54). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04267-3

Pdf available here

Meeting #6: July 27th, 4pm

Presenter: Tom Hardwicke

Paper: Christian, K., Larkins, Ja. & Doran, M.R. We must improve conditions and options for Australian ECRs. Nat Hum Behav (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01621-w 

Pdf available here

Meeting #5: Jun. 29th, 4pm

Presenter: Annie Whamond

Paper: Brainard, J. (2023) New tools show promise for tackling paper mills, Science, 380(6645), 568-569, DOI: 10.1126/science.adi6513

(https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

Pdf available here

Meeting #4: May. 25th, 4pm

Presenter: Robert Ross

Paper: Maul, A. (2017) Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 15(2), 51-69, DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2017.134810

Pdf available here

 

Meeting #3: Apr. 27th, 4pm

Presenter: Valentina Bianchi

Paper: Lakens, D. (2023). Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards. Nature, 613(7942), 9-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04504-8 

 

Meeting #2: Mar. 30th, 4pm

Presenter: Thomas Spiteri

Paper: Feest, U. (2019). Why Replication Is Overrated. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 895-905. doi:10.1086/705451

Pdf available here

Meeting #1: Feb. 23rd, 4pm

Presenter: Tom Hardwicke

Paper: Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., ... & Ioannidis, J. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature human behaviour, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021.

Pdf available here

Previous Journal Clubs

8th November 2022

The Paper: O’Connor, C., et al. (2020). ‘False Beliefs and the Social Structure of Science: Some Models and Case Studies’. In Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture, edited by David M. Allen and James W. Howell, 37–48. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36822-7_4 - open-access version here.

6th September 2022

The Paper: Purgar, M., Klanjscek, T., & Culina, A. (2021). Identify, quantify, act: tackling the unused potential of ecological research. https://ecoevorxiv.org/xqshu/

8th April 2022

Lead by Paul Glasziou

The Paper:  Besançon L, Peiffer-Smadja N, Segalas C, et al. Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jun 5;21(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y. PMID: 34090351; PMCID: PMC8179078.

Abstract: In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/.

Comments: The paper provides a useful 3-stage framework of problems and potential open science solutions, but raised several new research questions.

Presentation and record of comments here: Open Science Saves lives

bottom of page