Upcoming Journal Clubs

Aspiring to Greater Intellectual Humility in Science

Friday, 8 July, 2022 11:00AM (AEST time)

Paper: Hoekstra, R., and S. Vazire. 2021. ‘Aspiring to Greater Intellectual Humility in Science’. Nature Human Behaviour 5 (12): 1602–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01203-8. (preprint link: https://psyarxiv.com/edh2s/)


Abstract:  The replication crisis in the social, behavioural and life sciences has spurred a reform movement aimed at increasing the credibility of scientific studies. Many of these credibility-enhancing reforms focus, appropriately, on specific research and publication practices. A less often mentioned aspect of credibility is the need for intellectual humility or being transparent about and owning the limitations of our work. Although intellectual humility is presented as a widely accepted scientific norm, we argue that current research practice does not incentivize intellectual humility. We provide a set of recommendations on how to increase intellectual humility in research articles and highlight the central role peer reviewers can play in incentivizing authors to foreground the flaws and uncertainty in their work, thus enabling full and transparent evaluation of the validity of the research.

 

Comment: This paper includes a useful list of recommendations for increasing intellectually humility within each section of a research article.

 

Registration Link: https://unsw.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZElce-hrzkjHdUbCM8pQXsORdcHRCtXFQiw

Previous Journal Clubs

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