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
Next 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/
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