Leopold Roth

Do you maybe have someone who would like to give a talk about this for our department to explain the core ideas behind this?

We built the openESM database:
▶️60 openly available experience sampling datasets (16K+ participants, 740K+ obs.) in one place
▶️Harmonized (meta-)data, fully open-source software
▶️Filter & search all data, simply download via R/Python

Find out more:
🌐 openesmdata.org
📝 doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Would you argue to then mandate PreReg for all studies? Solving p-hacking and harking sounds like two pretty solid wins already, I guess.

Looks very interesting. Are there very different standards what a pre-reg has to contain, compared to psychology? The cited durations for completing a pre-reg seem very long to me, but maybe they are much more specific?

Oh how great! I will check it out next week:) thanks for all the week and the update here.

YouTube video by Peer Community In Fate of PCI recommended preprint

PCI Psychology is open for submissions! Did you know that you can easily submit your recommended preprint to 20+ PCI Psych friendly journals? See all friendly journals here: psych.peercommunityin.org/about/pci_fr...
#PsychSciSky #SciPub

If this is successful, is there a plan to do this more often:)?

There is much enthusiasm, in principle, for adversarial collaborations (ACs), a scientific conflict resolution technique that encourages investigators with clashing models to collaborate in designing studies that test competing predictions. Adversarial collaborations offer the promise of breaking deadlocked debates, resolving disputes, and providing a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of a research domain. In practice, however, adversarial collaborations are more the exception than the rule, and there is almost no evidence on how scholars who have ventured into ACs assess the experience. To understand these perspectives, we surveyed and interviewed 29 scholars who participated in 13 AC projects. The data revealed that interpersonal conflicts were generally minor, that these projects required more upfront effort than typical collaborations, but benefited from high-quality results and more thoughtful post-publication debates. Rather than producing a clear “winner,” the most common outcome was a deeper understanding of the problem space through the integration of opposing perspectives. Although the generalizability of these findings is limited by a sample consisting only of scholars who completed an AC, they nonetheless highlight the value of ACs as a tool for advancing scientific inquiry and offer practical guidance for scholars and journals exploring this approach.

29 scholars reflect on their participation in adversarial collaborations:

“Rather than producing a clear 'winner,' the most common outcome was a deeper understanding of the problem space through the integration of opposing perspectives”

Open Access: doi.org/10.1007/s111...

#MetaSci #Methodology 🧪

No worries, still sounds like a very nice initiative! I will spread it with some people I know might be interested.

Ah ok. I thought PCI was on „vacation“ now, so we submitted before the portal closes in July. Yes, it’s one of the projects where students otherwise beg friends/family to fill the study, so funding would definitely be nice😬

Maybe I missed it in the description. Can people apply who already submitted a snapshot for a given project?

Ah ok, I thought this was specifically aimed at early career researchers.

Sure thing, but „necessary“ is no objective measure here. There is usually a fine line between increasing efficiency and saving it into the ground, like the massive reduction of overheads in the US currently. So cost-saving is also an easily weaponizable construct.

If we believe that this sum can’t be changed, it also won’t. This is something that needs to be politically addressed. Yet, I’m skeptic that making us smaller and smaller will lead to anyone having more grant money in the end. Rather, it will be a political efficiency gain and taken elsewhere.

Absolutely, more money for research is always great, but we should value education enough to finance research and people who administer it, which are often former academics as well. And coaching people to become reviewers is also great, but not everyone has the capacity for this (eg care work).

Ofc „the government“ doesn’t do it by themselves, as efficient organizations always do labor distribution. Yet, at least here, you won’t find a section in any academics contract, that the institution allocates X hours to do reviews. So it likely comes down to unpaid extra work.

So, at least where I live, the biggest grant agency is a governmental institution. What would be the argument that I have to do work for the government in order to use a service which is already financed through my taxes? Doesn’t happen when getting a new passport either.

Thank you very much!

Here's an email template for inviting journals to PCI Psychology osf.io/acu23

Congratulations!🎉 maybe this could come with a nice fee sponsored diamond OA journal?

If there is one, maybe a short one, I would be interested as well!

Also @giladfeldman.bsky.social gives very nice talks, explaining the system.

Im not a representative of PCI, but maybe @pci-regreports.bsky.social would have some materials?

Thanks for sharing this, especially the list of diamond OA journals, which are often hard to find.
Would be great if they could become partners with the Registered Report program by @pci-regreports.bsky.social

Thanks for the reply! Yes, I saw that it is tagged online:) but maybe this can be part of the pdf as well, to ease future projects, eg comparing RRs to „regular“ papers?

@tassilotissot.bsky.social

In this new #RegisteredReport, @leopoldroth.bsky.social, Tassilo Tissot, Thea Fischer, and Sophie Masak examine the role of gender on the relationship between high effort at work and positive moral judgments doi.org/10.1525/coll...

I just checked and eg at @collabrapsychology.bsky.social it doesn’t say it at all, if you download the pdf, if I didn’t miss it. So probably one has to add it to the title, like „Registered Report on …“.

That sounds like a great idea! The labels are pretty different between outlets and often very small.

Best of luck! The first one was the biggest challenge but had so many great learnings for us.