ReproducibiliTea Podcast

Episode 19 - Katie Drax Introducing Katie Drax! an upcoming force in open and reproducible research! Katie is leading MAPS: Mapping the Analytical PathS of a crowdsourced data analysis. Katie also leads the Bristol branch of the ReproducibiliTea Journal Club - with much more success in cataloging the JC than we manage. Katie also has some great advice for ECRs on their open science journey. We hop...

Episode 18 - Hannah Hobson Meet Dr. Hannah Hobson, a true Registered Reports pioneer! Hannah was one of the early adopters of the registered report format, and during her PhD no less. We had to speak to her and hear her unique perspective on this research publication format. Highlights and links: Hannah's Mu registered report (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945216300570) (S...

Episode 17 - Lisa Spitzer And Tobias Heycke This week we have two special guests, two more awesome ECRs we want you to meet! Lisa Spitzer (@Lisa__Spitzer) and Tobias Heycke (@TobiasHeycke) discuss their project with us - using screen recordings of computerised experimental procedures to assist with reproducibility. Check out Lisa and Tobias' preprint: https://psyarxiv.com/rbn8c/ In the interests o...

Episode 16 - Leonid Tiokhin In another SpecialiTEA we had the pleasure of chatting to Leo Tiokhin @LeonidTiokhin about his path to meta science and his current work. We had a slight technical hiccup, but Sophia saved us with a back-up recording! To find out more about Leo's recent Registered Report "An experimental test of the effects of competition forpriority on information sampling", check out...

Episode 15 - Responding To The Fallibility Of Others In this second part-er we revisit Dorothy Bishop's "Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others". Last episode we discussed responding to one's own errors. We got so wrapped up that we didn't get onto responding to others errors. So, we're back; Highlights: How should we respond to other's errors Oh my god this...

Episode 14 - Responding to fallibility in science This week we discuss Professor Dorothy Bishop's "Responding to fallibility in science" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918776632 Its been a while since we discussed a paper on the podcast. We really got into this discussion, and only got as far as "How should we deal with our own errors?". A whole two pages into the paper. We will r...

Episode 13 – Fighting the impostor (syndrome) Hello 2019! Amy, Sophia, and Sam discuss impostor syndrome. While Sam was concerned this would leave him wanting to hide under the desk and cry-eat chocolate for the rest of the day, it turned into an unexpectedly uplifting talk. Get in touch with your experiences; what helps? what makes it worse? how can we help each other? Just a few links: We should...

Last time we chatted to Ivan about his Thesis, but there was just too much to cover. Luckily, Ivan is a dude and agreed to chat to us again. Hope you enjoy Ivan’s Dissertation “Discipline through method: Recent history and philosophy of scientific psychology (1950-2018)” https://www.dropbox.com/s/amjv3oyu8u09nw2/2018%20thesis%20Ivan%20Flis%20final%20version.pdf?dl=0 Hornstein, G. A. (1988). Quanti...

Episode 11 - Ivan Flis This week we had an awesome chat with the super-interdisciplinary Ivan Flis. Ivan is like a cake made from psychology, history, and philosophy of science. This cake was the perfect compliment to our Repro-Tea. There was so much to cover that we will have Ivan back next time too! Just a few of the amazing resources Ivan mentioned: Deborah Mayo’s book, Statistical Inference as...

In a previous episode we discussed leaving academia. Lots of people who had left academia responded to our survey and gave us some insight into why they left and what they are doing now. This time we dive into the advice they offered to ECRs given the likely event of leaving academia. Thank you to everyone that responded, and for your advice. We will post to this list as we find more resources :)...

Episode 9 - Did you know we love the open science community? In this episode we tackle how the open science community is perceived, and our own experiences as members of it. We talk (in a non-specific way) about recent and recurring discussions concerning public critique and how harassment is dealt with on social media. We are happy to continue this discussion; if we have missed anything, or could...

SpecialiTea episode 5 – Peder Isager We get talking to Peder Isager about his PhD work, equivalence testing, and the psychological science accelerator. You can find Peder on twitter (@peder_isager); he also has a website https://pedermisager.netlify.com/ Some Equivalence testing resources: “Equivalence Testing for Psychological Research: A Tutorial” from Lakens, Scheel, and Isager http://journals....

SpecialiTea Episode 4 – Leaving academia (part 1) A few weeks ago we put out a survey to get a picture of peoples’ reasons for leaving academia and what advice they have for ECRs. We had lots of responses and dive into them here. There wasn’t quite enough time to really dig into the advice offered. But, that’s where you lovely people can come in. Our survey is still open (https://docs.google.com/f...

Episode 8 - The preregistration revolution It’s preregistration time! Distinguishing confirmatory (or prediction) and exploratory (or postdiction) analyses. We discuss this awesome paper from Nosek, Ebersole, DeHaven, and Mellor (2018) “The preregistration revolution”. Find the paper here http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708274114 Highlights [1:00] What is a preregistration anyhow? [2...

This week we talk about “The natural selection of bad science” from Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath. We get bummed, but try to put a positive spin on things. You can find the paper here http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384 Highlights [1:00] “The natural selection of bad science” http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384 [5:00] the need to distinguish yourse...

SpecialiTea 3: Julia Rohrer We talk to Julia Rohrer (@dingding_peng)about her blog, skills training as a PhD and what doesn’t get talked about enough in the Open Science Community. You can find her amazing blog here: http://www.the100.ci, where she is joined by Anne Scheel (@annemscheel), Ruben Arslan (@rubenarslan) and Malte Elson (@maltoesermalte). We want to note that this podcast had the world...

This week we talked about “Open Science: What, Why, and How” from Spellman, Gilbert, and Corker. You can find the paper on OSF https://osf.io/gv6r4/ 0:14 Sophia is leaving Oxford :( (But the Podcast will continue) 0:48 This week’s focus: Open Science What Why and How; few in the JC read it but the discussion was awesome https://osf.io/gv6r4/ 2:15 Shoutout to Matt Jaquiery @MJaquiery 2:40 Broad Mea...

Episode 5 - Is the replicability crisis overblown? This week talked about Pashier & Harris’s (2012) “Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined.” http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612463401 Highlights: [1:00] Reproducible, replicable, robust, or generalisable? Table taken from Kirstie Whitaker, shared by @RemiGau http://sx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4244996 [2:00...

Sophia and Sam headed to this year's Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) meeting. We got talking to some super interesting and awesome researchers (follow them on twitter, handles below) to share the experience with all of you! Check out https://osf.io/ck28s/ for all things taught and created at SIPS 2018 Highlights: [0:00] What is SIPS anyway? [8:00] Elizabeth Page-Gould (...

Episode 4 - Reproducibility Now This week we dive into the Open Science Collaboration’s (2015) paper “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 Highlights: [1:00] This paper has all of the authors [1:30] Direct vs conceptual replications [4:30] PhD students running replications as the basis of extending a paradigm [6:00] The 100...

Episode 3 - Questionable Research Practices This week we discuss the prevalence of questionable research practices in John, Lowenstein, & Prelec “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling” http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611430953 Highlights: [2:00] What are questionable research practices? [3:00] QRP as a political term [6:00]...

SpecialiTEA 1 – Tim van der Zee In our first SpecialiTEA episode we talk to Tim van der Zee (@research_Tim) about error detection, navigating critique on social media, and the positive side of the replication crisis for early career researchers. Highlights [1:30] Hey Tim! What are you working on? [2:30] Tim: I am meta-science BATMAN [3:30] Error detection: Impossible numbers in papers [5:00] Tim’s...

Episode 2 - Examining analytic flexibility This week discuss analytic flexibility in “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant” from Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn (2011) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611417632 Highlights: [1:00] What is a false positive anyway? [3.30] Dead salmon fMRI study http...

In our first journal club podcast we discuss "A manifesto for reproducible science" from Nosek et al. www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021 Highlights [0:00] Sam butchers everybody's names, right from the start [7:00] "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman [9:00] Figure 1; the best figure; the every-figure [13:30] HARKi...

Amy, Sophia, and Sam introduce the ReproducibiliTea Journal Club Podcast - where we serve up mugs of ReproducibiliTea in blends of transparency, openness, and robustness with a spoonful of science. In upcoming episodes we will cover (the pdfs can also be found at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dpJ7LBLjXIBhiWBJMlG-B-UgziJxyS7D); 1. A manifesto for reproducible science https://www.nature.co...