While linguists have always relied on language data, they have not always facilitated access to those data. Linguistic publications typically include short excerpts from data sets, ordinarily consisting of fewer than five words, and often without citation. Where citations are provided, the connection to the data set is usually only vaguely identified. An excerpt might be given a citation which refers to the name of the text from which it was extracted, but in practice the reader has no way to access that text. That is, in spite of the potential generated by recent shifts in the field, a great deal of linguistic research created today is not reproducible, either in principle or in practice. The workshops and panel presentation will facilitate development of standards for the curation and citation of linguistics data that are responsive to these changing conditions and shift the field of linguistics toward a more scientific, data-driven model which results in reproducible research.
Data are fundamental to the field of linguistics. Examples drawn from natural languages provide a foundation for claims about the nature of human language, and validation of these linguistic claims relies crucially on these supporting data. Yet, while linguists have always relied on language data, they have not always facilitated access to those data. Publications typically include only short excerpts from data sets, and where citations are provided, the connections to the data sets are usually only vaguely identified. At the same time, the field of linguistics has generally viewed the value of data without accompanying analysis with some degree of skepticism, and thus linguists have murky benchmarks for evaluating the creation, curation, and sharing of data sets in hiring, tenure and promotion decisions.This disconnect between linguistics publications and their supporting data results in much linguistic research being unreproducible, either in principle or in practice. Without reproducibility, linguistic claims cannot be readily validated or tested, rendering their scientific value moot. In order to facilitate the development of reproducible research in linguistics, The Linguistics Data Interest Group plans to develop the discipline-wide adoption of common standards for data citation and attribution. In our parlance citation refers to the practice of identifying the source of linguistic data, and attribution refers to mechanisms for assessing the intellectual and academic value of data citations.
Jupyter notebooks provide a useful environment for interactive exploration of data. A common question I get, though, is how you can progress from this nonlinear, interactive, trial-and-error style of exploration to a more linear and reproducible analysis based on organized, packaged, and tested code. This series of videos presents a case study in how I personally approach reproducible data analysis within the Jupyter notebook.
Similarities between incentives in science and incentives in finance suggest a solution to crises in both. Published in the Feb 2017 print edition of Physics World magazine (physicsworld.com).
Scientific discoveries have the profound opportunity to impact the lives of patients. They can lead to advances in medical decision making when the findings are correct, or mislead when not. We owe it to our peers, funding sources, and patients to take every precaution against false conclusions, and to communicate our discoveries with accuracy, precision, and clarity. With the National Institutes of Health’s new focus on rigor and reproducibility, scientists are returning attention to the ideas of validity and reliability. At JAMA Psychiatry, we seek to publish science that leverages the power of statistics and contributes discoveries that are reproducible and valid. Toward that end, I provide guidelines for using statistical methods: the essentials, good practices, and advanced methods.
This Request for Information (RFI) seeks public comments on data management and sharing strategies and priorities in order to consider: (1) how digital scientific data generated from NIH-funded research should be managed, and to the fullest extent possible, made publicly available; and, (2) how to set standards for citing shared data and software. Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responders are free to address any or all of the items in Sections I and II, delineated below, or any other relevant topics respondents recognize as important for NIH to consider. Respondents should not feel compelled to address all items. Instructions on how to respond to this RFI are provided in "Concluding Comments."
Everyone agrees that reproducibility and replicability are fundamental characteristics of scientific studies. These topics are attracting increasing attention, scrutiny, and debate both in the popular press and the scientific literature. But there are no formal statistical definitions for these concepts, which leads to confusion since the same words are used for different concepts by different people in different fields. We provide formal and informal definitions of scientific studies, reproducibility, and replicability that can be used to clarify discussions around these concepts in the scientific and popular press.
TOMS accepts manuscripts for an additional, and presently optional, review of computational results. This Replicated Computational Results (RCR) review is focused solely on replicating any computational results that are included in a manuscript. If the results are successfully replicated, the manuscript receives a special RCR designation when published. This page outlines the TOMS policies for determining the RCR designation.
We want to enable our authors to publish the best research and maximize the benefit of research funding, which includes achieving good practice in the sharing and archiving of research data. We also aim to facilitate authors’ compliance with institution and research funder requirements to share data. Encourage publication of more open and reproducible research.
Recent years have seen an increase in alarming signals regarding the lack of replicability in neuroscience, psychology, and other related fields. To avoid a widespread crisis in neuroimaging research and consequent loss of credibility in the public eye, we need to improve how we do science. This article aims to be a practical guide for researchers at any stage of their careers that will help them make their research more reproducible and transparent while minimizing the additional effort that this might require. The guide covers three major topics in open science (data, code, and publications) and offers practical advice as well as highlighting advantages of adopting more open research practices that go beyond improved transparency and reproducibility.